Tag: farms

Congress Keeps Trying to Overturn State Agriculture Laws

Whatever you think of tariffs, it should be clear that now is not the time to introduce more uncertainty into agricultural markets. The “Food Security and Farm Protection Act” (S. 1326) — recently introduced in the United State Senate — would do exactly that, giving foreign adversaries like China an even bigger chokehold on American agricultural production while harming producers and principles of state sovereignty in the process.

S. 1326 is the latest iteration of 2023’s Ending Agricultural Trade Suppression (EATS) Act. It would create a private right of action for anyone “affected” by another state’s agricultural regulation to bring suit and invalidate it.

S. 1326, like EATS before it, is largely targeted at laws like California’s Proposition 12 and Massachusetts’s Question 3, which set animal welfare standards for certain animal products (like pork) sold in the state. Over a dozen other states — including Florida, Michigan, Oregon, Maine, Arizona and Colorado — have similar statutes addressing animal confinement and farm practices.

Proponents of S. 1326 have characterized such laws as part of a “war on breakfast.” Their solution: introducing legislation that could nullify more than 1,000 state-level agriculture laws that support our economies and feed our people.

Soon after Proposition 12’s passage in 2018, the National Pork Producers Council brought suit against California — with the fight eventually reaching the Supreme Court. Writing in support of the Golden State, Justice Gorsuch said: “While the Constitution addresses many weighty issues, the type of pork chops California merchants may sell is not on that list.”

Whatever you think of these laws, they fall well within the states’ reserved powers under the U.S. Constitution. They were democratically approved by voters, who are allowed to promulgate statutes regulating their own health and safety and reflecting their own ethical standards. We either believe in states’ rights or we don’t. But outside groups have not given up the fight, pushing bills like EATS and S. 1326 to create a legal backdoor for overturning the will of the American people.

The elephant in the room amidst all this discourse is Smithfield Foods, America’s largest pork producer, which is owned by a Chinese holding company that operates in coordination with the Chinese government. As such, the timing of S.1326’s introduction — April 8, 2025 — could not have been more darkly ironic. It’s the same day that China and the U.S. entered into an all-out trade war.

As the Chinese attack us from the outside, do we really want to give them an internal mechanism to also invalidate state laws they don’t like?

Then there’s the issue of stability. Proposition 12, which mandates that pigs raised for food have enough space to turn around during their pitiable lives, passed nearly seven years ago. Companies have largely adapted to California’s new requirements — including more than 230 out-of-state distributors and even large producers like Tyson Foods, JBS and, yes, Smithfield. Why, then, the need to create a vague, catchall mechanism to overturn not just state pork laws, but any state agriculture law? And do we really want to tell farmers that have retrofitted their operations to conform with new state requirements that their investments are worthless?

Add to that the fact that the USDA recently cancelled two programs giving food banks and schools funding to purchase from small farmers and ranchers. Passing S. 1326 will kill whatever competitive advantage these producers — who are more likely to employ traditional husbandry practices — have left. It will lead to even more consolidation in the food industry and more power for the biggest players. The administration is already considering a farm bailout, which cost taxpayers $23 billion the last time we did it. Creating new mechanisms to disrupt entrenched state regulations is a good way to make ever more handouts a necessity.

Keep reading

Pennsylvania Lawmakers File Bill To Help Small Farmers Enter Marijuana Industry If The State Enacts Legalization

Pennsylvania Democratic lawmakers have introduced a bill that would allow farmers and other small agriculture operators to sell marijuana they cultivate to existing growers and and processors if the state moves to legalize adult-use cannabis.

As the legislature once again takes up the issue of marijuana legalization, Rep, Melissa Shusterman (D) and five colleagues filed the legislation on Thursday in a bid to ensure that the industry is inclusive to small farmers, creating a permitting process so they’re able to make inroads with larger operators.

“As more and more states legalize adult-use cannabis, it is only a matter of time before Pennsylvania does the same,” Shusterman said in a cosponsorship memo. “When adult-use cannabis is finally legalized in Pennsylvania, it is my belief that everyone should have accessible and equitable entry into the adult-use cannabis industry, including farmers and small enterprises.”

“Enabling local cultivation would allow Pennsylvania farmers and their communities to benefit from the legalization of adult-use cannabis. Moreover, this legislation would protect participation in the industry by farmers in the Commonwealth,” she said. “The legalization process must ensure PA’s farmers have fair access to this new market so that sales revenue and profits remain in PA.”

Whether the Pennsylvania legislature does legalize marijuana this session remains to be seen, with mixed opinions among Democratic and Republican leadership about the prospects of reform. Gov. Josh Shapiro (D) also included the policy change in his latest budget request.

But if prohibition is ended, the new bill would take a number of steps to provide for equitable access to industry participation.

Keep reading

Trump’s shift in policy could save American farmers from climate regulations and bureaucratic red tape

  • The Trump administration directed the USDA to remove climate change references from its websites, signaling a move away from climate-focused regulations seen as burdensome to farmers.
  • USAID’s climate initiatives, like “$150 billion net-zero strategies” and projects in developing nations, are criticized for prioritizing ideology over practical agricultural productivity and food security.
  • Programs aimed at reducing carbon emissions or promoting “climate-smart” agriculture are deemed counterproductive, as CO? is essential for plant growth, and such measures often hinder farming efficiency.
  • U.S. farmers risked losing competitiveness due to restrictive climate policies (e.g., methane reduction mandates), while countries like China and India prioritized high-yield, fossil fuel-based agriculture.
  • Trump’s withdrawal from agreements like the Paris Accord is framed as a win for U.S. farmers, ending costly, impractical climate mandates and refocusing on productivity and rural economic needs.

Amid recent headlines on tariffs and fiscal overhauls, a less noticed but significant shift has quietly unfolded in agricultural policy under President Donald Trump. An executive directive mandating the removal of all climate change references from U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) websites signals a departure from the bureaucratic red tape of climate regulations that once stifled domestic farming practices and tied U.S. support for agriculture abroad with superfluous climate mandates. This change, mirroring similar actions during the previous Trump administration, promises a rebirth for American agriculture, free from the shackles of counterproductive and politicized climate orthodoxies.

For years, federal climate initiatives have prioritized “green” orthodoxy over agricultural productivity. Programs funded through the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID) have poured millions of dollars into climate-focused ventures that often had little impact on climate change itself. Instead, these programs imposed burdensome regulations on farmers and rural communities, promoting “$150 billion ‘whole-of-agency’ climate strategies” under the guise of achieving net-zero greenhouse gas emissions. Some of these projects have intertwined with rural agricultural communities, involving other activities. For example, USAID and the U.S. International Development Finance Corporation (IDFC) jointly participated in a $55 million credit guarantee aimed at addressing the economic impact of COVID-19 by supporting farm production organizations, ag-tech companies and companies in the agricultural sector working on clean energy solutions.

Keep reading

Missouri moving to seize China-owned farmland, assets to collect landmark $24 billion judgment

Fresh off winning a landmark lawsuit, Missouri is moving quickly to seize Chinese-owned farmland and other assets in a bid to collect its landmark $24 billion civil judgment against Beijing for harm caused by the COVID-19 pandemic, Attorney General Andrew Bailey told Just the News. 

“Missouri will start to identify and begin going to court to have court orders issued to seize those assets to make good on that judgment,” Bailey said on the “John Solomon Reports“ podcast this week.

Earlier this month, U.S. District Court Judge Stephen N. Limbaugh Jr declared that China’s communist government was liable for covering up the start of the COVID-19 pandemic and had engaged in “monopolistic actions” by hoarding protective equipment (PPE). He ruled Beijing should reimburse Missouri $24 billion for harm it inflicted on the state’s residents.

“China was misleading the world about the dangers and scope of the Covid-19 pandemic,” the judge ruled. “Missouri has demonstrated that the State has suffered significant harm in the form of lost net general tax revenue the State of Missouri would have collected but-for Defendants’ hoarding of PPE,” Limbaugh added.

You can read the ruling here.

ChinaCOVID-19Ruling.pdf

Keep reading

Trump’s DOGE Uncovers Nearly $400K In Woke Agricultural Grants

The US Department of Agriculture (USDA) has made a decisive move to refocus its efforts on its core mission by canceling a $397,000 grant that was earmarked for educating queer, trans, and BIPOC urban farmers in the San Francisco Bay Area. This decision underscores the administration’s commitment to eliminating identity-based policies and ensuring that taxpayer dollars are used to strengthen the nation’s agricultural sector rather than fund ideological initiatives. The grant, which was justified under the banner of “food justice” and values-aligned markets, had drawn criticism for prioritizing leftist ideologies over practical, efficiency-driven agricultural practices. By cutting this funding, the USDA is taking a stand against wasteful spending and realigning itself with its original purpose: supporting American agriculture, livestock, and forestry.

Brooke Rollins, a key figure in the administration, emphasized the importance of this decision, stating, “The USDA was funding a $397,000 grant in the San Francisco Bay Area to educate queer, trans, and BIPOC urban farmers and consumers about ‘food justice’ and values-aligned markets. By cutting this wasteful spending, we are ending identity-based policies and realigning our agency with its core mission of supporting American agriculture, livestock, and forestry.” This statement reflects the administration’s broader goal of ensuring that public funds are used to benefit all Americans, rather than being diverted to niche ideological programs that do little to advance the nation’s agricultural productivity.

Conservative groups and agricultural producers have applauded the move, arguing that the USDA should focus on supporting all farmers, regardless of their identity or political beliefs. They contend that federal funds should be directed toward initiatives that enhance productivity, improve agricultural infrastructure, and ensure food security, rather than financing programs that impose specific ideological frameworks. This decision is seen as a step toward restoring neutrality in public policy and ensuring that agricultural funding serves the entire nation, not just select groups.

Progressive critics, however, have lambasted the decision, claiming that such grants are necessary to promote equity in agricultural education. They argue that programs like the one defunded by the USDA are essential for addressing historical disparities in access to agricultural resources and education. Yet, the administration has made it clear that its priority is to ensure that every dollar spent by the USDA contributes to the strength and sustainability of the American agricultural sector, free from political bias.

Keep reading

Why Are We Ignoring The Most Powerful Climate Solution?

Everywhere I look, I see people talking about climate change. There’s no shortage of solutions being pushed—electric cars, lab-grown meat, carbon capture technology—but almost none of these address the root of the problem. Meanwhile, the most powerful solution, one that is already proven to work, is ignored: regenerative agriculture.

I am a regenerative farmer. I don’t just believe in the principles of rebuilding soil, restoring ecosystems, and managing land in a way that sequesters carbon—I live it. Every day, I see the results firsthand: healthier soil, stronger crops, increased biodiversity, and livestock that thrive without chemical inputs. I also see how the current system actively works against this approach, prioritizing profit-driven, industrial solutions over simple, nature-based ones.

So why is regenerative agriculture ignored while flashy, high-tech solutions dominate the conversation? The answer is simple: There’s no money in it for corporations.

Regenerative Farming Doesn’t Fit the Profit Model

Industrial agriculture is built on dependency—on chemical fertilizers, pesticides, and genetically modified seeds. It thrives on monocultures that strip the land of nutrients, requiring even more chemical intervention just to sustain itself. Companies make billions selling these inputs, and governments subsidize the entire system. Regenerative farming, on the other hand, restores soil naturally—through cover cropping, rotational grazing, and composting. When farmers build fertility through natural cycles instead of synthetic inputs, chemical companies lose customers.

This is why you don’t see billion-dollar ad campaigns promoting regenerative farming. There is no corporate giant profiting from farmers planting cover crops or integrating livestock with row crops. Instead, money flows to industries that keep farmers dependent on fertilizers, patented seeds, and ever-expanding government subsidies.

The Climate Narrative

The same forces that created our industrial food system also control the climate narrative. It’s a lot easier to sell wind turbines, solar panels, and electric cars than it is to fundamentally change the way we farm. The entire renewable energy sector has been built into a multitrillion-dollar industry, with subsidies, government incentives, and global investment pouring into its expansion.

Meanwhile, regenerative agriculture—the one approach that could actively reverse environmental damage and sequester carbon on a massive scale—is barely mentioned. Why? Because it’s nearly impossible for big corporations to monetize regenerative agriculture the way they can monetize other industries.

When a company sells an electric vehicle, a solar farm, or a wind turbine, they make money. When a farmer plants diverse crops, rotates livestock, and stops using chemical fertilizers, no one gets rich—except the farmer and the community that benefits from healthier land and food.

If climate change were truly about reducing emissions and restoring balance to our ecosystems, regenerative agriculture would be front and center. Instead, it’s pushed to the margins because it doesn’t generate profits for those who control the narrative.

Keep reading

Your Vital Role in the Decorporatisation of the Food Chain

I am starting this article with information that will make you aware of the provenance for around 90% of all foods that you purchase while shopping at leading super and hypermarkets chains. This raises the important topic of decorporatisation of food.

The reality of what your food choices mean – on the ground – may never have occurred to you. But the reality is that by making supermarket chain stores your first choice for food purchases you have unwittingly become complicit in the creation of vast desert like tracts of land heavily sprayed with toxic agrichemicals.

The soils on these superstore supplying farms have been rendered devoid of life. The crops grow only because of heavy applications of synthetic nitrogen salts.

No worms, no insects, no life. No enriching soil borne microorganisms or microflora. They have been wiped-out by the products of Big Pharma and the weapons of the agrichemical corporation war chest.

The farmers using them have been made to believe that they are being ‘progressive’ and ‘efficient’ by adopting this government and corporate led intensive chemical regime, designed to replace time honored benign traditional farming methods.

Exactly the same tragic story prevails in the livestock sector. Unless you are stipulating organic, your pork and poultry purchases originate in animal concentration camps. Vast sunless sheds in which antibiotics and other drugs are prescribed prophylactically to keep their recipients alive for the three to five months which is the maximum duration of their tragically short existences.

No doubt you will also not realize that by shopping in the predatory supermarkets you have become a causative agent in the death of the small and medium sized family farms that still have respect for crop rotations, the use of natural farm animal manures and humane outdoor livestock rearing.

Keep reading

New Ag Secretary Says This Is Now the USDA’s Top Priority

Brooke Rollins, the new head of the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA), told Breitbart News last week that one of her top priorities in her new role is something many of us have been hoping for for a long time: stopping China from buying U.S. farmland.  

“One of the very, very top of the list perhaps is the Chinese purchase of our farmland. A lot of that land is around some of our military outposts,” she said. 

Back in January, I wrote about how, as of 2023, the USDA reported that “46 million acres of crop, pasture, and forest lands were held by investors from outside of the United States.” That’s 3.6% of all public land in the U.S. While Chinese land ownership actually declined a bit in 2023, investments from countries like Canada, Australia, Italy, the Netherlands, and the United Kingdom were on the rise. Canadians currently own more U.S. land than any other foreigners.  

Several states have already been working toward or have passed laws that impose restrictions or outright bans. According to data gathered by Voice of America, “As of mid-December of last year, 215 bills restricting property ownership by foreign entities have been introduced across 40 states, of which 164 prohibit or otherwise restrict Chinese citizens from purchasing or owning some form of property.”

Rollins, who was the head of the America First Policy Institute before her confirmation as the secretary of agriculture earlier this month, pointed out that she’s a huge believer in the 10th Amendment and the “laboratories of democracy.” And while she’s helped many of those states in the past, it’s time to look at a potential federal ban. 

Keep reading

Trump’s USDA Exploring Federal Solution to Ban China from Buying US Farmland

The U.S. Department of Agriculture, under Secretary Brooke Rollins, is considering federal action to prevent Chinese entities from purchasing American farmland after the Texas House failed to pass a state-level ban last session.

In an exclusive interview with Breitbart News, Rollins confirmed that the Trump administration is actively looking at ways to address the issue at the federal level.

“One of the very, very top of the list perhaps is the Chinese purchase of our farmland. A lot of that land is around some of our military outposts,” Rollins told Breitbart News. “So we’re in a really, really important conversation right now on how to push that back. With my experience in the states, I am a huge, huge believer in the laboratories of democracy—the 10th Amendment says our states are the guardians at the gate—and for the last several years my organization America First Policy Institute, we actually worked among multiple states to get states to act on this to pass state legislation but we also are looking at a federal solution too.”

The issue of Chinese ownership of U.S. farmland has sparked growing concerns over national security, particularly in states like Texas, where large swaths of agricultural and rural land have been bought by Chinese companies and individuals. Senators in Texas passed a ban on such purchases in 2023, but the effort ultimately failed in the Texas House amid opposition from Democrat lawmakers and some Republicans.

A ban on hostile foreign land ownership has been named a priority by Lt. Gov. Dan Patrick for this session.

With Texas failing to act, federal intervention could reshape the debate entirely. Republican lawmakers, including U.S. Sen. Tom Cotton of Arkansas and U.S. Rep. Chip Roy of Texas, have been pushing for national legislation to address what they call a “serious national security risk.”

Keep reading

WHY the War on Farmers?

The recent Telegraph headline rang out of England recently with unsettling tones: Tenth of farmland to be axed for net zero

More than 10 per cent of farmland in England is set to be diverted towards helping to achieve net zero and protecting wildlife by 2050, the Environment Secretary will reveal on Friday.

Swathes of the countryside are on course to be switched to solar farms, tree planting and improving habitats for birds, insects and fish.

The move comes on the back of an aggressive and highly unpopular inheritance tax placed on generational farmers by British politician Rachel Reeves that has drawn sustained protest in the country. The commercial officer of Britain’s largest supermarket chain Tesco warned Reeves’ tax raid on farmers is placing “UK’s future food security is at stake.”

What if that’s the whole point? Tucker Carlson recently asked Piers Morgan this uncomfortable question.

Keep reading