The USDA pulls back from rural communities

The Trump administration's efforts to reduce the size of government now include reducing investment in rural America. The administration recently fired hundreds of staffers at the U.S. Department of Agriculture's Rural Development program, part of a broader firing of 6,000 staff at USDA. Many staff are now being reinstated following court challenges to the layoffs, but their futures remain uncertain.

Alongside the layoffs and uncertainty, the Trump administration ordered staff not to perform community outreach, which Carrie Decker, a West Virginia employee of USDA Rural Development, said was "90% of what we do." 

All of this looks like it will have a profound effect on rural communities across the U.S. Frank Morris at KCUR reports, 

[t]he U.S. Department of Agriculture Rural Development is Washington’s chief tool to promote economic growth in rural counties — providing funding for everything from renovating old hospitals to providing faster internet service.

Previous bloggers have highlighted some of the many benefits provided by Rural Development. The agency 

does things that local governments can't afford - building water supply systems for small, shrinking towns, for instance, shoring up hospitals, buying police cars. It's an economic lifeline to places without a lot of options. 

Rural Development has a long history of bringing needed investment to rural areas. 

USDA Rural Development is rooted in the Great Depression, when the Rural Electrification Administration brought power lines to hundreds of remote communities. The agency has sustained thousands of towns over the decades, often by supporting the businesses and farms that bring money into the local economy. 

Now, government upheaval under the new administration is draining the resources that could go to rural people and towns. Former Missouri head of USDA Rural Development Kyle Wilkens noted that the current process of firing and rehiring is highly inefficient:

Think of the time that you're taken away from these folks doing their actual job and that is money. It's all it is. It's money.

Many of the grants already cut are relatively small, but provide important support for small-scale programs in rural communities.

One of the most notable examples is the Mancos Conservation District in Colorado, which had its $630,000 grant for the Equity in Conservation Outreach Program canceled. This grant was intended to support small farmers, tribal communities, and local outreach efforts in the region.

The Ivanhoe Neighborhood Council in Kansas City also faced a setback when its $165,000 Farmers Market Promotion Program grant was canceled. Director Alana Henry explained that, despite the cancellation, the community is working hard to keep their farmers market going and continue supporting local growers.

While much of the Trump administration's efforts at "government efficiency" seem to be aimed at reducing red tape and allowing greater private investment, there does not appear to be private capital ready to fill the void caused by cuts to Rural Development programs. Owen Hart, from the National Association of Counties, pointed out that

[i]n a lot of these communities, USDA Rural Development is the most important partner. You can’t rely on private investment coming in. The market’s just not there for it. You can't rely on philanthropy, like you can in a lot of urban areas to meet some of these needs. It is a really, really crucial partner to a lot of these folks.

Without any clear benefits from slashing this vital economic lifeline besides nominal budgetary relief, the administration appears to be primarily sending a political message. USDA recently announced that it was allowing applicants for Rural Development's energy programs to update their applications by removing DEIA and climate-related content, which it framed as an 

opportunity to refocus their projects on expanding American energy production while eliminating Biden-era DEIA and climate mandates embedded in previous proposals.

Ignoring the inefficiency of resubmitting already-submitted applications, this announcement shows that the political messaging of these changes is the point. USDA's emphasis on "energy independence" also indicates that the administration is ignoring or downplaying the many beneficial programs overseen by Rural Development that do not involve energy, such as grants and business support for small farmers. 

Punching down at rural areas by the Trump administration is not limited to USDA. The Department of Health and Human Services is trying to eliminate the Low Income Home Energy Assistance Program, which helps low-income households, many in more rural areas of the country, offset the cost of high energy bills. Much like the Rural Development cuts, the obvious impact of cutting the 25 staff at LIHEAP is that 6.2 million Americans who relied on those funds will struggle to make ends meet.

The frustratingly narrow focus on "energy independence" at USDA under the Trump administration seems particularly backwards when considering the strong support Trump received from many rural parts of this country - and his efforts to cast his campaign as advocating for rural people. One can more easily imagine a Republican administration wanting to promote its investments in rural farms and communities than risking the backlash associated with cutting those programs. 

One reason for these cuts is to reduce citizens' faith in, and reliance on, the federal government to provide benefits to the public. The administration's directive to reduce community outreach at Rural Development, even while outreach staff remain employed, reduces visibility for agency programming without saving any money. Instead, making communities less aware of the possible benefits of working with federal agencies is the point. In The Fifth Risk, Michael Lewis recounts an illustrative scene in which a local official requested that USDA staff not show up to the ribbon-cutting for a new grocery store in his town that was built with Rural Development funds, because he said that people in town did not think highly of the federal government. 

(I highly recommend The Fifth Risk for further reading on USDA Rural Development, as well as other vital and under-appreciated areas of the federal government.)

Even if this administration succeeds in further reducing communities' faith in government, that success will not create more jobs or bring better internet access or hospitals to rural communities. Hopefully, in the same way that farmers are lobbying for relief from Trump's tariffs, there can be some political will to push back against these cuts. But unlike Big Ag, the people served by Rural Development are not already wealthy and politically influential. They need government support just to get by, or in the hopes of improving areas that have historically suffered from under-investment. Are these cuts truly worth the pain?

Building blocks: how a lack of childcare infrastructure is hurting children and their parents

In mid-March, The Daily Yonder published a piece detailing social worker and filmmaker Laura Norton-Cruz’s efforts to bring awareness to the lack of childcare infrastructure in rural Alaska. Norton-Cruz is intimately familiar with the shortage of childcare, and the problems this shortage creates for rural Alaskan families. The Daily Yonder writes:

Norton-Cruz remembers finding out that she was pregnant and feeling like she’d just been “thrown to the wolves.”  “What am I going to do about child care?” she asked. “What am I going to do about breastfeeding and pumping at work? What am I going to do about paid leave?"

Over a decade after becoming a single mother, Norton-Cruz enlisted the help of filmmaker Joshua Branstetter and created At Home/In Home: Rural Alaska Childcare in Crisis, a documentary that would provoke Alaska’s state legislature.

Norton-Cruz’s documentary focuses on Kotzebue, Alaska, a rural town of 3000 residents, primarily Alaskan Native people. More than 500 children under the age of five reside in Kotzebue, yet the town does not have a single licensed childcare facility. 

Unfortunately, Kotzebue is not unique. According to a December 2024 report from the Alaska Governor’s Task Force on Child Care, 61% of Alaskans have limited or no access to licensed childcare facilities, even though over half of young children live in households where all parents are employed and need childcare.

The documentary portrays parents who are forced to leave jobs in childcare deserts, employers who cannot find employees, public officials who track the economic damage of the childcare crisis, and residents who battle the state childcare licensing system as they try to establish a home-based childcare facility.

Childcare deserts are not just present in rural Alaska. In fact, nearly two-thirds of American rural families live in a childcare desert. Childcare deserts are defined as areas where there are more than three young children for every licensed childcare slot available. 

Additionally, rural Americans spend more money and travel farther for childcare arrangements. On average, a rural family spends 12.2 percent of their income and travels 7.5 miles for childcare while urban families spend 10.8 percent of their income and travel 3.5 miles for childcare. (Read more about rural childcare here and here).

The lack of infrastructure to support women and children is a recurrent problem in rural areas, and expands beyond a lack of childcare. A 2023 CDC report found that only 31% of rural municipalities had some type of paid maternity leave in 2021 compared to 41.2% of urban areas, and 42.3% of rural municipalities provided break time and space to pump breast milk versus 55.4% of urban municipalities.

It is well documented that rural areas are also lacking in maternal care. As of 2024, 59% of rural counties qualify as maternity care deserts. As a result, rural women have consistently higher predicted probability of maternal mortalities, with 37.9 pregnancy-related deaths per 100,000 occurring in rural areas in 2020 and 31.2 deaths per 100,000 in micropolitan areas, compared to 29.9 per 100,000 in large metropolitan areas. (Read more about rural maternal health care here and here).

Alaska is a particularly challenging place to deliver health and human services due to its vast size, sparse population, extreme climate, and the unique needs of its diverse communities, including Native populations. As such, rural Alaskan populations often face even more extreme disparities in healthcare access and outcomes.

Thankfully, Norton-Cruz’s film has prompted the Alaskan governor to set up the Alaska Child Care Task Force, which has allowed Kotzebue residents to erect a home-based non-profit early learning program. Although residents admire the program’s progress, the early learning program only serves eight of the 500 children under the age of five in Kotzebue. Clearly, there is still much work to be done. 

Norton-Cruz continues to document the Task Force’s progress. She states:

We have to keep paying attention to this issue and keep the pressure on…because that’s what leads to changes in funding and changes in policy. We need to help employers, legislators, and leaders see that this is the most important part of child development and the most abandoned policy issue of our time.

From Benin City to global stages: what Rema's journey teaches us about rural potential

When we talk about rural areas, we often associate them with limited opportunities, economic struggles, and slow-paced lifestyle. However, raw talent and unique cultural identity are hidden in these communities. When nurtured, they can thrive on global scale. A perfect example of this is the story of my favorite singer, Divine Ikubor, popularly known as Rema. The Nigerian Afrobeat sensation rose from Benin City to international fame. In my opinion, his journey reflects the reality of many rural areas worldwide: full of talent just waiting to be discovered.

 

The singer’s beginnings were undeniably humble. He was born in 2000, in Benin City, Nigeria, a region that isn't traditionally known for producing mainstream music stars. Like many people from smaller towns, Rema had to navigate economic and social challenges while chasing his dream. According to the World Bank’s “Nigeria Poverty Assessment 2022”, about 40% of Nigerians live below the national poverty line. In many regions, especially in the north, access to quality education and basic infrastructure such as clean water and electricity remains limited. To make matters harder, the Afrobeat sensation lost both his father and brother at a young age, forcing him to take on responsibility for his family. Before his breakthrough, he worked multiple jobs to support them.

 

What makes Rema stand out globally is his ability to blend Afrobeat with international influences while staying true to his Nigerian roots. Rural communities have rich cultural histories that can become assets rather than obstacles. For example, rural tourism seems to be growing worldwide, as people are increasingly interested in authentic experiences: learning traditional farming techniques, attending local festivals, and exploring indigenous arts. By embracing these traditions, rural communities can turn their heritage into a source of income and pride. 

 

Just like Rema’s talent was waiting to be recognized, rural areas worldwide are filled with people whose potential remains unseen due to lack of exposure. Technology and social media are slowly changing this narrative. The singer used to make music as a teenager and post it online. One of his freestyles went viral and caught the attention of music executives, which led him to sign with Mavin Records, the label that launched his international career. Similarly, South African singer Tyla also gained international recognition through her 2023 hit “Water”. The song amassed over 10 billion views on Tiktok.

Rema’s journey is inspiring but it’s not just about music. It is a case study about how potential can flourish with the right mix of talent, opportunity, and technology. For rural communities to thrive, they need more than just ambition —they need support. In that context, Nigeria has taken steps to support its booming creative sector. Initiatives like the Creative Industry Financing Initiative (CIFI), launched by the Central Bank of Nigeria, provide financial support to young creatives in music, fashion, and film. Similarly, the African Creative Blueprint, backed by a $3.5 million USAID investment and run by Ascend Studios, provides training and mentorship in TV production and other creative fields.

But despite these good intentions, initiatives like CIFI and the USAID-Ascend partnership are often centered in urban hubs, where exposure, and industry connections already exist. For a gifted musician in a rural area with no stable internet, no mentors, and no recording gear, these programs can feel out of reach. In her blog post, Sophie Roppé made a good point about rural festivals like Bonnaroo and Hinterland: they’re not just music events —they’re economic catalysts and cultural lifelines for smaller communities. Similarly, if countries like Nigeria could host festivals outside of urban centers, it could celebrate local talent and stimulate local economies.

If Nigeria truly wants to nurture the next generation of creatives, it must dig deeper. Funding is a start, but it must be followed by real infrastructure, decentralized mentorship, and digital access that reaches every corner of the country. Like Rema, rural talent is ready to shine. The question is: Are we ready to invest in it?

Out of the Wilderness

“We deserve so much better. . . an extreme concentration of power and corruption is taking over our country like never before. And we are here because we do know that a better world is possible . . . We are witnessing an Oligarchy happening in America . . . and our political system is ill equipped to face this abuse of power.” -Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, speaking in front of a crowd in Greeley, Colorado. 

In a time when the Trump Administration is kidnapping and attempting to deport lawful permanent residents for political stances; advocating for the takeover of countries; closing congressionally created agencies;  calling for the disbarment of a judge who blocked deportations, attempting to strip protections for federal workers, cancelling billions in already federally approved health grants, and disregarding a judicial order; the Democratic party needs to be clear about the vision of America that the democrats can offer, and how they are fighting the creep of authoritarianism. 

The main-line response has been underwhelming. In a town hall in Oregon City, Oregonians from the Northwestern part of the state, representing rural and urban areas, were told by Senator Ron Wyden of Oregon and Representative Janelle Bynum next to nothing of notable democratic resistance, and only “offered . . .  paltry suggestions to call our representatives and vote blue next election cycle.” Chuck Schumer, after stating he would not vote for the Republican funding bill, voted for the Republican funding bill. 

It often feels as if the mainline Democrats are carrying on as if it is business as usual, asking for voters to turn out in 2026 and 2028 in order to regain the House, Senate and White House. Mainline democrats seem unable to face the facing the terrifying truth-that we are facing an ongoing existential threat to American Democracy. 

However, in the progressive flank of the party, Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez and Bernie Sanders have answers for fighting back.

On March 21st, 2025 Bernie Sanders and Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (AOC) stood in front of a crowd of more than 10,000 people in Greeley, Colorado (in the conservative county of Weld). As a stop on their “Fighting Oligarchy Tour” the two progressive politicians, both from the East Coast, stood in front of a crowd full of Coloradans. 

The choice of Greeley as a stopping point appears strange. The next day, Bernie and AOC drew in record numbers in a rally in Denver, a city that seems far more likely to have two East Coast progressive hold a rally. With the larger city of Boulder, CO nearby, and likely to have more Bernie/AOC supporters, why stop in Greeley? 

It is an argument that both AOC and Bernie are making- that their leftist economic policies are popular in conservative areas. The rally in Greeley continued a trend that has been happening during the duo’s tour; having large crowds show up for Sanders and AOC in districts that voted Republican in 2024. As one Greeley resident stated “I didn’t think things like this happened in Greeley. People would always go to Fort Collins. So it’s just like a little bit of hope.”

One member of the crowd from the small town of Lyons, CO remarked to Colorado Public Radio, "I'm really concerned about poor people in the United States, [the] working class. I'm really disappointed that the Democrats in some sense seem to have abandoned working-class people. And this is something I really admire about Bernie and AOC."

In a time where political commentators are decrying that Democrats are lost in the wilderness, AOC and Bernie Sanders have chosen a clear path, leftist economic policy and helping the working class. But in addition to that, for voters to engage in class solidarity.

"Our task here is to build community. That's the deeper, deeper, deeper mission that we have . . . Elections, they come and go. We do our work, we set the board, but in the meantime we need to build our bonds with each other as communities, building community—block associations, neighborhood groups, volunteer groups, church organizations, PTAs. Because community is the most powerful building block we have against fascism, to defeat authoritarianism and to root out corruption."-AOC, speaking in Greeley, CO. 

AOC is not being idealistic when arguing for building community and engaging in solidarity. She has directly advocated for Trump voters and families of trans kids to organize together, while admonishing that “this movement is not about partisan labels or purity tests . . . It’s about class solidarity. The thousands of people who came out here today to stand here together and say, ‘Our lives deserve dignity, and our work deserves respect.’”

Both Sanders and Ocasio-Cortez directly pointed out in Greeley that Representatives Gabe Evans (whose district includes Greeley) and Lauren Boebert (representing the next district over), voted to cut Medicaid. Evans and Boebert are the two representatives whose areas covers the rural eastern plains of Colorado.

In Colorado, Medicaid covers 1.2 million people. It is believed that cutting Medicaid coverage and funding for Colorado will “lead to clinics closing and more expensive care, particularly in rural areas of the state.”

The path of the current Administration will hurt all of us, not just Democrats or Republicans. Plans to privatize USPS will lead to “Approximately 51.3 million rural addresses . . . impacted” by the need to add surcharges to deliveries to rural people in order to be profitable. Cuts to Medicaid will directly harm health care in rural areas. The closure of the Department of Education will harm rural areas by cutting necessary funding, or hampering the ability for funding to reach those areas. 

It might be tempting for urban democrats to feel that voters deserve this in rural areas, since rural areas are more likely to vote Republican than urban ones. This is not the correct response. Coalition building will take time, and inherently means that democrats and liberals and leftists will need to attract former Trump voters or voters who are conservative. After multiple GOP lawmakers have been booed or jeered at in town halls with their constituents, it seems there is an opening for a new coalition to be made. Rural and urban voters, Trump voters and Harris voters, will need to come together in order to protect the working class, and save American democracy.

For more blog posts about rural politics, rural areas being ignored by democrats, and democrats attempts to appeal in rural areas, look here, here, and here.

The death of flat fees: indigent defense reform

California Assembly Bill 690 seeks to reform the the criminal justice system in the state by banning flat fees and per case compensation contracts for indigent public defense. Under the current flat fee system, the government may contract with a private for-profit attorney or firm and pay them a lump sum in exchange for their representation of indigent defendants. The practice of contracting for a flat fee has been criticized for various shortcomings.

These problems were highlighted in a very recent report published by the Wren Foundation, the ACLU, and the UC Berkley Criminal Law and Justice Center earlier this March. Per the report, the major problem with the flat fee system is that contracted attorneys do not stand to make additional money for putting more time or investing more money into indigent cases. This, in turn, creates an incentive for contracted attorneys to spend as little time possible on these cases.

This problem is compounded by the fact that most counties that utilize the flat fee system do no require contracted attorneys to focus solely on the indigent cases they are assigned. This means these attorneys can take on private clients who are paying normal rates based on the time that their case is being worked on. This provides further incentive for attorneys to spend less time on indigent defense, and prioritize those clients from which they stand to gain the most financially. Add the fact that most contracted attorneys have to pay out of pocket for investigative services in the indigent cases they handle and the fact that contracted attorneys are subject to very little, if any, oversight and you have recipe for some very questionable representation.

The incentives created by the flat fee system undercut the right to zealous and competent representation, which the report backs up with some rather alarming statistical findings. For example, eight of the ten counties with the highest incarceration rates, including all of the top five, currently utilize a flat fee system. Additionally, only four counties required some sort of attorney supervision while only seven required independent county oversight. It is abundantly clear that something needs to be changed, and AB 690 is the solution be offered.

However, some organizations, like the California District Attorney Association, have opposed AB 690. They argue that it threatens to create a two-tiered criminal justice system that will disadvantage public defenders and district attorneys. This view is likely based on the fact that the new system, which would require contracted indigent defense attorneys to be paid in a way that truly accounts for the caseload and resources they need to adequately represent their clients, would be more expensive. This would, presumably, draw funding away from both prosecutorial and defense institutions in places where there is a mixed system. This seems to ring true when one considers the caseload contracted attorneys and public defenders currently have. (More on case caps and other criminal justice reform and its impact on rural areas here.)

This is further complicated by the fact that the 25 counties that do not have institutional public defense services in California are virtually all rural. (More on the issues the rural counties in California are facing with regards to lawyer shortages here.) Rural areas already struggle with with attracting attorneys to provide legal services. (More on legal deserts here.) Additionally, because rural counties have less population, they inherently have smaller tax bases. If AB 690 passes, it means a larger portion of budgets will need to be allocated to providing indigent defense while other aspects of the budget will have to be cut back. 

To be sure, the findings of the Wren Foundation are alarming and indigent defendants should be afforded adequate representation. However, it appears that the new law is aiming to address the current problem with a solution that doesn't have adequate infrastructure to support it, especially when considering how it will likely disproportionately impact rural counties. This affords another opportunity to step back and consider whether these issues are being addressed with the unique issues rural places face in mind. Just because you can dictate a solution on paper does not mean its workable or affordable for the impacted communities in practice. 

Bernie Sanders rallies rural Americans to "Fight Oligarchy"

As part of his "Fighting Oligarchy: Where We Go From Here" tour, Independent Vermont Senator Bernie Sanders has spent the last several weeks visiting districts where Republicans secured a narrow victory during the 2024 general election.

The tour began in Omaha, Nebraska, where Senator Sanders spoke to an overflow crowd of more than 3,400 people. Following this trend, Sanders' next stop was in Iowa City, Iowa, where he filled the historic Englert Theatre and then delivered a second rendition of his speech to the overflow crowd at the hotel next door for the first time in his career. 

Although these cities are not rural themselves, both Iowa and Nebraska are mostly rural states, and many people traveled from hours away to hear Sanders speak. So far, the tour has drawn record crowds.

Reporting for Barn Raiser, Greg Wickencamp writes about the crowd's fears and hopes as they attended Senator Sanders' Iowa rally on February 22, 2025. Some attendees expressed frustration over rising grocery and feed prices, others worried about their children's job prospects, and others said they hoped Sanders' speech would give them hope and motivation. Kelli McCreary, a retired nurse from Toledo, Iowa, noted that her Trump-supporting neighbors are just starting to regret voting for the current President, but that "it's too late."

The theme of Senator Bernie Sanders' message seems to be that politicians will not save us, that both political parties have fundamentally failed the American people, and that we have more power than we are led to believe. Sanders told the audience during his Iowa speech:

Trumpism will not be defeated by politicians in the D.C. Beltway. It will only be defeated by millions of Americans in Iowa, in Vermont, in Nebraska, in every state in this country by people who come together in a strong grassroots movement and say no to oligarchy, no to authoritarianism, no to kleptocracy, no to massive cuts in programs that low-income and working Americans desperately need, no to huge tax breaks for the wealthiest people in this country.

Bernie Sanders is also using his platform to address the myth that rural people are regressive and conservative. Following his stop in Altoona, Wisconsin, on March 8, 2025, Sanders posted the following message to Facebook:

We're told that rural America doesn't like progressive ideas. Not what I saw today in our great rally in Altoona, WI - population 9,200. The people here, and throughout the country, understand that health care is a human right and that we need an economy that works for all, not the few.

Sanders spoke to the Altoona crowd of 2,600 about how the current administration will harm rural and working-class communities. He also sought to empower and motivate the audience through a targeted call to action, saying:

I worry very much that people all over this country in rural areas especially, do not stand up. What we're going to see in the next few months...over a trillion dollars of tax breaks for the top one percent. We can stop it.

For a long time, Bernie Sanders' policies have been degraded by Republicans and Democrats alike for being too radical and extreme. Now, Sanders points out that the Democratic Party has failed to excite people enough to motivate voter turnout. He says that rather than standing for the working class, the Democrats have prioritized corporate interests and need to radically change their approach in order to be successful in the future.

Whether or not Bernie Sanders will gather enough momentum to inspire significant change remains to be seen. Some Bernie-supporters remain cautiously optimistic. Kelly Schmidt, a University of Northern Iowa graduate from Holstein, Iowa, expressed that although everyone in her hometown would benefit from Sanders' proposals, she is unsure if they will listen. Still, many of those who did listen to Sanders' words left his rally feeling hopeful, inspired, and invigorated.

You can find more information about the rural vote here, here, here, and here. 

God, family, and Baylor Law School

One of the most exhilarating (and sometimes disheartening) experiences in an attorney's life is the period between submitting their law school applications and committing to attend a particular school. That time spanned from the Fall of 2021 to April 2022 for me. I fondly remember my first acceptance. I received an email just one week after submitting my application to Baylor Law School informing me that I would shortly receive my decision via mail. Days later, a package was placed on my front porch. Inside, I found my acceptance letter and an invitation to attend a fully expenses-paid trip to the school to tour and visit some classes. I was elated but also apprehensive.

Located in Waco, Texas, Baylor University is affiliated with the Baptist denomination. Although I was hesitant to attend a religiously affiliated school, having just left a religion that had dominated all aspects of my life up until that point, my interactions with the Baylor admissions team mostly alleviated those concerns. Several people told me that Baylor, while religiously affiliated, was welcoming to all people and beliefs. I was also concerned about the political environment. I thought that if the school was located in Texas, I would probably be an outsider with my newfound leftist beliefs. 

In an attempt to alleviate my concerns, an admissions dean from the school stopped by my city for dinner. I mentioned that while Baylor seemed like an excellent fit, and although the scholarship package was extremely generous,  I felt unsure about the religious and political components because I considered myself a left-leaning atheist. Regarding my concerns about religion, I was assured several times that, although Baylor had religious aspects, they primarily affected undergraduate students. Thus, they said, I likely would not even notice any religious influences. As for my political concerns, I was informed that political beliefs at Baylor were evenly divided, with all views being respected and treated with equal consideration. 

I made my visit one month later. The first red flag (or rather, a red flag with a blue starred X) that I had been honeypotted was the massive Confederate flag greeting me at the city limit sign. Compounding this, I was even more surprised when, upon meeting the Law School's Dean, he shook my hand, looked me in the eye, and said, "The three most important things in my life are God, family, and Baylor Law School. If you come here, know that one of my main priorities will be you." Later, when the Dean asked what other schools I was considering, and I mentioned Davis, the Dean scoffed, asking why I would want to attend a school full of "liberals." 

To describe my reaction as surprised would be an understatement.

 As the remainder of my visit progressed, going from breakfast, where a prayer was said over the donuts to "bless them for our body's nourishment" and "to protect our dear President Trump," to tour guides showing their plethora of religiously symbolic tattoos, my association of southern/rural people, religion, and political affiliation strengthened. In my mind, the South was synonymous with rural areas; rural people were often religious, and religious people were generally politically conservative. 

My association is likely incorrect. While 87% of Republicans are religiously affiliated, 77% of Democrats are also religiously affiliated, a not-too-stark difference between the parties. Additionally, only 60% of rural voters identify as Republican. To say that religion influences one's political party seems incongruent with the data. 

However, perhaps more research should be devoted to the connection between rurality and republican beliefs. Notably, from 1996 to 2010, rural people were primarily divided along partisan lines. However, since 2012, support for the Republican Party has steadily risen among rural people. While party support has remained unchanged in urban and suburban counties, the primary explanation for Donald Trump's recent rise to power is primarily attributed to rural residents. 

I am forever grateful that I attended Baylor before making my decision about which school I would attend. Moreover, although my visit did leave me with several stereotypes that I am now discovering are likely unfounded, I view it as an opportunity — an opportunity for growth to challenge and update my preconceptions. We are all on a journey through life, shaped by our experiences. As I soon move on from this current pit stop, which is law school, I am pleased by how these experiences have and will continue to shape my journey going forward.

The cow says moo-ve

I was once walking my dog in San Francisco and noticed something peculiar: a man across the street walking his pet pig. Apparently, having a farm animal as a pet isn’t as uncommon as we might think. For example, Goliath, a baby cow raised in Danville, California went viral in 2015 because thinks he’s a dog. Pretty cute, right? 

As someone who’s favorite animal is a cow, I wish I could adopt one from the SPCA just like I adopted my dog, but I know that it’s impossible unless you have a lot of land. I’ve definitely looked up how to adopt smaller farm animals online, like ducks and chickens, but ultimately decided that it wouldn’t be the best idea while living in an urban area. Although the Internet didn’t have much on where Goliath is today, I would imagine that he eventually outgrew his dog bed and required more space to flourish. 

In San Francisco, you can technically have a cow as a pet as long as you comply with housing and stable laws. However, having farm animals as pets can be challenging if you do not have the knowledge, experience, and land necessary to care for them properly. If you live in a city, this article says that it might be easier to have smaller farm animals as pets like chickens, ducks, pygmy goats, and Dexter cattle.

Social media has seemingly glorified having farm animals as pets. For example, this article highlights many non-traditional house pets, like pigs and cows, that people treat just like dogs and cats. Recently, on a bovine note, highland cows have plagued my feed on TikTok. A 2024 Newsweek article titled “Miniature Cows, Goats, and Donkeys Surge in Popularity” highlighted the increasing popularity of mini goats as pets, stating: 

Mini goats are one of the most popular entry-level mini animals…In the past year, animal breeders have registered roughly 8,330 mini goats with the Miniature Dairy Goat Association, a 73% jump from the 12 months before July 2021, said Angelia Alden, a business operations manager for the North Carolina-based organization. 

However, the article continues by saying how “[m]ini goats are sold after just a few years because it can be challenging and expensive to take care of them.” Additionally, owners struggle with the veterinary and feeding costs that come with owning less traditional animals. 

The increase in mini farm animals is also correlated with the rise in hobby farms, a growing trend where people will purchase a one-acre plot and “keep a miniature cow or a few miniature goats.” This article highlights TikTok creator, Allie Sine’s, experience showcasing her mini cows: 

Sine, 28, launched her own business breeding and selling mini cows in 2020 after reselling a sick mini cow that cost $350 for $5,000. Last year, she sold about 190 calves through her Missouri-based business, Mini Moos LLC. The calves were roughly split between mini and micromini cows that can cost from $2,000 to $30,000.

Based on the increased popularity of mini farm animals, it’s not surprising that prices for miniature animals have increased. However, I can’t help but think about how this must affect the lives of people who rely on farm animals as their source of income. On the one hand, this might be a good way to increase revenue for farms who sell their animals to mini farm animal enthusiasts. On the other hand, the growing demand and interest in hobby farms might increase the costs of farm supplies and veterinary care. We have already seen this with the increasing popularity of the Carhartt brand driving up clothing prices for working class folks. 

Hopefully, hobby farms and city people raising farm animals won't drive up the costs for real farm owners, but the jury's still out. I know one thing for sure: I sadly won’t be adopting a cow anytime soon, as long as I’m living in a big city. 

Marin County declares shelter crisis crisis after farmworkers displaced by historical Point Reyes settlement

Nearly 100 Marin County farmworkers and tenants are set to lose their homes. This comes as a result of a recent settlement to cease ranching operations throughout California's iconic national park -- the Point Reyes National Seashore. The settlement and its effects raise concerns over whether California’s environmental prerogatives are exacerbating the state’s housing crisis.

John Beck has reported extensively on the Point Reyes Settlement in The Press Democrat (Sonoma County). This post relies heavily on his reports which can be found here, here, and here.

In response to the settlement, the Marin County Board of Supervisors unanimously voted in mid-March to pass a shelter crisis declaration. The declaration will allow the County to bypass certain housing regulations, in order to rapidly develop emergency shelters for displaced farmworkers. The declaration will also provide for a number of different temporary shelter types, including buildings without permanent foundations, according to PublicCEO, an outlet for California local government reporting.

The Board's vote was met with broad support from impacted farmworkers and the community at large. "This is a huge win for the community," Jasmine Bravo, a Marin County farmworker advocate, said. However, some community members are concerned that the temporary housing initiative will only delay the inevitable -- the relocation of Marin County's long-established farmworker community.

As of 2024, Marin County ranked third in most expensive housing amongst all California Counties, according to a California Association of Realtors report. In light of this, Marin County housing advocates have expressed a desire to outline a long-term solution to the current crisis. Bravo commented: 

We are hoping that the [temporary housing initiative] is just an interim solution towards a much bigger project. And, hopefully, [the impacted farmworkers] have the opportunity to be homeowners in the future.

The County's declaration will remain in place for three years, but it could be extended afterwards. Funds to support the development of temporary shelters will "come from county housing trust funds," Marin County Supervisor Dennis Rodoni said.

The cause of the crisis -- the Point Reyes settlement -- was itself the product of a years of litigation among environmental conservation groups, the federal government, and Marin County ranchers.

In 2016, three conservation groups sued the National Park Service ("NPS"). The lawsuit challenged the NPS' decision to issue new 20-year commercial farming leases to several Marin County ranching operations, the Resource Renewal Institute ("RRI") explained. The conservation groups argued that the leases were issued without any analysis of potential environmental impacts and without public input, in violation of the National Environmental Policy Act.

The parties eventually settled the 2016 case. That settlement led the NPS to update its Point Reyes land management plans, "which proposed expanded ranching, livestock diversification, and mobile slaughterhouses in the national park," the RRI reported.

However, the conservation groups once again sued the NPS once again in 2022 to halt implementation of the updated plan. This time, the conservation groups argued that the plan violated the NPS's founding mandate to "conserve the scenery, wildlife, and natural and historic objects in national parks, monuments, and reservation . . . for the enjoyment in a way that leaves them unimpaired for future generations.”

An association representing several Marin County ranching operations joined onto the 2022 lawsuit. That same year, all parties involved in the litigation entered into settlement negotiations. Then, in 2023, the Marin County ranchers agreed to cease their operations , in exchange for around $30 million compensation.

The settlement itself has been met with mixed responses. On this point, The Press Democrat’s John Beck observed:

The settlement has proven divisive in the area, as some environmental advocates hail its benefits for the seashore’s watershed and wildlife, including tule elk, while agriculture supporters and others worry about the fallout on local businesses and schools, as well as the region’s farming legacy.

The Point Reyes settlement, and its resulting displacement of the County's farmworkers, is illustrative of the on-going tension between California's pro-environmental policies and its growing housing crisis.

Over the last two decades, California's pro-environmental reforms have come at the expense of pro-housing efforts. Take the California Environmental Quality Act ("CEQA"), for instance. CEQA was passed to combat climate change and prevent environmental degradation. And, in many respects, it has achieved this goal. However, CEQA has also infamously become the go to litigation tool for affluent community groups that oppose the construction of new, high-density housing projects. Thus, in a state that desperately needs to increase its housing supply, CEQA has operated to exacerbate California's housing crisis.

The Point Reyes settlement was similarly the result of conservation group efforts. The settlement's proponents may have accomplished their goal of mitigating the rancher's ecological impacts on the national park. This could only accomplished, however, at the expense of housing for nearly 100 farmworkers. Now, as a result of soaring housing prices in Marin County, many lower-income families are at risk of being forced out of the community where some of their families have lived for generations.

For a detailed discussion on CEQA’s impact on California’s housing crisis, check out this article by land use attorney Jennifer Hernandez.

The Point Reyes settlement is now another chapter of the growing saga that is California's struggle to reconcile its pro-environmental positions with its unprecedented housing crisis. This struggle shows no sign of relenting, as the state's housing crises continues to worsen, and the effects of climate change continue to surge.