The paradisiacal and the terrifying

King's Court, Hopkinsville, Kentucky

Photo Credit: Boston Public Library

In the Pennyroyal region of southwestern Kentucky, amidst the smoky ranges of dark-fired tobacco, rests the town of Hopkinsville. Initially claimed in 1796 by Bartholomew Wood as part of a grant for his service in the American Revolution, a small tract of land quietly grew, until a town was formally established in 1804. Nearly 150 years later, in the fall of 1952, Hopkinsville welcomed its newest citizen, a baby girl born to Rosa Bell Oldham and Veodis Watkins.

Gloria Jean Watkins came roaring into a segregated world that was unprepared for the robust impregnability of a young Black girl’s voice. Raised by a man who worked as a janitor for the United States postal service and a woman who worked as a maid for white families, Gloria Jean described her rural childhood as “a rich magical world of southern black culture that was sometimes paradisiacal and at other times terrifying.” Amongst a white hegemony that could offer both the benefits of literature and the punishments of discrimination, Gloria Jean, a loner with “too much spirit”, crafted one of the most enduring identities in American social critique. bell hooks.

Greetings from Kentucky

Photo Credit: Shook Photos

A hymn for the pastoral 

bell hooks, a pen name borrowed from her maternal great-grandmother and stylized in lowercase in order to decenter the author, would go on to write nearly seventy published works, spanning from poetry and children’s literature to memoirs and magazine articles. While hooks is perhaps best known for her foundational contributions to the modern conceptualizations of intersectionality, the initial focus of this reflection is a small book of poetry released in 2012.

Appalachian Elegy opens with the following sentiment:

Even as a child I knew that to be raised in the country, to come from the backwoods, left one without meaning or presence. Growing up we did not use terms like ‘hillbilly.’ Country folk lived on isolated farms away from the city; backwoods folks lived in remote areas, in the hills and hollers. To be from the backwoods was to be part of the wild. Where we lived, black folks were as much a part of the wild, living in a natural way on the earth, as white folks. All backwoods folks were poor by material standards; they know how to make do. They were not wanting to tame the wildness, in themselves or nature. Living in the Kentucky hills was where I first learned the importance of being wild.

The collection itself, a series of “intimate untitled poems”, is a meditation on the threads that bind us, for better or worse, to our places of origin. Interrogating the enduring ways that ancestry tattoos our personage long after we leave the places we once called home. hooks’ exploration informally tracks her return to her Kentucky birthplace “blending memory with the harsh realities of destruction and the erasure of Black Appalachian history." While the work does not present a singular, nor stagnant iteration of what it means to claim an identity rooted in the rural, the introduction does, notably, distance the work from the concept of terms like 'hillbilly', a rather ironic sentiment, given what followed just four years later.

Postcard from St. Clairsville, Ohio

Photo Credit: Boston Public Library

The name taker

As of the writing of this post, there are probably few Americans unfamiliar with J.D. Vance’s 2016 memoir Hillbilly Elegy, at least in name. Within weeks of its release, the book was a New York Times bestseller and went on to be dramatized in a film directed by Oscar winner Ron Howard. Not to mention, of course, that Vance is currently serving as Vice President of the United States.

At the time of its release, there wasn’t significant notice taken, at least in most circles, of the similarities between hooks and Vance’s titles. The Hillbilly Elegy Wikipedia entry makes no mention of hooks’ work, despite referencing several other Appalachian literatures. Perhaps that is suitable, titular similarities are hardly rare in the realm of publishing, and beyond their rural origins, no one has evidenced any particular connection between the two authors or that Vance has any knowledge of hooks and her writings. The similitudes were, it seemed, pure chance.

That is, until Vance announced his second memoir, set to release in June later this year. Communion: Finding My Way Back to Faith is:

A spiritual exploration of what it means to be a Christian in all the seasons of life JD Vance has experienced—as a child, a young man, a husband, a father, and a leader. Picking up in some ways where Hillbilly Elegy left off, Communion recounts how Vance's pursuit of material privileges ultimately led him into a secular wilderness. Communion reveals how Vance regained his faith and discusses his conversion to Catholicism, how his faith guides his work in public life, and how it shapes his thoughts about the future.

Given the subject matter, the title is entirely apropos. Communion is defined as “the sharing or exchanging of intimate thoughts and feelings, especially when the exchange is on a mental or spiritual level." As such, on its face, there is nothing particularly noteworthy about Vance’s selection. However, as first noted by Claire Guinan for Jezebel, what is noteworthy is that his book isn’t the first to bear that title. Who else wrote a book titled Communion? Well, bell hooks of course.

Postcard from Castalia, Ohio

Photo Credit: Sent from the Past

The agrestic aggressor

On the sliding scale between complete coincidence and full-blown conspiracy, it is unclear where this story situates itself. While I find it difficult to suggest that Vance is uniquely plagued by a desire to co-opt the titles of hooks, to suppress her works to make room for his own; that is, in many effects, exactly what is happening. If you conduct a simple Google search for ‘elegy book’ or ‘communion book’ his works appear before hers in both iterations.

In theory, there should be room for a multitude of rural voices, but critics are beginning to express concern that Vance’s parallelism is hostile in either intent or effect. Guinan writes “I’m choosing to believe that [Vance] is a huge fan, rather than the other, more likely option, which is that he is appropriating IP from a prominent black, feminist voice.” Author B.N. Russo further opined:

Not only is this plagiarism of a Black woman’s work, it’s also search engine manipulation and keyword appropriation that will result in the detraction from Black feminist thought. Now, a student searching for “Communion book” may find promotional resources for a pseudo-religious political propaganda piece, rather than resources on hooks’ critical social philosophies. In this moment of attacks on Critical Race and Feminist Theories, removal of sociology studies from state schools, historical revisionism in National Parks, schools, and museums, censorship of public service organizations and institutions, book banning, ‘DEI’ investigations, and curriculum challenges, this is de facto censorship in the digital age.

Postcard from Lompoc, California

Photo Credit: Sent from the Past

An Arcadian mouthpiece 

One female. One male. One Black. One White. One queer. One straight. One passed on. One living. One lowercase in an attempt to decenter the self. One seeking the most powerful title in the world. Diametrically opposed, yet united in a desire to contribute to the cultural consciousness on rural identity. Only time will tell which narrative will devour the other, or whether, perhaps, coexistence is possible. I, for one, will be monitoring the situation with careful fascination, anticipating Vance’s third memoir title with bated breath.

Further readings

For further reading on these subjects please direct your attention to the following blog posts:

“On bell hooks: Black, female, working class and ‘semirural’” 

“J.D. Vance pulls ahead in race for Republican nomination for U.S. Senate seat in Ohio, prompting comparisons to positions he took in his book”

“Hillbilly cosplay and the privilege coverup”

Access to healthcare supports climate resilience everywhere, but especially in rural America

Salinas River near Greenfield, CA
© Jillian Gronnerud (2018)

Human health and environmental health are undeniably interdependent. Clean air and water, limited exposure to pollutants, a preserved natural environment, and adequate protection from occupational health and safety hazards are a few of the ways that robust environmental protection can support human health. As the effects of climate change become more visible and more severe, so too do the effects on human health and well-being. 

The World Health Organization's overview on environmental health tells us that climate change is profoundly affecting human health: natural disasters, infectious diseases, heat-related illnesses and death, effects on food production, migration, and economic instability are among the direct and indirect impacts. According to the WHO, more than 13 million people worldwide die each year due to modifiable environmental conditions. 

Zooming in on food production, climate change is already having major impacts on agricultural operations around the world. In the United States, impacts manifest directly as higher average air temperatures, changing precipitation patterns, and rising concentrations of atmospheric carbon dioxide. Indirectly, productivity is harmed by changes in disease occurrence and insect and weed populations. According to one USDA report, "research has documented cases where elevated atmospheric levels favor the growth of weeds over the growth of the crop species with which they compete." 

Taking a more nuanced look at climate change effects on the economics of US agriculture, the same USDA report notes that agricultural production is chronically vulnerable to environmental stressors (dry spells, insect damage, disease outbreak), making the added unpredictability of climate impacts unwelcome. In some cases, climate change effects render agricultural operations economically non-viable. 

In a March 2026 piece for Inside Climate News, Jordan Gass-Pooré interviewed a family farmer from upstate New York who stopped growing vegetables because "they were afraid extreme weather events would ruin their crops." Reflecting on the decision, Samantha Kemnah told ICN: "'We really enjoyed growing vegetables [. . .] [b]ut we couldn’t continue to commit to people, to raise food, and then have a hailstorm wipe it all out.'"

Photo Credit: US Department of Agriculture (2016)

A lack of formal, institutional support for farmers like Kemnah complicates the picture further. Diversified farms and smaller family farms face a lack of governmental support, in part because subsidies remain geared toward commodity crops and often come with a minimum base acre requirement. The result? Small family farms are hemmed in by stiff financial conditions and unable to access capital needed to run their business. Recent USDA research reveals that "[m]any farmers face steep hurdles to diversify their crop rotations. More diverse rotations may make management more complex and may require new equipment. Farmers may also need to learn how to grow new crops."

When farms like the Kemnah's are forced away from diversified crops and toward subsidized commodities, they are also driven away from crop rotation and other environmentally beneficial practices that could serve as part of the farm's climate change mitigation strategy. 

Cows in field near Duncan Mills, CA
© Lisa Pruitt (2025)

With a clearer picture of the impacts of climate change on US agriculture in mind, the remainder of this post will focus on one key aspect of the nexus between the environmental and human health. The basic argument goes – and research supports – that access to high quality healthcare might be one of the best preventative measures we can implement to promote climate resilience for American farmers, farmworkers, and the lands they live and work on. 

The recent Inside Climate News article by Gass-Pooré paints a picture of the current relationship between healthcare and those with agricultural livelihoods:

In the U.S., nearly half of rural residents, including farmers, are uninsured or insured by government-funded programs such as Medicaid or Medicare. Nearly one in four people under the age of 65 [...] have Medicaid coverage [...] Now, even this system is in peril as millions of Americans are expected to lose coverage as a result of pending changes and cutbacks to Medicaid [...] As a result, some farmers risk losing their lifeline and becoming uninsured. It would leave them even less prepared to do farm work and to tackle the oncoming impact of climate change. 

These dynamics suggest that healthcare access is not merely a social service for farmers, but a critical component of resilience, both at the individual and systemic level. Rates of work-related death for farmers are seven times the national average. Working in the elements, with heavy equipment, and near chemicals mean that farmers face increased rates of occupational risks, injury, and chronic illness. Demanding work, economic instability, and isolation manifests in the form of mental health challenges at rates far higher than the general population (a 2021 CDC report shows a male suicide rate of 52.1 per 100,000 among farmers and ranchers, compared to 32.0 per 100,000 among male working-aged adults across all occupations).

Despite this risk profile, farmers routinely encounter barriers to care, including provider shortages, cost, and the associated prospect of medical debt.  In a 2022 study by Florence Becot & Shoshanah Imwood, researchers reported that 20.3% of American farm households had medical debt exceeding $1,000, and that 55 percent of these households were not confident they could cover the costs of a major illness or injury.

The concurrent loss of Affordable Care Act subsidies and challenging economic conditions means that health insurance will become outright unaffordable for many farmers. The decision then becomes whether to continue working and forgo coverage – a risky proposition in such a dangerous occupation – or to leave the industry altogether in search of a job that will provide health insurance.

By contrast, Gass-Pooré's article documents describes not-for-profit health plans in Germany, which are not tied to employment and strictly limit how much patients must pay out of pocket. These plans enable farmers to work full-time and "take advantage of reliable government support" as they implement farming practices meant to improve soil health and provide other climate mitigation benefits.

The situation in America is something else entirely. Gass-Pooré summarizes the current state of affairs: 

Climate change makes it harder to maintain a productive farm, health care cuts threaten farmers’ ability to work the land and cuts to the programs that could help with both mean their lives are more uncertain than ever. 

The connections between environmental health, agricultural viability, and human well-being are increasingly difficult to ignore. Climate change places growing strain on farmers and farmworkers, while structural barriers, from limited healthcare access to outdated and failing subsidy systems, compound their vulnerability. 

As this post has explored, improving healthcare access offers a tangible pathway to support both individual resilience and broader environmental outcomes. By treating healthcare as part of the infrastructure that sustains agriculture, policymakers can better equip rural communities to withstand climate pressures while preserving the systems that feed and sustain us all. 

The looming red wave: How a crowded Democratic field might hand California’s governorship to a Republican

California gubernatorial candidate debate Tuesday, Feb. 3, 2026, in San Francisco.Photo Credit: Laure Andrillon/AP

When I was little, my parents always voted blue. When the ballot offered one Democrat versus one Republican, it was an easy pick between the two. I always viewed California as an impenetrable fortress of blue politics. With our heavily populated progressive cities, it seemed practically impossible for a Republican to win a gubernatorial election. As the June 2 primary approaches, however, an overcrowded field of Democrats vying for the office is threatening to turn that assumption completely upside down.

According to recent polling by UC Berkeley IGS Poll (sponsored by The Los Angeles Times), conservative commentator Steve Hilton and Riverside County Sheriff Chad Bianco are leading the gubernatorial race as of March 18. Hilton captures roughly 17% of the vote, while Bianco is close behind at 16%, leaving prominent Democrats like Eric Swalwell and Katie Porter trailing them in the low teens. You can follow the latest polling updates on The New York Times. Because California utilizes a top-two primary system where candidates are listed on the same ballot regardless of party, the sheer abundance of Democratic candidates is severely fracturing the liberal vote.

The California Democratic Party is actively panicking about the very real possibility of a general election without a single Democrat on the ballot. On March 3, party chair Rusty Hicks issued an open letter pleading with unviable candidates to assess their paths to victory and suspend their campaigns:

If in the unlikely event a Democrat failed to proceed to the General Election for Governor, there could be the potential for depressed Democratic turnout in California in November. The result would present a real risk to winning the congressional seats required and imperil Democrats' chances to retake the House.

Despite these dire warnings, all eight Democratic hopefuls have stubbornly refused to step aside. Meanwhile, the conservative surge is being heavily fueled by voters in California’s rural and inland regions, who are expressing deep dissatisfaction with the state’s current trajectory. A recent survey from the Public Policy Institute of California revealed that 54% of Californians believe the state is headed in the wrong direction. Their views are driven largely by anxiety over the cost of living and inflation.

Candidates like Bianco are successfully capitalizing on this widespread frustration. Polling data shows the Republican sheriff is absolutely dominating the race in rural, historically red areas like the Inland Empire and the North Coast/Sierras. While Democratic candidates fight each other for urban votes in Los Angeles and the Bay Area, Republican candidates are unifying the rural base.

Despite needing to split the conservative vote evenly to advance to the general election, Republican candidates Steve Hilton and Chad Bianco are not cooperating and are instead aggressively attacking one another to consolidate their base. Both candidates are utilizing similar platform strategies centered on heavy deregulation, reversing prison closures, boosting oil production, and slashing taxes.

A critical element of both their campaign strategies is courting voters in California's rural, agricultural, and inland regions where conservative momentum is currently the strongest. For instance, both men recently campaigned directly to these demographics by participating in a gubernatorial forum at Fresno State hosted by Western Growers. Bianco, the current Riverside County Sheriff, has been particularly successful at rallying these rural and inland voters by leaning heavily into his outsider status and harshly criticizing the environmental regulations that many inland residents blame for the high cost of living.

While the media fixates on the fractured Democratic field, they are completely ignoring the socialist candidates running in this election, including Ramsey Robinson of the Peace and Freedom Party and Butch Ware. It is frustrating that candidates who are actually running on working-class platforms receive absolutely no press coverage and are shut out of major platforms, like the highly criticized (and ultimately canceled) gubernatorial debate co-sponsored by USC and the Los Angeles TV station KABC.

Comparison to the last Governor Race

2019 California Governor Election Results. Credit: The New York Times

While outgoing Governor Gavin Newsom practically coasted through his past elections, the 2026 primary is shaping up to be an entirely different beast. In his 2018 race, Newsom secured a landslide victory against Republican John Cox, winning by a massive 24 percentage points (the worst defeat for a GOP gubernatorial candidate in California since 1950). Newsom enjoyed such, unified party backing that his races were defined by inevitability, a stark contrast to the absolute chaos and uncertainty of this year's crowded primary. Today, the Democratic field is severely fractured among eight established candidates who stubbornly refuse to drop out, creating a messy, unpredictable contest heavily focused on intra-party squabbling. Unlike Newsom's clear march to the governor position, this current division is threatening to split the liberal vote so thinly that two Republicans could actually advance from the top-two primary, potentially shutting Democrats out of the November general election entirely.

My Final Thoughts 

It is wild to think that in a state where registered Democrats outnumber Republicans two to one, we might see two Republicans facing off for governor this November. This situation highlights a massive disconnect between urban liberals and the rural conservatives who are successfully mobilizing behind their preferred candidates. If the Democratic party cannot figure out how to consolidate their base and appeal to the varying wants and needs of all Californians, they will only have themselves to blame for handing over the governor's office.

Tax in rural communities

My old boss, an accountant (CPA) who represented taxpayers in their appeals processes, lived on a small farm in the highlands between Orange and Riverside Counties. Most accountants, however, are unlikely to trade the pen for the plowshare. According to this Vishal CPA Prep, some counties have no licensed CPAs at all.

Rural communities, on average, tend to be less wealthy than metro communities. The tax code is structured, in part, to remedy inequalities between poorer and affluent Americans. However, many of the intended benefits and tax expenditures can only be accessed if the filer knows about the benefits. As noted in this 2018 article by the Internal Revenue Service, rural Americans would disproportionately benefit from the Earned Income Tax Credit. However, they often choose not to apply because of reasonably held misconceptions about their eligibility. The IRS article explains that qualifying taxpayers can claim the EITC by filing electronically "through a qualified tax professional," "using free community tax help sites," or filing "themselves, with IRS Free File." The mention of Free File shows that the article is outdated, as the IRS Free File program has been eliminated for the 2026 filing season. The other two solutions require the use of either internet services or the services of a tax professional, neither of which are consistently available in rural locations. 

For low-income or elderly taxpayers, the IRS also offers services from the Volunteer Income Tax Assistance (VITA) and Tax Counseling for the Elderly (TCE) programs. The IRS provides a geographic site locator tool to find volunteers. However, these too have their geographic limits. Searching from the zip code of 96101, which is the county seat of Modoc County (Alturas, CA) in California, there are only three sites within 100 miles. UWNC, the Lassen Salvation Army, is the closest at 76.15 miles away. When relying upon volunteer accountants, rural communities may be underserved. Likewise, professional accountants seem few and far between in rural areas.

Accountants located near Altura, CA

Credit: Google Maps

Even where volunteers exist, the supply of professional tax help is dwindling nationwide. The United States is experiencing a shortage of new accountants. With hundreds of thousands of professionals of the Baby Boomer age cohort retiring, recent trends indicate that those positions will remain unfilled.

Credit: Preston Fore, AICPA 2023 Trends Report

Some smaller accounting firms have rejected potential clients. Beyond shortages, some tax experts caution that potential clients need to be cautious when choosing a tax preparer due to the current low bar to qualify. Firms turn away clients while bad actors fill the gaps.

In addition to a shortage of labor for tax preparation services, President Trump's 2025 hiring freeze exacerbated labor shortages within the IRS. As a consequence, tax filing and processing have become more difficult on both ends of the process. For low-income taxpayers, the shortages mean refund claims, like the Earned Income Tax Credit, will take longer to reach taxpayers. IRS response times when called for information have also become slower than ever. For taxpayers with no days off of work and only an hour for lunch, they might be out of luck when it comes to getting a live response.

Nonetheless, the IRS continues to publish helpful materials for rural-coded sectors of the economy. With a shortage of professional tax help, taxpayers may need to rely upon the publications themselves to stay informed and know which credits and deductions to apply for.

The 2025 tax year's Farmer's Tax Guide (Publication 225) provides an encyclopedic level of information for farmers, from general concepts of the cash or accrual method of accounting to more trade-specific concepts like Elective Farm Income. The publication also specifies farm-related deductible expenses like "Breeding Fees," "Fertilizer and Lime," and other "Prepaid Farm Supplies." 

More importantly, the Farmer's Tax Guide keeps tax filers up-to-date on expiring tax policies, like the temporary 100% deductibility of food or beverages provided by a restaurant. From personal experience working with small business owners, taxpayers often miss changes to tax policy, which can result in staggeringly large tax assessments for deficient payments, audits, and lengthy appeals proceedings during which interest ticks up.  

While helpful, IRS publications like Publication 225 may be difficult for many small business owners to comprehend. The length and depth of the publication makes it equally helpful and difficult to parse. Nestled within the publication is perhaps the most important detail, the rule surrounding whether farm-expenses can be listed at all on a tax return. As a long-standing principle, "Hobby Farming," or "Not-for-Profit Farming" doesn't qualify. Unfortunately for less-established farmers, one major factor in the consideration of a farm as a hobby farm is whether "taxpayer was successful in making a profit in similar activities in the past." More than most businesses, many crops need years to mature to profitability, leading to a horizontal equity issue between more established farmers and newer farmers. 

Business owners still have options with the IRS publication information, even with a lack of close CPAs. Kaizen CPA's accounting site recommends that business owners use QuickBooks if they net less than $500,000 each year. If above, Kaizen recommends a live CPA. Rural businesses might not have the option between a live CPA and QuickBooks. While QuickBooks does not have the functionality to facilitate the filing of income tax returns, it can organize financial information in a way to make the workload digestible for a live CPA during tax season. From there, the hypothetical rural business owner would need to take fewer trips to a CPA's office or may even merely contact them by email with their information ready. Now, with the shortage of CPAs nationwide, it might make a business owner a more palatable client to have their books in order.

There's a reason the CPA licensing process is difficult: taxes are oftentimes too complex for taxpayers to handle on their own. With a shortage of live CPAs and IRS employees, taxpayers will need to increasingly rely upon accounting software, which might miss niche credits that the taxpayer qualifies for. Rural taxpayers may need to embrace a new type of self-reliance in terms of financial literacy. 

Left to burn: how federal cuts are abandoning rural America's wildfire defenses

My memory of leaving Sonoma County for San Francisco includes a period of about four years where California wildfires progressively escalated in severity, oftentimes blanketing the city in smoke. In 2017, that included ducking inside to avoid breathing in the ashes of the town where I went to high school. It culminated in 2020 with the North Complex Fire causing the orange, alien sky that enveloped San Francisco. That fire was caused by a freak "lightning siege" attributable to climate change.  

My friend took this photo outside her apartment in September, 2020.
(c) Rose Barry, 2020

The Palisades Fire early last year should have emphasized the apocalyptic urgency of addressing wildfire dangers in California and beyond. But in the name of limiting "waste and abuse" the Trump administration ignored this urgency and instead proceeded to cut federal funding to fight fires in rural America. 

The Cuts 

Like the rest of the Trump administration's 2025 efforts, these cuts are as chaotic as they are dramatic, attacking wildfire prevention and response from multiple angles. 

First, the administration cut 10% of workers at the Forest Service. The Forest Service manages Federal land, and many of their responsibilities include fire prevention and firefighting. Fewer workers means fewer people clearing the brush and fewer people trained to fight fires. This puts California in a precarious position, with the Federal government managing 57% of forests in the state. Nevada is arguably in even worse shape, with 86% of their land being federally managed. 

Critics of the policy include members of the previous Trump administration. Former Forest Service chief Vickie Christiansen posits that the policies amount to "$40 million saved now for $4 billion in wildfire expense" later. Ryan Zinke, Trump's former Secretary of the Interior, says that the cuts shift the question of hiring from "'are we paying them enough” (to) “are we even going to have the bodies?'"

Firefighters from Stockton, CA putting out a fire off Hidden Valley Road. 
Source: Creative Commons, 2013.

The administration has also merged disparate firefighting groups from the Department of Agriculture and the Department of the Interior into a single U.S. Wildlife Fire Service. While there have been proposals to this effect in the past, they were previously rejected due to a 2008 Congressional report finding this consolidation had significant drawbacks. The consolidation shifts the focus away from fire prevention and towards suppression. The Forest Service ideally fights fire through its land management duties, and separating the two functions increases the risk of catastrophic fires that cannot be adequately suppressed. 

Despite some of the most high stakes firefighting occurring in rural spaces (especially in California), rural firefighters are often volunteers. As a previous post on this blog puts it, "volunteer firefighting is a rural issue." California has 200 volunteer fire departments, with many rural spaces completely lacking professional firefighters. Communities often fund these departments partially through local fundraisers. As people leave these communities, staffing these departments becomes even more difficult. Willow Creek in Humboldt County finds their department shrinking as calls increase.  Cuts to the Forest Service means these towns already lacking in resources have even less ability to serve their community even as the fire season grows ever larger. 

Volunteer Fire Station in Occidental, CA. 
(c) Lisa R. Pruitt 2025.

 States and localities have also suffered from the suspension of FEMA Building Resilient Infrastructure and Communities (BRIC) grants in 2025, with a lawsuit forcing the resumption of grants only last year. A massive backlog has resulted, with two years worth of applicants applying for one year of grant funding. This affects infrastructure for fire prevention as well as other disasters. 

This backlog disproportionately affects rural towns. Larger municipalities frequently have full-time grant-writers, where small towns often rely on a thin secretarial support staff, if that. These towns have no ability to fund their own improvements, with necessary infrastructure often costing several times the town's budget. 

The Response 

California moved relatively swiftly to counter the Forest Service cuts, deploying $72 million in Cal FIRE grants to "rake the forest" and fast track critical fire prevention projects. While certainly helpful, the State can only work with the 3% of forest land it manages directly and must work with private landowners who own the other 40% of the land. With a majority of the land in California under Federal management, this effort is limited. 

Utah also increased their wildfire funding by $150 million and joined the Great Plains Interstate Fire Compact. The compact enables coordination and resource sharing with other western states to fight wildfires and prevent wildfires. While this likely won't make up for the gap left by the federal government, this more coordinated local effort is cause for optimism. 

The Department of the Interior also announced a $20 million grant to equip "small, remote emergency response agencies with practical, deployable tools," i.e. modern water tanker trucks. While not unwelcome, this targeted funding does not make up for the larger structural damage done by the Trump administration. 

Notably, none of these responses make efforts to alleviate the specific burdens on rural communities. They simply attempt to fill in the gaps left by the federal government's retreat, failing to address the prior inequities. 

Conclusion  

On our current trajectory I find it difficult to be optimistic about anything involving climate change. As a Californian, there are few things that seem more immediately pressing than addressing the increasing severity of wildfires. The current administration's efforts harm everyone by failing to address these systemic issues, and rural communities will bear the brunt of the impact. 

The carcinogenic classification of glyphosate faces new pressure

Glyphosate, the most widely used herbicide in the world, is a controversial product in agriculture due to its potential carcinogenic effects. In 2015, the International Agency on the Research for Cancer (IARC) published a monograph concluding that glyphosate is “probably carcinogenic to humans.” However, in February 2020, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) issued an interim registration review decision (ID) finding glyphosate poses “no risks of concern to human health when used in accordance with its current label.”

© Kristy Ardalan 2024.

On March 20, 2020, the Natural Resources Defense Council challenged the EPA’s ID in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. In May 2021, the EPA requested—and the court granted--a partial voluntary remand without vacatur of the ecological portion. The EPA later withdrew the entire ID, and the status of glyphosate remains under reconsideration.

As of 2026, the EPA maintains that there is no evidence glyphosate causes cancer in humans; there is no indication glyphosate is an endocrine disruptor; that residue on food items are safe for consumption; and that ecological risks are low, with the exception of potential harm to bees.

Despite these conclusions, public skepticism remains high. The widely publicized Monsanto Roundup litigation—through which Monsanto has paid nearly $11 billion to tens of thousands of plaintiffs alleging cancer caused by Roundup—has intensified doubts about the EPA’s classification. Additionally, organizations such as the Environmental Sciences Europe and the World Health Organization have criticized the EPA for failing to adequately consider individuals with heightened exposure, such as farmworkers and nearby residents. The Center for Food Safety has also cited emails between an EPA scientist and a Monsanto officer that suggest “coordinated efforts to undermine the legitimacy of IARC’s… determination.”

White House Easter celebration 2023.

© Kristy Ardalan 2024.

On February 18, 2026, President Trump signed an executive order titled “Promoting the National Defense by Ensuring an Adequate Supply of Elemental Phosphorus and Glyphosate-Based Herbicides.” A related fact sheet states that the order is intended to “protect domestic production of elemental phosphorus and glyphosate-based herbicides” which are “essential to military readiness and America’s agricultural strength.” The fact sheet emphasizes that currently only one domestic company produces elemental phosphorus and glyphosate-based herbicides. It also notes that the demand in the U.S. far exceeds current output, which “gravely endangers national security and defense” including food-supply security.

A particularly controversial provision of the order grants immunity to domestic producers that comply with federal law.

The famously polluted Potomac River in Washington, D.C.

© Kristy Ardalan 2023.

Environmental groups, such as the Waterkeeper Alliance, have strongly criticized the order arguing that “it puts chemical industry profits above public health and clean water.” Granting immunity for industrial chemical producers that follow federal directives makes it harder to hold them accountable for harm to human and environmental health. As discussed in this prior blog post, critics also point to broader legislative trends—such as provisions in the recent farm bill—that may weaken environmental protections, including removing dozens of pesticides from health and environmental safety reviews, granting the USDA power to block EPA health and environmental safeguards, removing Clean Water Act protections that limit pesticide pollution, etc.

However, there are signs of legislative pushback. On February 20, 2026, Representatives Thomas Massie (KY) and Chellie Pingree (ME) introduced the bipartisan “No Immunity for Glyphosate Act” to Congress in effort to undo the February 18 executive order. Representative Pingree stated “If there was ever any doubt about whose side this Administration is on, this Executive Order makes it crystal clear: Big Chemical comes first, and the health of Americans comes last.” Representative Massie similarly argued that “If the goal is to 'Make America Healthy Again,' the federal government should not be using its authority to promote or protect the production of glyphosate.”

© Iowa Environmental Council and The Harkin Institute, Environmental Risk Factors and Iowa’s Cancer Crisis, p. 9. Data from the National Cancer Institute state cancer profiles.

The No Immunity for Glyphosate Act was introduced to Congress shortly before a disruptive report from the Iowa Environmental Council and the Harkin Institute for Public Policy and Citizen Engagement titled “Environmental Risk Factors and Iowa’s Cancer Crisis” was released on March 25, 2026. The report focuses on pesticides, PFAS, Nitrate, Radon, and other industrial contaminants in Iowa. The Executive Director of the Iowa Environmental Council stated that the report “demonstrates clear links between environmental pollution and our health and well-being.” As found in the 2020 census, the majority of Iowans live in rural areas and the rural areas are surrounded by endless fields of corn all likely sprayed with glyphosate. The graph below shows that rural residents in Iowa experience and live around the most dense pesticide application areas in the United States and the cancer rates reflect that.

A map of counties depicting high and low cancer rates

© Investigate Midwest, National Cancer Institute, and the CDC

Iowa’s cancer rate exceeds the national average by more than 10%, with a particularly elevated rates among individuals under 50. The state has the highest number of concentrated animal feeding operations (CAFOs) in the country, a number more than 2.5 times as many CAFOs than the next highest state. With emerging research linking glyphosate and other environmental contaminants to adverse health outcomes, pressure is mounting for legislative action—and soon.

The SAVE Act

The Safeguard American Voter Eligibility Act (“SAVE Act”) has returned to Congress and sits before the Senate after passing the House.This bill would amend the National Voter Registration Act of 1993 by requiring every eligible voter to provide proof of citizenship when registering to vote or updating a registration.

The bill would require individuals to appear in person at an election and present approved documentation even for routine updates. These updates can include address changes, name changes, or party affiliation adjustments. Each federal election cycle, approximately 80 million people either register to vote for the first time or update their voter registration information. This bill would impose new logistical hurdles on all of them. Acceptable documentation would include a valid U.S. passport, a certified birth certificate paired with a photo ID, or a naturalization certificate. If a person’s legal name does not match their birth certificate, they must also provide additional legal documents to prove the change.

Supporters of the bill, including many Republican lawmakers, argue that stricter verification requirements will prevent non-citizen voting. Arguing that Joe Biden’s “reckless open-border policies” necessitate this bill as without it we can’t be sure that Americans are the only ones voting in federal elections.

What does the White House say about the SAVE Act? The official White House website refers to it as a “common sense, bipartisan bill,” emphasizing that all it “simply” requires is a valid ID to register to vote in a federal election, proof of citizenship, and no mail-in ballots. The website then goes on to list other countries that enforce stricter voter identification laws.

The SAVE Act is not new. Last year it passed the House but failed to advance in the Senate due to nationwide public opposition. It was reintroduced this January. Critics, previously and this time, argue that the SAVE Act solves nothing. Numerous studies and audits have shown that non-citizen voting occurs at extremely low rates. In fact, many view this bill as a way for Republicans to hammer Trump’s narrative of widespread election fraud.

Additionally, the act will determinately impact rural America, which particularly relies on mail-in and online methods for voter registration. Rural Americans already face long travel distances and fewer government service offices. A Center for American Progress analysis found that in some cases rural Americans would need to drive hours to an election office in order to meet the requirements of the act. In states like Alaska, the burden will be even more pronounced. Alaska’s Senator Lisa Murkowski is one of the only Republicans to join in opposition of this bill arguing that it will disenfranchise thousands of Alaskans and their ability to vote.

Credit: Center for American Progress, 2025

Furthermore, while the act imposes no direct fee to vote it requires Americans to provide documentation that can only be obtained by paying a fee. Obtaining documentation that requires payment will discourage low-income rural residents from even participating. Under this act, rural voters will face longer travel time, higher costs, and fewer alternatives. These barriers will not just inconvenience voters but will prevent participation in the voting process.