Ndala and Cyclone Freddy: the harsh reality of climate change

On March 13, 2023, Ndala, a village in northeastern Mozambique, was almost entirely submerged in water. Heavy rains caused the river running through the village to overflow. The torrent of water and rocks cleared everything in its path: houses and people inside them, roads, bridges, livestock, and vehicles. The cause of these tragic events was Cyclone Freddy, the longest tropical cyclone on record. Two years later, Ndala still faces the effects of the storm. The population endures isolation, illness, and deepening poverty. The cyclone injured many, tore families apart, and destroyed livelihoods. 

 

The people most affected by extreme weather, particularly in places like Mozambique and across Africa, are often the least responsible for the climate crisis. Those affected live in communities with the least resources to adapt to climate disasters such as Cyclone Freddy. As a result, these countries and population pay the heaviest price for climate change with their lives. 

 

This vulnerability is not unique to Mozambique. In his blog post “Rural vulnerabilities in a changing climate”, Ryan Chen highlighted how rural areas with weak infrastructure are the most vulnerable to the effects of climate change. He cites Texas’ Rio Grande Valley, where drought is worsening due to it. Similarly, Ndala also lacks infrastructure and has trouble dealing with flooding. 

 

The increased frequency of floods and droughts directly impacts agriculture, threatening crop yields and livestock, primary sources of income sustenance for many rural communities in Mozambique. The cost of adapting to these drastic changes strains already limited financial resources of rural communities.

Malawi, a neighboring country of Mozambique, was also impacted by Cyclone Freddy. Recognizing the previous challenges, the International Fund for Agricultural Development (IFAD) and the government of Malawi launched a US$53 million agricultural development program in 2023. The initiative aims to commercialize agriculture, enhance small-scale farming resilience, and improve food security and nutrition across the country. As part of this effort, the seven-year Sustainable Agriculture Production program will equip farmers with the skills and resources needed to combat food insecurity, increase income, and improve rural livelihoods. In addition, the program allows funds to be reallocated to address immediate needs such as repairs to infrastructure that was damaged or destroyed by climate disasters. 

Nevertheless, while the IFAD has been actively involved in improving food security and resilient livelihoods for rural transformation in Mozambique, it didn't provide direct assistance to the country following Cyclone Freddy.

 

Climate disasters often lead to migration. Cyclone Freddy left thousands in Mozambique without homes, forcing them to migrate in search of safety and stability. However, under international law, these people do not qualify as refugees because their displacement is climate-related rather than a result of persecution based on race, religion, nationality, political opinion, or social group, as defined by article 1 of the Geneva Convention. 

Climate-displaced individuals are classified as internally displaced persons (IDPs) if they remain in their country or migrants if they cross borders. Under the Geneva Convention, refugees are entitled to the right to seek asylum, non-refoulement (not being sent back to danger), access to healthcare, education, and work in host countries, unlike IDPs and migrants.

 

This legal gap has sparked an ongoing debate about the legal recognition of “climate refugees”. The UNHCR (United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees) advocates for the expanded definition of refugees to include those displaced by climate change. However, many countries that ratified the Geneva Convention oppose this change, fearing it would increase migration and legal obligations. Amnesty International argues that concerns over mass migration are overblown. Instead, the organization emphasizes the need for humanitarian assistance, as climate change continues to displace communities worldwide. 

 

The case of Cyclone Freddy and Ndala underscores the growing urgency of this debate. Moving forward, the international community can no longer afford to ignore the impact of climate change on rural communities. Without action, climate migrants will remain trapped in legal limbo, denied the protections they desperately need.

The rise of the "barndominium" and the "shouse"

Since the COVID-19 pandemic in 2020, there has been a substantial uptick in migration to rural areas. From 2019 to 2023, large urban areas like New Orleans and Cleveland experienced smaller population growth than average as many city dwellers were no longer required to appear at their jobs in person. 

Theoretically, the pandemic's resolution and subsequent return to in-person work should have ended the rural migration trend. However, many Americans are still trading in city life for country living. For instance, as of late 2024, young families with children have been increasingly leaving big cities, instead opting for rural counties and small metropolitan areas. 

The benefits of living in the country are somewhat obvious. Cities tend to come with a higher cost of living, overwhelmed public school systems, higher rates of crime, and greater environmental pollution. This reality, combined with a rising cultural appreciation for the countryside aesthetic, has set the stage for homeowners to embrace a lesser-known phenomenon: the "barndominium."

Picture this: 14 acres in the middle of nowhere, abundant open space, and the opportunity to design your own home at a far lower cost than purchasing a traditional house. For people like the Barndominium Lady Stacey Lynn Bell, who built her dream barndominium and now helps others do the same, the appeal is irresistible. In a recent New York Times article reporting on the barndo's surge in popularity, Bell explained that: 

More people want bigger homes, more distant neighbors, land to raise chickens and grow vegetables, and an environment 'not as hustle-bustle.'

In the same piece, Brittany VanHouten shared that she and her husband expect their barndominium in Citrus County, Florida to be 4,500 square feet and include a home theater, library, craft room, and spacious detached garage, once finished. The Florida couple estimated their new home would cost under $300,000, which falls on the lower end of the average price to build a home in their area.

On top of all these advantages, barndominiums are often disaster-resilient, long-lasting, and energy-efficient. This is largely due to their slow-to-rust steel frames and customary metal roofs, which can withstand high winds and hurricanes. Pertinently, climate and disaster-resilient features are "very important" to 86% of homebuyers, according to a recent Zillow survey.

Of course, the barndominium has its disadvantages, too. As with rural living in general, taking up residence on vast open land may mean sacrificing easy access to schools, places of employment, restaurants, and shopping centers. 

A partial remedy to this problem is the shouse, an even more niche category of housing also taking over rural America. While the shouse is extremely barndo-esque, it provides the additional option of allowing owners to combine their living space with their workshop. This feature virtually eliminates commute time, unless you count the time it takes to walk from one room to another.

Further, while a greater emphasis on function over form renders shouses somewhat less cosmetically appealing than their barndo counterparts, these structures share many of the same advantages, including lower costs and energy efficiency. 

If migration trends over the last few years are predictive of those to come, rural areas are likely to continue to experience an influx of new residents from bigger cities. Unfortunately, housing prices have already begun to increase in smaller towns and rural areas due to this shift. However, for those with the resources, patience, and vision, a barndominium or a shouse might allow potential homebuyers to make their rural dreams a rural reality.

Opportunity costs: leaving the rural

My partner grew up in Bedford, the seat of Bedford County in Pennsylvania. The small town boasts a population of only 2,830 per the 2023 census. In 2012, when she was only 11, her family moved to San Jose, California. This allowed her mother to pursue a J.D. at Santa Clara Law school and gave the family access to many more opportunities and resources. 

This isn't uncommon-- patterns of rural depopulation are well documented and a common motivation for leaving rural places is the perceived opportunity offered in more urban areas. (Other aspects of rural population growth and loss discussed here and here.) The story of my partner and her family also provides a prime example of "brain drain," a term used to describe the flight of young individuals bound for professional success from rural places. (More on brain drain and its effects here and here.)

The opportunities that my partner's family chased were real for them. Her mother now practices as an attorney and my partner attends the UC Davis Vet School, an opportunity she says was only possible because of her family's move to California. However, the move also had drawbacks.

My partner described Bedford as a very interconnected community. Her family would attend bible studies at her cousin's home every Wednesday. They would play in the creek (pronounced "crick" and which may or may not be different than a creek) at her cousin's house, catching crayfish and building bridges out of discarded wood planks and branches. If she wasn't at her cousin's house, she was with her grandma catching frogs, playing dodgeball, or sledding in nearby cornfields in the winter. According to my partner, "the people you start kindergarten with are the same people you graduate high school with."

In sociology, the term used to describe community interconnectedness is density of acquaintanceship. The metric is concerned with the portion of people that know each other in a community.  As one might imagine, the density of acquaintanceship in cities is low when you consider the sheer number of people compared to how many might recognize each other. This urban isolation can lead to both physical and mental health problems. (Read the US Surgeon General's advisory on the loneliness epidemic here.)

This loneliness was also a very real experience for my partner. Leaving Bedford also meant leaving family, friends, and a support system she says was impossible to truly replace. This suggests that the cost of leaving her rural community was compounded. In addition to having to navigate life in a completely different place with different cultures and norms, she also simultaneously lost her access to a support system that would otherwise be helping manage the stress of such a drastic change. 

The move has created a rift between her and those she feels most supported by. Often, her family asks her if she will return to Bedford which she does not plan to do. Often, she asks her grandmother to move to California. In her grandmother's words, she was "planted in Bedford" and cannot leave. My partner still reckons with the consequences of the move and the way it pits her career and life goals against time spent with the people she has left behind. 

As I listened to what my partner had to say and as I continue to learn more about the unique problems rural communities face, it has become apparent that the forces which pull young people away from their families and support systems in rural communities stem from the same resource shortage responsible for many of the other challenges rural communities face. (Find information on the legal service shortage here. Find information on the difficulties rural schools face here. For information on law enforcement staffing problems in rural communities here.) 

However, I struggled to find research analyzing the specific struggles those who are leaving their rural communities are facing. (Here is a study analyzing the effects of rural outmigration on parents who are left behind out of China. Here is a study analyzing how parents leaving their kids in rural areas to work in cities affects the children.) This seems like an important aspect of rural outmigration to consider and, like many rural issues, deserves to be focused on with the American rural perspective in mind.

Wolves in Colorado

In the 1940s the Grey Wolf was hunted to local extinction in Colorado by locals who were fearful of the dangers wolves poised to livestock, and for the overhunting of Elk populations by the wolves. 

80 years later, in 2020, Colorado voters in a close election voted to reintroduce wolves. Proposition 114, which aimed to reintroduce wolves was passed by a split of 50.91/49.09. It was not the first attempt to reintroduce the apex predator to the centennial state. Previous measures to bring wolves back to Colorado had failed in the years prior, crucially in 2016 when the Colorado Parks and Wildlife commission had voted against reintroducing wolves (citing the impact it might have on big game hunting and ranching in the state). The election was crucial and historical- it was the first time a state, not the federal government, had taken steps to reintroduce wolves into their natural habitat. 

Wolves had already been in Colorado when Proposition 114 was passed. In 2021, a few months after the measure, but well before the first reintroduction took place, Colorado reported that the first grey wolf pups were born in the state since the 1940s (the pack had migrated from Wyoming). In the winter of 2020/2021, the state also had its first confirmed killing of a livestock by a wolf since the 1940s, due to the pack that migrated from Wyoming.

The 2020 vote on reintroducing the wolves, in a presidential election year, was the closest statewide vote of the night. Other results from the night showed big partisan swings that made it clear Colorado was now a strong blue state-the presidential election went 55.40/41.90% in favor of President Biden and the senate race went 53.5/44.2 in favor of Democrat John Hickenlooper. 

But the wolf measure did not follow the general trends of partisanship. Instead, it followed geography. On the mostly rural Western Slope (population around 590,000), the only counties that had a majority of votes in favor of the wolves reintroduction were Pitkin, Summit, San Miguel, San Juan, and La Plata. This is in stark contrast to the presidential race where 15 counties went for Biden.  Further, across the 5 counties that voted for Biden and the wolves on the Western Slope, the wolves measure on average lost around 10 points of support compared to the President. There were no counties on the rural Eastern Plains (population around 160,000) that voted in favor of the wolves.

This degree of separation between urban and rural carried clear implications in this vote. The rural areas are where the wolves will be reintroduced. 

Colorado immediately set to work on how to devise a plan to reintroduce the wolves. It involved the recommendations of two groups-a stakeholder group (comprised of ranchers, outfitters, and others speaking for communities in Colorado affected) and a technical working group (composed of wildlife experts and professionals). Colorado state officials took rural concerns seriously when it came to reintroducing the wolves, not just relying on experts but also those in communities affected. Adam Gall, a member of the stakeholder group, gave high praise to Colorado’s work, saying that Colorado Parks and Wildlife had done their due diligence in gathering diverse opinions for the stakeholder group and was respectful when it came to hearing how the stakeholders wanted reintroduction to take place. 

On Dec. 18th, 2023, three years after voting for the measure, Colorado Parks and Wildlife released the first five wolves into Colorado on the Western Slope. Colorado then released five more wolves four days later, again on the Western Slope. The state plans to release ten to fifteen wolves each year for the next three to five years, having just released the second set in January 2025.

The wolves in Colorado raise major questions about the role of rural areas, and the burdens placed on them. As one rancher put it, “Colorado livestock producers are now carrying the burden for America’s interest in wolves.” Wolves however provide many benefits to ecosystems in rural areas. Reintroducing wolves, as an apex predator, means that local prey populations are likely to not reach overcapacity, allowing fauna to flourish, and will allow other species to return to areas. 

As we go into this new era of climate change, destruction from wildfires, efforts to conserve nature, and declining wildlife populations-it seems more and more likely that conservation efforts will involve urban areas voting to pass measures that will need to be enforced in rural ones. It seems crucial to follow in Colorado’s footsteps here. State’s must make sure that rural communities' voices are heard, since they are unlikely to hold as much sway at the ballot box; yet are likely to hold up the hard end of the bargain, such as living with wolves at the doorstep. 

Hillbilly cosplay and the privilege coverup

With nearly 120,000 reviews and a 4.4-star rating among Amazon purchasers, Hillbilly Elegy seems to strike a fond chord with readers. The book, a memoir of J.D. Vance's life, tells the story of a young boy with Appalachian roots navigating a new world from Ohio to Yale Law School. Vance tells the story of how he, a self-labeled hillbilly, rose from the dregs of poverty to wealth through his hard work and grit. 

In 2020, Netflix released the film adaptation of Hillbilly Elegy. Not having copious amounts of time as a third-year law student yet wanting to know about the new U.S. Vice President, the movie would be the perfect chance for me to verify the acclaim. Unfortunately, after watching, I am left feeling unmoved, uninspired, and frankly, disappointed in the narrative promoted by Vance. 

Shortly after beginning, Hillbilly Elegy tracks Vance while in law school. The scene occurs at a recruiting event for law students attempting to network with fancy, private firm attorneys, hoping to secure a summer internship at a big firm. Initially, I felt empathy for Vance as he attempted to fit in by ordering a glass of wine. However, Vance was immediately confounded when a server presented him with several wine varietals unfamiliar to Vance, eventually being rescued by a teacher who ordered him a Chardonnay. My empathy extended as Vance became immediately uncomfortable upon sitting for dinner because of the numerous forks at his place setting, not knowing the purpose of each.

Vance's story is similar to mine. Raised by a single mom and surviving thanks to government assistance, I was utterly unprepared for law school. It seemed like all my classmates had parents who were doctors, lawyers, or white-collar professionals. For them, it seemed like law school was second nature. However, law school was a new world for someone like me—raised by a minimum-wage-earning office secretary. Like Vance, I was ultimately and utterly "a fish out of water."

While most viewers might continue watching this networking scene in Hillbilly Elegy, feeling sorry for Vance, I had a different reaction. I felt pity for Vance, but not because of his awkward situation; instead, I felt pity for Vance because I knew how the story ended. I knew who Vance would become. 

For all intents and purposes, Vance defied the odds and became successful through hard work. His rise is objectively admirable. However, I believe Vance is a cosplayer at best and a traitor to his people at worst. Vance grew up in suburban Ohio, two generations removed from living in the Appalachian hills. Although he self-designates himself a hillbilly, that designation is suspect and laughable to some critics.

Even worse than Vance's cosplay as a hillbilly when it benefits him, Vance actively engages in harmful rhetoric against his so-called people. He describes the impoverished as lazy burdens on the system. If Vance were a hillbilly, perhaps he might understand that laziness has nothing to do with the poverty experienced by poor white folk in rural America.

In my opinion, Vance is not a hillbilly. He does not deserve that title. I believe Vance only calls himself a hillbilly for one reason—to preclude accusations of privilege, as if privilege diminishes his accomplishments. 

Vance is privileged. Returning to the movie's dinner scene, Vance, upon seeing the multiple forks, retires to the hallway to ask Usha (his then-girlfriend and now wife) how to approach the dilemma. Returning to a table of classmates and prominent attorneys, Vance tells the table a little about himself. Vance goes on to talk about military service and attending The Ohio State University for his undergraduate degree, leading to one of the attorneys asking Vance if he was a "redneck."

To me, this dinner scene is perfectly illustrative of the privilege Vance has as a white man. When Vance returns to the table, he is seen and treated by the others as one of them, starting on a level playing field. Nevertheless, while Vance's sex and skin color entitle him to a favorable baseline opinion from the others, those belonging to minority groups often start far below in the esteem of the group, only to be deemed an equal by them proving themselves worthy. As Vance's statements and reactions to the group's questions grow more abrasive and subjectively rude, it is by sheer grace, and ultimately privilege, that he is offered an interview from someone at the table.

Hillbilly Elegy tells more than a story about an individual achieving the American Dream. The memoir tells the story of privilege, that despite considerable adversity, sometimes being white does mean that "you'll be all right."

Country music isn’t for everyone, but maybe it can be

I’ve always been hesitant to say I like country music. It’s an unexpected character trait for someone like me who was born and raised in San Francisco, but I grew up listening to artists like Johnny Cash, Brooks & Dunn, and Garth Brooks. Admittedly, I’ve attended about a dozen country concerts, despite the slightly judgmental comments from my country-averse friends. So, when Beyoncé and Post Malone came out with country albums this past year, it surprised me when these albums suddenly peaked my friends’ interests in country music. 

Perhaps I wouldn’t listen to country music if I hadn’t been listening to it my whole life because I can’t always relate to common motifs in country music. After all, although I enjoy singing about dirt roads in the car, I will say that I usually stick to city streets. I also don’t always agree with the political views of some country singers, and often need to separate the music from the singer. Even though I’ve loved country music my whole life, I must admit that I haven’t always felt completely safe when attending country concerts.  

This new era in country music’s popularity made me think about the importance of representation in music. Although country music has evolved over time, as highlighted by this blog post from February 2023, I’ve never seen a country artist who looks like me. In 2021, a study found that only 4% of the commercial country music industry identify as BIPOC. Beyoncé’s new country album, Cowboy Carter, reminded me of how exciting it can be to hear country music that wasn’t made by a straight, white man.

Modern country music, or what some might consider “pop country,” has made country music accessible, or more digestible, for people who historically despised country music. Pop country has also opened the door for more people to be represented through country music. As someone who appreciates both classic and pop country music, I am happy that more people are embracing and feel included by this new take on country music. For example, a 2024 article by Ebony Wiggins from The Tennessean highlighted how Beyoncé’s album had an emotional impact on her, stating: 

She’s made people like me, a Black woman, come full circle by including me in something I once felt excluded from. She’s not only opened the door, but she completely knocked it down for Black people to enter unabashed.

Wiggins recounts how Beyoncé’s album “turned [her], a non-country music supporter, into not only a fan of country music, but a fan of Beyoncé’s form of country music.” 

Unfortunately, Beyoncé’s album has not been without its critics. Candice Norwood noted in her article entitled, “With ‘Cowboy Carter,’ Black country music fans are front row and center, at last,” that an online commenter stated, “[Beyoncé] is on a mission to take country music away from us, hardworking white people!” Norwood recounted: 

This moment in music history, while high profile, is not surprising—particularly for Black fans who have been navigating this dynamic for years. Though country music is an art form developed from the sounds of Black musicians, the commercial country music industry was explicitly created to court rural, White listeners in the 1920s. 

Norwood’s article also highlights the struggle that Black country artists have experienced due to criticisms that their music does not “represent ‘authentic’ country music” because they “mix country elements with blues, soul, or hip-hop.” 

The changing demographics of country music and its fans were also highlighted in an article by Alexander Gelfand of the Berklee School of Music, who wrote: 

Much of the current demand is coming from Millennial and Gen Z listeners; and there are signs that the country music industry, which has historically sidelined women, people of color, and the LGBTQ+ community, is becoming more inclusive. 

Gelfland noted Beyoncé’s becoming the first Black female artist to top Billboard’s country album chart as well as Nigerian American artist Shaboozey making history by topping the country, pop, and rhythmic radio charts. Country artists like Luke Combs have also used country music to make a statement about the racial divides in the United States by covering Tracy Chapman’s song, “Fast Car.” 

The rise in inclusivity within the country music genre may represent a shift in how we think about country music. By holding space for artists who have unfortunately been kept out of the country music spotlight, the country music community has the opportunity to expand and diversify its audience. And, perhaps if we all listen to the same music, maybe that will make it easier to have difficult conversations with one another when it comes to politics. On a different note, I am definitely excited to have more friends who would be willing to attend country concerts with me. 

Land annexation by Solano County cities may jeopardize the future of local farmers

The fate of the controversial California Forever project has rested in the hands of Solano County's rural electorate, until recently. Now, it appears that this may no longer be true.

Last January, the Suisun City Council voted to allow its city manager "to consider annexation of more territory into the city -- land that is largely owned by . . . California Forever[,]" reports indicate. The annexation, if approved, would shift control of a significant portion of California Forever owned land from Solano County to Suisun City (one of the County’s smallest municipalities).

As a result, California Forever could “circumvent [Solano County's] Orderly Growth Initiative, which requires major developments on unincorporated county land to be approved by county voters[,]” Jack Rogers, of GlobeSt.com, reports. In other words, annexation by Suisun City may remove one of California Forever’s most challenging obstacles – rural opposition.

Moreover, the move by Suisun City is showing signs of having a snowball effect, as other Solano County municipalities seek to reap the potential benefits of the California Forever project. Last week, the Rio Vista City Council met to “consider exploring annexation in relation to lands currently owned by . . . California Forever[,]” Robin Miller, of The Reporter, said.

This news of annexation may be indicative of a strategic shift on behalf of California Forever and its billionaire backers. 

For the last two years, California Forever has maintained a community oriented position that has placed Solano County's rural voices at (or near) the center of its decision making. But, in light of a recent political setback, California Forever may be changing course. 

Last July, California Forever decided to withdraw its land rezoning measure. The Measure, had it been approved, would have rezoned nearly 18,000 acres of unincorporated Solano County land, thereby permitting new commercial and residential developments. The decision to withdraw was made just one day before the Solano County Board of Supervisors was set to decide on whether to adopt the Measure or place it before the county’s voters for approval, the Board's meeting minutes show.

Jan Sramek, CEO of California Forever, said that the decision was the result of recent polling data. Specifically, Sramek, in a joint statement with Solano County, cited polling data indicating that most of the County's voters would like to see an environmental impact report completed, before deciding on the Measure. According to Sramek, pulling the Measure would provide California Forever with ample time to create an environmental impact report.

However, other reports have cited opposition from “residents, ranchers, and farmers” as being a primary factor behind the California Forever's decision to pull the Measure. On this point, Solano Together, a community organization formed to oppose the California Forever, stated the following:

Faced with the anticipation of overwhelming rejection by Solano County voters on the ballot, California Forever has pulled the plug on the East Solano Plan Initiative. The people have spoken and California Forever has been forced to withdraw their hastily drawn, poorly designed initiative, given a surefire loss in November.

All of this begs the question: has the California Forever Coalition sought to influence the Suisun City Council's decision to annex new territory in a concerted effort to sidestep opposition from Solano County's rural electorate?

“California Forever would neither confirm nor deny that it plans to use Suisun as a backdoor for the project[,]” Brittany Maldonado, of California City News reports. However, according to ABC10, a California Forever representative had this to say about the issue: “If we receive an invitation to explore annexation by Suisun City, we would be open to a conversation.”

Annexation by Suisun, Rio Vista, or any other Solano County city, may jeopardize the future of the County's rural farmers.

To date, a number of Solano County farmers have resisted California Forever's efforts to compel sale of their farms. If a city (supportive of California Forever) were to annex formerly unincorporated land owned by County farmers, then said city could forcibly dispossess any holdout farmers of their land, through an eminent domain proceeding. At that point, the city could rezone the land to facilitate private development and deed the land to California Forever. If that were to happen, any development proposed by California Forever would only have to be approved by the city and this planning commission. 

This is in contrast to the current state of affairs. As noted above, so long as the land that California Forever seeks to develop remains under Country control, then any proposed project remains subject to voter approval, under Solano County's Orderly Growth Initiative. So, even if the County's Board of Supervisors were to suddenly become sympathetic to California Forever's vision, the voter approval requirement would still operate to deter an eminent domain forced land transfer. In other words, there would be no (or, at least significantly less of an) incentive to force a land transfer, if any new development could still be shot down by the voters.

In sum, recent moves by two Solano County cities may pave the way for California Forever to achieve its goals, with, or without, the support of the County's rural electorate. Annexation would allow California Forever to sidestep County regulations that subject new developments to voter approval. This, in turn, creates the possibility that local farmers will be forcibly dispossessed of their land, so as to facilitate California Forever's proposed developments. 

For more on the arguments for and against the California Forever project, check out this article, by Diana Lind. For other insights into California Forever and its battle with local farmers, see this blog post by UC Davis Law Professor Lisa Pruitt.

What are we trying to build: affordable housing and high-density bonus laws in California's Eastern Sierras

Mono county is dominated by the rugged beauty of the Eastern Sierras. The 4th-least-populated county in California, it has only one incorporated community: Mammoth Lakes. Home to scenic views, hiking trails, fine dining, and two ski resorts, the town has seen a boom in popularity over the past 20 years. This has caused a fierce affordable housing shortage, with real estate skyrocketing as wealthy investors seek to capitalize on the region's dynamic tourism economy.

According to realtor.com, the median listing for a home in Mammoth Lakes is $865,50. Scroll through the website's 122 entries, and you will see only a handful condominiums and studio apartments approach that figure; most houses exceed $1 million in value. A quick search on Airbnb.com, however, reveals well over 1,000 options—a ratio of more than 10 rental properties for every home on the market.

The overwhelming mismatch between rental properties and permanent residences is just one major factor driving the affordable housing crisis in California's rural eastern counties. In Mammoth Lakes, it has forced members of the local workforce to live out of their cars; Emily Markstein, a local ski instructor, tree-trimmer, yoga instructor, and waiter estimates the percentage of her colleagues embracing "van life" is greater than 20%. Speaking to the LA Times, she describes the struggle for access to basic amenities this lifestyle presents, and how it has become the most viable option for working people in Mammoth Lakes.

In nearby Inyo county, the city of Bishop grapples with similar issues. Its proximity to the wilderness has made it a long-time hub for activities like hiking, fishing, climbing, and skiing. But the mayor, Jose Garcia, says that the town "hasn't grown at all" in his tenure. This frustration stems from another key factor driving the lack of affordable housing in the Eastern Sierras: there's often nowhere to build. 

Much of the land around Bishop and Mammoth Lakes is ineligible for development. Approximately 90% of land in Mono county and 92% of land in Inyo county is federally owned, and the Los Angeles Department of Water (LADW) owns and manages an additional 250,000 acres in Inyo County and 60,000 acres in Mono County. Purchased in the 1930's, these landholdings secure water rights to Eastern Sierra snowmelts for the city of Los Angeles. This hems in communities, preventing affordable housing developments from cropping up on the outskirts of established towns and driving up the price of privately-owned land that is available for development

One proposed solution is to increase housing density within established communities. Doing so could  mean more affordable housing in the Eastern Sierras, and prevent towns like Bishop and Mammoth Lakes from having to engage in complex, multi-party land-swaps with federal agencies and LADW when they want to implement a new development project. 

There are strong legislative incentives for increasing housing density. California's density bonus laws, recently expanded under AB 1287, require cities and counties to grant zoning incentives to housing projects that reserve a certain number of units for low-income residents. This allows developers to build more market rate units than would ordinarily be allowed under the city/county's zoning laws, in exchange for guaranteeing the availability of affordable housing the developer otherwise might not build.

Although proponents of the density bonus schema praise it as necessary in a state where high costs often render affordable housing projects financially impractical, it is not without its flaws. In the Northeastern Sierra community of Truckee—a community struggling with its own housing crisis—homeowners John Kedzie and Jim Frances have criticized high-density bonus programs, arguing that by mandating approval of projects that meet arbitrary thresholds, legitimate local concerns such as snow storage and traffic infrastructure are bypassed. 

Several places in the Sierras have implemented their own initiatives to combat the lack of affordable housing. Nevada, Amador, Calaveras, and Mariposa counties have partnered to launch the Mother Lode ADU program. Its goal is to streamline the construction and approval process for accessory dwelling units (ADUS)—self-contained residences constructed on private properties that already have homes, usually by the homeowner.  The focus is on working directly with community members, instead of development companies, to increase housing density on a small scale.

Back in Mammoth Lakes, the Mono County housing program offers down-payment assistance loans, support for some development projects, and a revolving loan fund that supports the preservation of deed restricted units (among other things). The program's goals are explicit: it's designed to solve "the market failure that has caused the large housing shortage locally, especially for local workforce households."

These programs' long-term effects on affordable housing remains unclear. However, any truly comprehensive solution will have to address the region's relationship with ecotourism directly. The proliferation of expensive rental properties in places like Bishop and Mammoth Lakes, coupled with their proximity to pristine wilderness, make them ripe for rural gentrification—simply increasing housing density won't solve the deeper problems.

When you wish upon a media conglomerate: Disney's depiction of rurality

While I don’t consider myself a “Disney adult,” my friends argue my Little Mermaid socks and Mickey Mouse bucket hat suggest otherwise. Regardless of my title, I admit I have fond memories visiting Disneyland with my family.

However, I know visiting Disneyland is a privilege. As a previous blog post discusses, the difference in average household income between metro and non metro areas has increased by nearly 30 percent since 2016. Given the rising costs of attending Disneyland or Disney World, families from metro areas are better situated to afford the trip.

Yet, Disney’s influence isn’t confined to physical theme parks. The company owns or has a stake in a plethora of companies including: ABC, ESPN, National Geographic, FX Networks, Hulu, Pixar, Marvel, 20th Century Studios, Lucasfilm, A&E Networks and Vice Media. This monopoly allows Disney to influence and control media narratives.

But, as discussed in a previous blog post, nearly 25 percent of rural Americans lack access to high speed broadband internet, a higher number compared to their urban and suburban counterparts. As such, those who can access media owned by Disney likely skew more urban and suburban.

Therefore, overall, Disney likely speaks to a largely suburban and urban audience, and thus can mold audiences’ perceptions of rurality.

The company, begun by Walt Disney, originally reflected the more small town, rural values of Walt’s childhood. Although born in Chicago, Walt spent years of his childhood on a farm in Marceline, Missouri, which today has a population of 2,123. As such, when Walt began The Disney Brothers Cartoon Studio in 1923, many films centered on Mickey Mouse in rural America. In fact, Walt Disney described Main Street, USA, which is how all visitors enter Disneyland, as a typical small town in the early 1900s. Indeed, the street was inspired by Walt’s time in Marceline.

But, as the world expanded and urbanized in the latter half of the 20th century, so too did Disney. Around the time Disneyland opened in 1955, 64 percent of the U.S. population lived in urban areas, compared to 83 percent of the population now. In line with the demographic change, Disney has created more movies and shows set in cities. And, audiences have responded favorably. Today, for example, two of the highest grossing cartoon Disney movies are Incredibles 2 and Inside Out 2: the former taking place across multiple large, fictionalized cities and the latter in San Francisco.

While less frequent, however, Disney has not stopped depicting rurality. Thus, it is important to consider how a primarily suburban and urban audience views and understands these depictions in the 21st century.

While not nearly as high grossing as Incredibles 2 or Inside Out 2, one of the more obvious displays of rurality is Disney Pixar’s Cars, the 2006 movie about anthropomorphic vehicles. In the film, Lightning McQueen, a race car, gets stranded in the rural town Radiator Springs. One of the protagonists of Cars is Tow Mater, described as a tow truck with buck teeth and a Southern accent with a hillbilly twang.

The inspiration for Tow Mater came from a real life man, Douglas “Mater” Keever, a construction superintendent living in Sherrills Ford, North Carolina. Cars director John Lasseter struck up a friendship with Keever at Lowe’s Speedway in 2001. He met him on what locals anointed “Redneck Hill,” the place hardcore fans camped out to watch races. When they first met, Keever introduced himself as:

Mater . . . tuh-mater, but without the tuh.

Lasseter faced a creative block during development of the movie, before remembering his interaction with Keever. He called him in the middle of the day, asking if the Cars team could use his name. Keever happily agreed, and even made a brief cameo in the movie. In fact, his exact introduction to Lasseter became Tow Mater’s introduction to Lightning McQueen. In an interview with Entertainment Weekly, Keever stated:

You don’t know what Pixar has done for Mater. They’ve taken a poor old country boy and got him involved in something awesome . . . They paid me for my name, and for me to come out there and record my parts and stuff. They really looked after Mater. Paid for my mo-tel. They really bent over backwards.

While Disney paid Keever for contributions, we don’t know the exact amount. Thus, it’s hard to gauge whether Keever was fairly compensated for inspiring one of the most beloved characters in Cars, a movie that grossed over $240 million. Plus, Disney further capitalized on Cars’ popularity by building a real-life Radiator Springs for Disneyland.

Additionally, some label the character Tow Mater problematic, arguing he’s a stereotype of low class, rural white people. A Daily Yonder article entitled “Speak Your Piece: Hollywood’s Rural America is a Scary Place” opens with the simple question:

Why does Hollywood think rural America is either ridiculous or evil?

Tow Mater is no doubt ridiculous, and it's hard to know if urban and suburban audiences laugh at him or with him. Or, if Cars successfully conveys deeper themes about rural communities. But, perhaps the most weight should be given to the fact that the rural man who inspired Cars likes the movie. Additionally, Cars tells a story about two strangers from different backgrounds who form a strong friendship, a beneficial message for a primarily suburban and urban audience.

Whether Disney’s more modern approach to rurality necessitates celebration, criticism, or a mix of both, is a tricky question. I don’t have a clear answer. But, even as a potential Disney adult, one thing is clear to me. With great power comes great responsibility. Given Disney’s immense power, we should ask tough questions to ensure the company provides positive representations of marginalized communities.

Countryside aesthetic for sale

Imagine images of ivy-covered cottages, floral printed summer dresses, and pastel-colored tea parties hosted next to lushful, green meadows. These scenes are all part of a social media trend referred to as “cottage core.” Simply put, the aesthetic centers around embracing the simplicity of countryside living and focusing on a slower pace of life. A New York Times article described the trend as:

It could ​​be the beginning of a Hans Christian Andersen fairy tale, before the inevitable darkness seeps in, but rather it’s the backdrop of a budding aesthetic movement called cottagecore, where tropes of rural self-sufficiency converge with dainty décor to create an exceptionally twee distillation of pastoral existence.

The modern escapist fantasy has been around for ages but became increasingly popular around 2020, especially on social media platforms like TikTok and Instagram. The cottage core aesthetic was likely an antidote to the panic and stress of living in close proximity to others during the COVID-19 pandemic.

However, this popular aesthetic does not account for its gentrifying effects on rural communities. Rural gentrification refers to the migration of affluent urban and suburban residents into rural places. This process can lead to real consequences for rural residents:

These include the displacement of poor, working-class, and middle-class people from areas experiencing gentrification because of the increasing price of housing and land, sometimes pushing existing residents into communities that are considered ​“chronically poor,” where they can afford housing. Thus, these demands create new opportunities and tensions within the community, particularly its land-use patterns.

The trend encourages consumers to buy land and cottages in picturesque rural towns in order to cultivate the romanticized country lifestyle. These “rural gentrifiers” are usually more abundant in picturesque towns located in the West and Midwest.

One example is Gunnison County in Colorado. The county has scenic lakes and mountainous landscapes, which fit perfectly against the backdrop of the cottage core aesthetic. The area has attracted many affluent families to purchase a second home in this area. However, the surge of wealthy residents has left a housing shortage and stark income inequality. This forces the valley’s low-paid seasonal and service workers to pay more than average for housing:

According to Headwaters Economics, a nonprofit research firm, Gunnison County’s workers devote 32% of their income on average to rent, compared to 19% in non-tourism-based economies.

The housing in Gunnison County is so sparse that many of the local motels have become month-to-month rentals for low-income families. Thus, this forcibly displaces long-time rural residents, puts families in vulnerable situations, and creates a cultural division within the community.

Although only the wealthy few can afford second homes in these rural communities, the need to buy into an aesthetic can lead to real and catastrophic effects. When the trend starts to fade away, rural residents are forced to deal with the aftermath. 

To learn more about rural gentrification, see How and why Democrats are failing to attract rural voters: Is it the economy, stupid? and On rural gentrification, and the ensuing housing shortage, in coastal California.

Rural areas rely on federal employment, and the Trump Administration’s job cuts hit those communities the hardest

The federal government owns vast swaths of land across the Western United States, and rural communities are sprinkled throughout. There is a symbiotic relationship between the federal government and these rural communities. The federal government employs people in rural communities to manage its landholdings, and rural communities rely on the federal government for their livelihoods. However, President Trump has upended this balance.

The federal government is one of the largest employers in many rural communities. This includes the United States Forest Service (Forest Service), the Bureau of Land Management (BLM), and the National Park Service (NPS), to name a few. The Trump Administration has initiated mass layoffs of federal employees across many Federal Agencies. These layoffs have already decimated the NPS and its workforce.

The Forest Service and the BLM have also been hit hard by these layoffs. Rural communities are already feeling the effects of the layoffs, and rural people are suffering.

One example is the town of Salmon, Idaho. Salmon is located next to the Salmon-Challis National Forest and is a popular recreation spot. In the town of Salmon, 25 federal lands employees have been laid off. In a town of 3,000 people, this is a devastating economic blow.

One of the hardest hit federal agencies is the Forest Service. Employees within the Forest Service who engage in work related to climate change have been laid off. Many of these employees have not completed their probationary period and can be fired at any time. However, there is considerable debate over how many Forest Service employees have been let go. The Trump Administration asserts that only 2,000 Forest Service employees have been affected by the layoffs, but many believe that number to be much higher.

The effects of Forest Service and BLM layoffs go far beyond the economic impact on rural communities. The Forest Service manages 193 million acres of land, while the BLM manages 245 million acres of land. Much of this land is prone to catastrophic wildfire events if not properly managed.

While the Trump Administration's layoffs exempt firefighting personnel, many of the people who lost their jobs engaged in “trail maintenance, fuels reduction and other forestry projects.” These other projects helped reduce wildfire risk, and, as mentioned above, employed thousands of people in rural communities, many of whom were seasonal workers.

Many have already expressed concerns about how these layoffs will affect the upcoming wildfire season. Nevada State Forester and Firewarden Kacey KC stated that she is concerned with “staffing emergency management teams with dispatchers, technicians, and GIS workers, none of whom would likely qualify for the exemption for direct firefighters but are still a vital part of wildfire prevention and mitigation.” When wildfire season inevitably rolls around, firefighting crews may not have the necessary resources to do their job.

Wildfires are incredibly destructive and often decimate rural communities. With crews being understaffed, the task of fighting wildfires, already a difficult task, will become even more difficult. This presents the risk of increased property loss and even an increased risk for the loss of human life.

Given all concerns with the layoffs of Forest Service and BLM employees, many people, especially those in rural communities, have voiced their concerns to elected officials. One example of this is a recent town hall meeting in Oregon where House Representative Cliff Bentz met with nearly 400 of his Eastern Oregon constituents.

During this town hall meeting, many people were angry and protested Bentz’s support of the Trump Administration. Many people expressed the same concerns raised above, including the economic impacts on rural communities that depend on federal employment opportunities and the fear that wildland firefighting crews will be critically understaffed. Bentz eventually became so frustrated with the crowd that he asked, “If you just came here to yell, I can leave — do you want me to do that?”

This exchange between Rep. Bentz and his constituents shows how divisive this topic is. Rural people's livelihoods have been affected by the Trump administration's decision to lay off thousands of government employees. People are frustrated and upset due to the potential for increased economic hardship and wildfire risk in rural areas.

Currently, the Trump Administration has no intentions of reversing the layoffs of thousands of federal government employees. While the true effects of these layoffs are not yet known, states are likely not able to fill the gap left behind by the federal government. People in rural areas will continue to suffer economic hardship as federal jobs disappear and the risk of catastrophic wildfire events continues to grow.

Welfare for the rich in California agriculture

A new report by Gregory Weaver of Fresnoland on California’s Williamson Act adds to the unrelenting stream of news about the disproportionate power and influence of America’s wealthiest citizens. . The report by Fresnoland, a nonprofit newsroom and policy research lab launched by the Fresno Bee, examines the highly unequal distribution of tax benefits under the Williamson Act. 

Per this 1990 report by the Agricultural Issues Center at UC Davis, the Williamson Act, passed in 1965, allows property owners in participating counties to sign contracts with the county that provide landowners with reduced property tax assessments in exchange for restricting the development of their land. County participation is voluntary, although as of 2020, the CA Department of Conservation reported that 52 out of 58 counties had signed contracts with landowners. At its inception, the Act provided for partial reimbursement of the lost local tax revenue by the state, but state funding for the program ceased in 2010, leaving counties to absorb the loss of revenue themselves.  

The intent of the Williamson Act was pro-rural, as it was meant to protect California agricultural land from urban and suburban sprawl that was rapidly encroaching on rural areas in the mid-20th century. By lowering property taxes, the Act’s drafters sought to help farmers hold onto land that they might otherwise have been tempted to sell to real estate developers seeking to build the next subdivision. 

Williamson Act tax breaks have been exploited by large conglomerates and investors to generate larger returns on their investment in massive industrial farming operations.  Fresnoland’s analysis found that “just 120 mega-farms – less than 1% of recipients – are capturing half of the program's $5 billion tax shelter,” while the majority of farmers receive less than $800 in tax breaks per year. 

Under standard property tax formulas, agricultural landowners are taxed based on the purchase price they paid for the farmland. However, if they enroll in the Williamson Act, they instead pay a much lower tax rate calculated using the land’s potential rental value for agriculture, [Fresno County Assessor Paul] Dictos said. This preferential tax structure applies to all farmers enrolled in the Williamson Act. But Dictos said it’s the deep-pocketed investors who acquired prime farmland in recent years who see the largest tax reductions. The result of this tax formula is that the higher the purchase price, the bigger the Act’s tax subsidy, Dictos said. Small farmers and landowners who have owned their land for generations see hardly any benefit under this tax formula, multiple assessors from across the state told Fresnoland.

The Williamson Act property valuation mechanism has led to a discrepancy in tax benefits in which small and medium-sized farmers in Fresno County “are subsidized $24 per acre, while the top mega-growers get $62 per acre.” In Fresno County alone, Williamson Act tax benefits lowered county revenue in 2022 by $50 million below what it would have been absent the subsidies, and over the last 30 years the Act has resulted in a total decrease of $820 million in revenue, most of which has gone to the largest and wealthiest owners of agricultural land. 

Instead of providing a boost to local small farmers, most of the benefits go to large corporations that need no government assistance. Some of these tax breaks are going to investors far outside the county, including the second-largest subsidy in 2022 going to a $240 billion pension fund for the Royal Canadian Mounted Police, and the fifth-largest subsidy going to Gladstone, Inc., a corporation whose purpose is “actively acquiring” agricultural land across the U.S. The report also found that nearly all of the land owned by mega-farmers that receive these benefits are more than a mile from any city.  Thus, the land is not even “at risk of being paved over by encroaching suburban sprawl.”

This outcome strikes me as profoundly unjust and something that the California legislature should rectify. At a time of increasing wealth inequality, providing tax breaks for wealthy investors and corporations to further buy up and consolidate farmland has the primary effect of selling out localities and rural areas that could use the tax revenue for schools, roads, and social services. The issues with the Williamson Act are not unique to California, as experts have observed that the farm "subsidy system is literally undermining the economic and social foundation of rural communities."

Given recent consolidation trends in U.S. agriculture, lawmakers should examine how exactly the Williamson Act is "saving" agricultural land and formulate new policy that actually helps small farmers who live and work in rural parts of the state. Providing financial benefits to large companies who use more water-intensive, extractive agricultural methods provides a sustainable future for only those companies.

Leaving rural agricultural land to the whims of the free market leaves those with fewer resources open to exploitation by moneyed interests. The same economic forces that compel small farmers to sell to industrial agricultural operations are those that led many people in Solano County to sell to the folks from California Forever (further discussed here, here, and here). 

It seems as though tax incentives to protect rural land inevitably end up being exploited by sophisticated investors, as is the case with conservation easements. And protecting existing landowners and creating incentives that drive up land prices only makes it that much harder for those, such as young people and immigrants, who do not already have extensive resources to start new farms. 

There are myriad other agricultural laws and policies that are intended to support farming in California and the U.S. more broadly. Yet the agricultural industry continues to move away from the subsistence model towards large, extractive, profit-seeking ventures. California should take a hard look at how the Williamson Act contributes to that trend and imagine better ways to support the people who live in rural areas rather than aiding those who simply extract profit from them. 

For more discussion of the Williamson Act, see here, here, and here.

Amid mass layoffs in the National Parks Service, rural communities could be some of the first to suffer.

 On February 14th, 2025, the Trump administration fired 1,000 National Park Service (NPS) employees and several times that number of U.S. Forest Service employees, in the wake of a federal hiring freeze for full and part-time positions with the NPS.

While the Department of the Interior recently exempted 5,000 seasonal workers from the hiring freeze, this represents only a portion of the estimated 7,500 part-time employees NPS hires to help manage the hectic spring and summer. It is unclear if these 5,000 positions will have to be re-advertised and whether early applicants will have to re-apply; if they do, it could result in substantial hiring delays, stretching the NPS' already thin resources even further during peak season. 

  The NPS only has funding for "about 13,000 full-time employees nation wide," according to their website, and some of these jobs are already unfilled. The full-time layoffs thus represent the elimination of nearly 1/10th of NPS positions. Additionally, the full-time hiring freeze also affects incoming NPS rangers, with those about to begin training having job offers rescinded as of January 27th, contradicting previous statements from the Trump Administration that law enforcement personnel would not be affected by federal layoffs.

Theresa Pierno, President and CEO for the National Parks Conservation Association (NPCA) said in a Feb. 14th press release that the administration's actions will have "devastating consequences for parks and communities," warning that larger parks could lose key staff and smaller parks risk closing their doors altogether. Former NPS director Jonathan Jarvis said in a statement to the National Parks Traveler that the layoffs would cause "chaos," leaving visitors unsatisfied and at potentially serious risk. Search-and-rescue crews, firefighters, and emergency medical service positions are often filled by seasonal workers.

As both Pierno and Jarvis noted, however, it is not just visitors and employees that will be affected by these policies. A 2019 study from headwaterseconomics.org shows 224 rural counties (16.8% of all counties defined as rural by the census bureau) have recreation-dependent economies. Many of these counties are contiguous with national parks or forests, and rely heavily on visitors to stimulate local businesses. (You can read more about rural recreation economies and ecotourism on the blog here).

Although rural recreation economies are often linked with gentrification, there may be some advantages to this model. Rural recreation counties saw more post-pandemic job growth than other rural counties, although this varied slightly from region to region. Rural recreation counties were identified as significantly less likely to experience population loss than non-recreation counties. They were also found to have more food-away-from-home (FAFH) outlets per 1,000 people than metropolitan counties, according to a 2019 study by the USDA, Economic Research Service and the University of Arkansas. 

To help support these recreation economies, the EPA formed the Recreation Economy for Rural Communities (RERC) in 2019. This program establishes 'steering committees' designed to work closely with rural communities, providing locally tailored workshops and guidance and helping to ensure "equitable access to the outdoors for residents and visitors alike." Partner communities have been established in 16 states, primarily in counties adjacent to or contiguous with a national park, forest, or monument. 

 The federal hiring freeze is very likely to negatively impact rural recreation economies. It is unclear whether programs like the RERC will survive, and as parks become more difficult to operate, tourists will be less satisfied, either withdrawing from or lashing out at surrounding communities. A 2023 National Park Visitor Spending Effects survey found that 325.5 million visitors spent $26.4 billion in communities near national parks, providing 415,400 jobs, $19.4 billion in labor income, and $55.6 billion in economic output overall. Ms. Pierno emphasized that slashing staff would have a devastating ripple effect on the business and communities that depend on parks for their survival. With the summer rush mere months away, many of these communities will have already invested in new infrastructure to support the influx of tourists. If that influx doesn't materialize, they face unprecedented revenue loss.

The federal funding freeze forecasts uncertainty for rural farmers and communities

Over the past month, President Trump's administration has been characterized by chaos and disorientation. Confusion surmounts as to what the future has in store, and the federal funding freeze is no exception. On January 27, 2025, the Office of Management and Budget released an administrative order freezing federal grants and loans, sparking public outrage from recipients scared of losing their jobs, educational funding, and livelihoods.

Although the order was rescinded only a few days after its implementation, and despite federal judges opposing the pause on funding, some government agencies are still withholding funding from those who need it. Troublingly, Vice President J.D. Vance chimed in on X regarding this battle between the executive and judicial branches by saying, "[j]udges aren't allowed to control the executive's legitimate power."

So, if you're wondering if there is a federal funding freeze currently, the answer seems to be that it depends on which government agency you're asking about. And if you're wondering whether there will be a federal funding freeze, that might depend on to what extent President Trump disregards the will of the federal courts.

In other words, who knows.

Unfortunately, the Trump administration's will-they-won't-they approach to the funding freeze has already begun impacting rural business owners, particularly farmers. 

For example, Hugh Lassen's family in Cherryfield, Maine, runs a small organic wild blueberry farm called Intervale Farm. The family shared with the Associated Press their worries that the pause on funding will keep them from receiving needed reimbursement for purchasing environmentally friendly equipment. Particularly, the Lassens spent $25,7000 on solar panels, a blueberry sorter, and 14 freezers under the impression they would receive an $8,000 grant through the Rural Energy for America Program. Now, they have no way of knowing whether they will get anything.

This uncertainty is only compounded by the reality that farmers are particularly vulnerable to unpredictable changes in the weather and changes in the economy. Farmers' ability to earn a living can vary significantly year-to-year due to circumstances beyond their control, such as natural disasters or inflation. As such, rural farmers will disproportionately feel the impact of Trump's federal budget cuts.

However, the looming threat of discontinued funding will not only hurt individual farmers. Rob Larew, a "sixth-generation farmer from West Virginia" writing for MSNBC, lays out numerous examples of the freeze's potential impacts. He argues that while the funding freeze has most immediately impacted "climate-smart agricultural projects," pushing rural families into bankruptcy will only serve to gut rural economies.

Larew forecasts a bleak future, where fewer farmers in rural areas will mean fewer families, and fewer families will result in "less money spent on local businesses, fewer kids in the local schools, and fewer tax dollars for roads, hospitals and emergency services." Further, Larew points out the potential ripple effects of a federal funding freeze, including disrupted market prices, limited food science research, fewer food safety inspectors, and an inability to maintain rural infrastructure. You can read more about issues relating to rural infrastructure here, here, and here.

One thing's for sure: The last thing small farmers need is more uncertainty. For now, however, uncertainty may be the only thing the Trump administration can promise business owners and farmers in rural communities. 

Has the far-right taken over rural France?

The leading far-right party in France is called the National Rally (Rassemblement National, RN). Some of its early members were affiliated with the Waffen-SS, a military unit under Nazi command during the second world war. The party is currently led by Jordan Bardella, one of France’s youngest politicians.

With Bardella, the party found a new face that helped its rebranding. His popularity is proof that what was once taboo is now normalized and has become mainstream. Today, voting for the far-right is no longer something to be ashamed of in France. RN’s president has unprecedented popularity due to his carefully curated social media presence. His Tik Tok account makes him look familiar and relatable. He also appeals to the unemployed, the working class and young people in rural areas. 

 

Vincent Lebrou, professor at Université de Franche-Comté told BBC News that the RN is attractive to people who live in rural areas because they are affected by unemployment and deindustrialization. The population is often less educated and experiences professional difficulties. Many Montbéliard citizens feel they have lost their safety and economic security, leading them to believe that the RN is the true solution. 

 

Last year, France held parliamentary elections. In Colombier-Saugnieu, 54% of voters cast their ballot for the far-right party. Citizens of that village explain they support the National Rally because they desire change. They say they want more dialogue, less violence and are heavily influenced by what they see on the news coverage of big cities, which results in blaming immigration. One could argue that people in the countryside are afraid of situations they aren’t directly experiencing and only judge what they see on television. The far-right clearly has an agenda, but people from big cities often highlight diversity and do not share the same fears, unlike what the media is trying to portray. 

 

In reality, the far-right’s rise is not exclusive to rural areas, cities like Nice are also affected. French media was quick to highlight a political divide between urban and rural areas but much of the voting pattern can be attributed to the demographics living in both areas. According to Mathieu Gallard, account director for Ipsos, rural France has more people from the working class, more retired citizens, and more individuals without higher education. This would explain the appeal of the far-right.

 

Nevertheless, generalizations should be made cautiously, as rural France is not monolithic. Regardless of where people live, voters are united by the cost of living. The far-right has convinced French citizens that economic growth will be achieved by combating immigration. Such a claim is questionable because in 2022, immigrants made up just over 10% of France’s population and a third had already obtained French nationality.

 

During a rally, Jordan Bardella told his crowd that French civilization would die as it is being submerged by migrants who will change France’s culture, customs, and way of life. While campaigning for the parliamentary elections, he made threats of mass expulsions, claiming the country needed to rid itself of delinquents, criminals, and foreign Islamists. Similarly, Trump has referred to immigrants as “aliens” and “animals”. He uses hateful and dehumanizing language to argue against a group of people. This rhetoric isn’t unique to the U.S. During World War II, fascists leaders in Europe targeted Jews, gay people, and other groups, labeling them as “social pollution”.

 

It is evident that the far-right is rising all around the world. It looks like society is slowly drifting back towards fascism. What could we do to make a significant change?