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. 

Tax in rural communities: missed credits and missing accountants

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.

According to the US Census Bureau, rural communities tend to "have lower median household incomes" when compared to metro communities. However, according to the same data, rural communities have lower poverty rates than urban communities. It is not too much of a stretch to infer that rural Americans would be in the tax bracket with low tax liability, but not falling below the statutory filing threshold. 

Credit: Internal Revenue Service, Publication 501 (2025)

The tax code is structured, in part, to remedy inequalities between poorer and affluent Americans through expenditures like the Earned Income Tax Credit and the Child Tax Credit. 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 stand to benefit disproportionately from the Earned Income Tax Credit. However, rural residents often do not apply because they are unaware that they are eligible. 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 so that filers can identify volunteers near them. These efforts, too, have 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 they must rely on volunteer accountants, rural communities may be underserved. 

Accountants located near Alturas, 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 Baby Boomer generation professionals, many positions will remain unfilled.

Credit: Preston Fore, AICPA 2023 Trends Report

Some smaller accounting firms have rejected potential clients because they have too few professionals to do the work. 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. When firms turn away clients, bad actors may fill the gaps.

In addition to a shortage of 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, like the Farmer's Tax Guide. The Farmer's Tax Guide and other published materials are regularly updated to remain accurate to the current iteration of the tax code. 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.  When those procedures are ongoing, interest is nevertheless ticking 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 helpful, yet, but also 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. 

Grape vines at Tablas Creek Vineyard in Paso Robles, July 30, 2025. 

Credit: Larry Valenzuela, CalMatters/CatchLight Local

Business owners still have options with the IRS publication information, even with a lack of close CPAs. A CPA is a term used for a certified public accountant who is authorized and licensed by the state jurisdiction to prepare taxes for a taxpayer. Kaizen CPA's accounting site recommends that business owners use QuickBooks if they net less than $500,000 each year. If their net income is more than that, Kaizen recommends a live CPA.  

For context, QuickBooks is a tax preparation software program offered by Intuit on a subscription basis. Intuit is the same company which offers taxpayers access to TurboTax each tax season. With QuickBooks, subscribers have the functionality to automate bookkeeping, generate business reports (i.e. Profit & Loss reports), produce invoices for the subscriber's customers, and with the most expensive subscription option, synchronize data from Microsoft Excel sheets. Most importantly for tax purposes, QuickBooks can calculate sales tax liabilities and generate Form 1099s (to report income generated outside of standard employment) for the subscribing business.  

Rural businesses might not have the option to choose a live CPA over 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: calculating and filing taxes are often too complex for taxpayers to handle on their own. Furthermore, CPAs are responsible for more than tax filing, planning, and appeals. CPAs must be ready to produce financial reports, audit revenue expenditures, ensure compliance with regulatory bodies like the Securities and Exchange Commission, and investigate potential fraud within a business through forensic accounting. With a shortage of live CPAs and IRS employees, taxpayers will need to increasingly rely upon accounting software, which may miss niche credits that the taxpayer qualifies for. Rural taxpayers may thus need to embrace a new type of self-reliance when it comes to financial literacy. 

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.

40 hours or 60: Who decides what rural labor is worth?

Sugar beet worker in Colorado (1938). Source: Library of Congress 

In 2011, this blog post observed that farmworkers:

[R]eceive little protection from the law...[and] are excluded from the National Labor Relations Act.

The National Labor Relations Act gives workers the right to unionize, and the exclusion of farm workers is part of a broader pattern. The Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 similarly exempted agricultural workers from overtime protections; a carve-out that persists at the federal level today. As the National Employment Law Project has noted, Congress approved this exemption as part of a:

[G]rand compromise that excluded farm and domestic workers - who were overwhelmingly Black - from the protections being afforded to other workers.

Colorado is now testing whether states can succeed where the federal government has not; a move is afoot there to extend overtime protections to farmworkers without triggering the very harms those protections are meant to prevent. 

Here's some recent history. In 2021, Colorado Governor Jared Polis signed Senate Bill ("SB") 21-087, the "Farmworker Bill of Rights," which brought agricultural workers under state overtime rules for the first time. The law was phased in gradually, initially kicking in at 60 hours per week, then declining over time. Currently, the law operates through a bifurcated system: workers harvesting outside the peak season are generally paid overtime after 48 hours, while peak-season workers receive overtime after 56 hours. 

Map of Colorado Counties. Source: David Benbennick, Wikimedia Commons

Now, five years later, Democrats in the state legislature are split over what comes next. One bill would lower the threshold to 40 hours, matching the standard for other industries. A competing bill would raise it back to 60, essentially returning to where the phase-in began.  

Senator Jessie Danielson has introduced SB 26-081, which would lower the threshold to 40 hours per workweek or 12 hours per workday, matching the standard for most other Colorado workers. Senate Majority Leader Robert Rodriguez is expected to introduce a competing bill that would raise the threshold to 60 hours before overtime applies. 

Farm operators argue that a 40-hour threshold could be fatal. Don Brown, a Yuma County farmer and former state agriculture commissioner, told Colorado Politics that if the 40-hour bill passes, "we will have to figure out how to eliminate jobs and mechanize more."

Peach picker in Palisade, CA (2015).
Source: Library of Congress. 

Bruce Talbott, owner of Talbott Farms, is the largest fruit grower on the Western Slope: a portion of Colorado that is west of the Continental Divide (the mountain ridge that separates rivers flowing to the Pacific Ocean from those flowing to the Atlantic Ocean), and is home to the state's fruit-growing industry. Talbott Farms recently built a new bunkhouse to spread hours across more workers to minimize overtime. In response to the possibility of lowering the overtime threshold to 40 hours, Talbott stated: 

All businesses have to live within their means. In the end, it's the farmworker who gets hurt. 

The industry also faces broader challenges. The director of the Colorado Department of Agriculture's market division noted that net farm income is projected to drop to $1.8 billion in 2026 - $400 million lower than the previous year - citing fluctuating markets and low commodity prices. 

Farmworker advocates see the issue differently. Betty Velasquez of Project Protect Food Systems Workers argues:

[Farmworkers] are the people providing food on our tables. They should have access to earn more money as well. 

Advocates also contend that the industry has not produced data showing overtime rules specifically cause harm, and they point out that reduced hours have given workers more time with their families. Yet, the empirical picture is also contested. 

A 2023 study by UC Berkeley researcher Alexandra Hill found that California's overtime law led to reduced hours and earnings for farmworkers after employers shortened workweeks to avoid overtime costs. Hill's continued research found that by 2022:

[California farmworkers] earned about a hundred dollars less per week on average than they would have without the law in place. 

The Colorado debate exposes a structural tension in rural livelihood policy. Agricultural exceptionalism - the legal tradition of treating farm labor as categorically different - was born of a racist compromise in 1938. States like Colorado and California are now experimenting with alternatives. Those experiments produce uneven results, with some states like New York and Oregon offering tax credits to offset higher labor costs while others press forward without such cushions. Workers and operators each claim to speak for the rural interest. 

Senator Danielson insists the state should be doing more to protect farmworkers. Senator Rodriguez frames the dilemma as "death by 1,000 cuts" - death to farmers, that is - by water shortages, tariffs, and now labor costs. 

Both are Democrats. Both represent rural livelihoods. Neither has a clean answer.

NYS Agricultural Resiliency Against Tariffs Program: Is it enough to support the dairy and specialty crop sectors in New York?

On January 13, 2026, New York Governor Kathy Hochul proposed the Agricultural Resiliency Against Tariffs Program, a $30 million initiative aimed at supporting farmers and agricultural businesses in New York hit by the ongoing effects of federal tariffs. The program is designed to provide direct payments to specialty crop growers, livestock producers, and dairy farmers—sectors that have often been left out of federal assistance programs.

According to the press release, these payments are intended to provide financial support that the USDA’s national relief programs fail to deliver, especially for specialty crops and dairy farms, which the announcement notes receive “no meaningful support.”

This statement likely references the Farmer Bridge Assistance (FBA) Program, a one-time federal relief program announced on December 8, 2025. While the FBA provides $12 billion in one-time direct payments to farmers nationwide, assistance is not available to dairy farms and merely $1 billion is available to specialty crops and sugar nationwide. Additionally, the FBA payments are capped at $155,000 per producer, limiting assistance for mid-size and large farms. With this context, Governor Hochul’s program attempts to fill a noticeable gap for New York farmers…but is $30 million enough to make a meaningful difference?

In New York, the dairy industry is the largest single segment of the agriculture industry. The nearly 3,000 dairy farms in New York produce the largest quantity of yogurt and cottage cheese in the United States and New York is the fifth largest dairy state. The dairy industry has seen significant change in New York over the past ten years, with the number of dairy farmers dropping from 4,955 in 2014 to 2,864 in 2024. However, over the same 10-year span, the average number of cows in the state has increased from 615,000 to 630,000. These statistics indicate that small farms are closing, and larger farms are increasing in capacity. This trend, known as farm consolidation, reflects broader pressures on family farms that are struggling to survive in a rapidly changing agricultural economy.

According to the New York State Tariff Disruptions Report, over 20% of a farmer’s income typically depends on exports. The report also highlights that more than 80% of agrochemical imports and 70% of farm machinery are imported from countries subject to the administration’s tariffs. Farmers income reliance on exports may lead to heightened revenue volatility and retaliatory tariffs may raise production costs through raising the price of importing machinery, seeds, fertilizer, and other necessary equipment. Smaller farms that operate on thin margins often with less access to capital are left particularly vulnerable. If tariffs persist, these pressures could accelerate consolidation even further, leaving fewer, larger farms controlling even more of the state’s dairy sector.

To provide context for the Agricultural Resiliency Against Tariffs Program, currently approximately 2,800 dairy farms operate in New York state, excluding specialty crop growers. When the proposed $30 million in direct payments is divided amongst just the dairy farms, each operation would receive roughly $10,000. Once specialty crop growers are factored in, the assistance will be significantly lower per farm. While the assistance will likely be welcomed by farmers, will it be enough to make a meaningful impact? It may provide temporary relief in the industry, but any long-term benefits seem unlikely, especially with no end in sight of the tariff war.

 

Beyond immediate financial relief, the Agricultural Resiliency Against Tariffs Program demonstrates tension between state-level intervention and federal trade policy. Negative impacts from tariffs, such as increased input costs, are often disproportionately felt on individual producer or small producer levels. While direct payments from the government can temporarily offset losses caused by retaliatory tariffs or increased import costs, they do not address underlying structural pressures. Smaller farms continue to face rising input costs, labor shortages, and operational challenges that may not be alleviated by one-time or short-term payments.

The central policy question is not merely whether $30 million is sufficient in the short term to bolster the dairy, livestock, and specialty crops sectors in New York, but also whether state-level relief can bolster industry resilience without broad reforms. Ultimately, state-level measures to support farms can mitigate, but not fully counteract, the effects of federal trade decisions.

Will Trump's immigration policies hurt the farmers who supported him?

Photo Credit: Larry Valenzuela, CalMatters/CatchLight Local (2025)

In the 2024 election, Trump had the most support from rural America, winning 93% of rural counties. Rural Americans have been supporting Trump since his first election in 2016 due to his pro-gun policies, tax cuts, and direct agricultural support. However, these supporters now face economic hardship, healthcare cuts, and agricultural harm with the new initiatives by the 2024 Trump administration. Additionally, the immigration enforcement by the Trump administration has led to ICE raids across farmlands, which has been detrimental to farmers. With mass deportation of immigrant laborers, the agricultural business has been suffering because many immigrants come to the U.S. and are hired as farmers.

Read more blog posts about Trump’s support from rural Americans and effects of that support during 2016 here, here, and here.

Figure Credit: Pew Research Center (2025)

While immigrants do not make up an exceedingly large portion of the rural population, they do play an important role in the rural workforce, especially in the healthcare, agriculture, construction, and service industries. Additionally, rural areas need migration to prevent their populations from dying out, and many rural areas rely on immigrants – not only to keep the local economy afloat, but also to have stability in their populations. In this post, I will be focusing only on agricultural workers, but I want to flag that immigrants come to America for all types of opportunities, Immigrants are not only farmers or farmworkers.

Figure Credit: KFF; Authors: Drishti Pillai and Samantha Artiga (2025)

Pew Data research also shows that in general undocumented immigrants make up 5% of the US workforce and 53% of hired labor on farms. Agriculture seems to be the industry most reliant on undocumented workers. Farm owners have suggested that the only people showing up for employment on these farms tend to be immigrants. Farm owners do not care whether the workers are properly documented or not because they need people who are willing to work. To be frank, undocumented workers are being exploited because of the fear of being “caught.” Undocumented workers will take a lower wage, no healthcare and social security in order to have any work available to them. They take jobs that don't pay them enough to have a sustainable family lifestyle, just for the sake of having a job. And farm owners would hire them because of that very reason, paired with the fact the immigrant workers are willing to do the manual labor. And the reality is American citizens do not want to be farmers nor farm laborers anymore.

Interestingly, many farmers voted for Trump, knowing that the immigration policies could potentially affect their employees. Many farm owners rely heavily on immigrants. Now, undocumented farm workers are afraid to show up to work, in fear of being caught by ICE and getting deported. There has also been an increase in self-deportations as well due to the fearmongering by the Trump administration, and undocumented immigrants not wanting to take the risk of being detained by ICE and potentially getting criminally charged (which would hurt any potential for becoming naturalized down the line). The agricultural economy depends on immigrants to help harvest the crops and send produce out to stores. The immigration policies and raids, while heavily affecting agriculture, is (in reality) affecting all Americans’ lives. The inhumane treatment of immigrants by ICE needs to be discussed, maybe then people will be more empathetic to what is happening by this administration. People are risking their lives to come work in the states, people who take the lower pay wages, and we need to protect those people.

If rural American farmers were more aware of how these policies could have affected them, perhaps would they not have voted for Trump in 2024? That seems to be mostly untrue. While a few rural farmers may be regretting their vote, most are staying loyal to Trump saying that they think “tariffs eventually will make [them] great again.” Only some farmers have recognized that Trump’s immigration policies are hurting the American agricultural business. What will happen if Trump continues to ignore that rural America is dependent on migrant settlement and labor?

I'll close with a quote from a Wisconsin dairy farmer:

“We built an economy that relies on people, but we have a public policy that demonizes them” - Hans Breitenmoser discussing immigrant agricultural workers and Trump’s policies

Agro-Mafia and the Caporalato: How far-right immigration policy is failing rural Italy

 Le Langhe, a region in Northern Italy, has been heralded as the "New Tuscany" for its scenic landscape, tartufi bianchi, and quality wines. It's one of many parts of Italy that relies on rural agricultural practices for economic output. The agri-food industry in Italy accounts for almost 15 percent of its total GDP. It also represents an economic expansion: from 2006 to 2016, international demand for Italian wine grew by 74 percent. 

The people making the wine? Migrant workers from Romania, India, and Northern Africa. Foreign workers account for 10.3 percent of Italy's total workforce, but in the agricultural sector, around half of workers are migrants — around 400,000 or 500,000 people in total. Some are asylum seekers, fleeing violence from their home country. Some are hoping to pass through Italy to resettle further north, but are stuck due to European Union restrictions that require the first EU state an asylum seeker enters to be the one to adjudicate their claim. 

Trapped without status, many turn to temporary agricultural jobs in rural areas that pay little and require long hours. Their recruiters? Corporali, or intermediaries who offer migrants exploitative, temporary jobs and take a fee for providing them with work. 

Many refer to the Caporalato and their control of the industry as the "Agro-Mafia." In 2020, over 42 percent of Tuscany's 55,000-person workforce were migrants. Some reported working for as little as 3 to 4 euros an hour. The Migration Policy Institute estimates that when migrant workers are employed through corporali, their wages are sometimes 50 percent lower than those working under regulated contracts. Workers face rampant discrimination, racism, and poor working conditions. One worker in a study conducted by Amnesty International shared that after working from 6 AM to 6 PM and taking only a thirty-minute break, he was paid only 20 euros for his time. Rurality, of course, exacerbates all of these problems, leaving workers far from community resources and the employers with little oversight and incentive to stop their labor practices. 

In 2016, Italy passed Law No. 199/2016, which included criminal penalties for corporali and codified a new definition of "labor exploitation." However, the law has been heavily criticized for penalizing the intermediary worker, but not the employer itself. And given the high turnover in short-term agricultural work, many leave to a new job or exit the country entirely before prosecution is possible. 

The possibility of reform has become further complicated given dramatic changes in Italy's political landscape. In 2018, then-Interior Minister Matteo Salvini abolished all humanitarian aid in Italy. Tens of thousands of refugees lost their status, forcing many to turn to agricultural jobs and expanding the reach of the corporali. The 2022 national elections fared no better: Giorgia Meloni was sworn in as Italy's first female prime minister. Her party, Fratelli d'Italia ("Brothers of Italy"), now leads what is largely considered to be the most conservative Italian administration since World War II. Meloni recently announced that pursuant to a new agreement between their two countries, Albania will detain up to 36,000 migrants rescued by Italian authorities in the Mediterranean. The deal also included a dedicated €650 million for new detention centers.

Beyond the evident humanitarian crisis, extremist immigration practices will have an undeniable impact on rural economies. Border restrictions and punitive immigration policy will lead to labor shortages in the agricultural industry, which relies entirely on migrant labor. Not to mention that declining population levels in rural areas have often been filled by immigrants working in those communities. Camini, a commune that had a population of 751 in 2007, now hosts over 118 immigrants from Syria, Bangladesh, and Turkey. Camini exemplifies how immigrants are often the difference between a community collapsing entirely or thriving. 

Read more about agricultural crime in Italy here. This article further discusses rural population decline in Italy. 

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.

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 his actions have left just about everyone disoriented. Confusion intensifies 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. This sparked 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, commenting, "[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. They now 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 shifts 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.

On top of all those "typical" destabilizing forces, the looming threat of discontinued funding will not only hurt individual farmers, it will hurt rural economies. 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 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 guarantee business owners and farmers in rural communities. 

In California’s Inland Empire, a complex battle for groundwater rages: if the wells go dry, there are no winners.

The Indian Wells Valley sprawls across Inyo, Kern, and San Bernardino county lines in the northwestern Mojave Desert. Beneath it lies the Indian Wells Aquifer, a major groundwater deposit upon which the local communities rely. In the dry Mojave, groundwater is the primary source of water for domestic and agricultural purposes; few aquifers in California have been as significantly depleted as Indian Wells. 

When former Governor Jerry Brown signed the Sustainable Groundwater Management Act (SGMA) into law, the Department of Water Resources identified Indian Wells Valley as one of many "critically overdrafted" groundwater basins. In response, a Groundwater Sustainability Agency (GSA) was created to manage the basin. That agency is now embroiled in a seven-year fight against some of the basin's largest groundwater pumpers to keep their regulatory authority—and the authority of SGMA—intact. 

The GSA operates out of Ridgecrest, the Indian Wells Valley's largest community. With a population of nearly 30,000, the city is built around Naval Air Weapons Station China Lake, the U.S. Navy's largest landholding. Employing more than 5,000 military and civilian personnel and generating $36 million in state and local taxes, it is of vital importance to the Ridgecrest economy.

China Lake's website boasts of its "incredible access to natural resources and recreational activities," and of Ridgecrest's affordable housing, shopping amenities, and small town life. This description sits in stark contrast with nearby towns like Trona, an unincorporated community in San Bernardino county with a population well under 2,000 and a poverty rate roughly twice that of Ridgecrest. Devastated by a 7.1 magnitude earthquake in 2019, Trona is a community in recovery—eyewitnesses describe houses "cracked in half" and residents driven out. Trona native Marilyn McKee refers to it as a "dying town". (You can see photos of Trona on the blog here).

Trona Gun Club. Credit: Lisa R. Pruitt

Mural in Trona. Credit: Lisa R. Pruitt

Whether dying or recovering, Trona is heavily reliant on the neighboring Searles Mineral Company for jobs and domestic water; “With no Searles, there’s no Trona,” says another Trona resident, Regina Troglin. Perhaps unknowingly, she echoes Ridgecrest city attorney and counsel for the Indian Wells Valley GSA, Kieth Lemieux, who explained to the Los Angeles Times in 2024 that "without [China Lake], there's no Ridgecrest." Without water, of course, there is no China Lake.

Trona Picnic Area. Credit: Lisa R. Pruitt

Despite the parallel between these two communities, Searles argues China Lake has received more favorable treatment from the GSA in implementing SGMA. Searles has been required to pay a fee of $2,100+ per acre-foot of groundwater extracted, while China Lake has not; as a federal landholding, China Lake is essentially exempt from such fees. Nonetheless, vice president of operations for Searles, Burchell Blanchard, believes the fee could bankrupt the company, causing hundreds of employees (many of whom are Trona residents) to lose their jobs (see: San Bernardino County Sentinel, "Searles Valley Minerals Contesting Groundwater Authority's H2O use fees" for a full public statement from Searles).

These claims are part of an ongoing legal battle between Searles and the GSA. Joined by the Indian Wells Valley Water District and Mojave Pistachio, one of the largest pistachio-growers in California, Searles has triggered an 'adjudication,' a complex legal proceeding in which a court manually determines the individual groundwater rights of every stakeholder in the basin. The adjudication challenges the GSA's authority to impose fees and seeks to replace their technical plan to achieve groundwater sustainability in Indian Wells Valley—two of the GSA's essential functions.

Alongside several other state agencies, the GSA appealed to the California Supreme Court for an early ruling on the GSA's authority under SGMA. On January 29th, 2025, the court declined to take the appeal, meaning the adjudication will proceed and will be determinative of water rights in the basin.

This is certainly a victory for Searles and Mojave Pistachio. Perhaps it is also a victory for the people of Trona. But many smaller water users have been unable to participate in the adjudication, due to high legal costs. These users generally have much shallower wells than entities like Searles and Mojave, meaning theirs will be the first to fail if the valley cannot figure out a sustainable solution to its water needs. So as the adjudication drags on, and groundwater levels in Indian Wells Valley continue to decline, the question remains: what happens when those wells run dry?