A modest proposal: Leaving

Torn down building in Shiloh Mountain area, Arkansas
© Lisa R. Pruitt, 2011

The Washington Post's 2017 article "Disabled and Disdained" tells the story of the McGlothlins, residents of Grundy, Virginia, who have fallen on hard times. The patriarch of the family is in jail after struggling with addiction. One of his sons shared the same fate. Sheila, the matriarch, lives on $500 a month in disability payments. Tyler, her 19-year-old son, lives in the household with his wife Morgan. Neither works. Tyler panhandles to supplement his mother's income. The article wants the readers (or at least that it is my impression) to feel sympathy for Tyler. Tyler did things right. He graduated high school, stayed clean, avoided unwanted pregnancies, got financial aid, enrolled in community college, and bought a car. Then, he lost his license as the result of a car accident, and as a result was unable to keep going to school. The article also describes a man named David Hess. Hess is an almost absurd character. He crossed paths with the McGlothlins when Tyler's father was out on the streets panhandling. Hess offered McGlothlin a job, but the McGlothlin patriarch refused on account of his work injuries. Outraged, Hess proceeded to chastise him (both in person and online) for his idleness. And yet, by the end of the article, I found myself sympathizing with Hess more than I did with Tyler.

Being 19 years old

In 2018, I was 19 years old, just like Tyler. I had been in the country for a couple of years by then. I rented the living room floor of a relative's apartment for $350 a month. I say floor because I slept on the floor. I did not have to, but doing so was more comfortable than sleeping on the couch, and so that's what I did. In those days, I worked full time as a shift leader at Carl's Jr. (although, due to my coworkers' chronic absenteeism, I often worked overtime), and I was simultaneously enrolled full time at Sacramento City College. I took the bus to both, spending several hours a day on it. I met a lot of curious characters on those buses (e.g. a man, who by my best guess was from Panama, who had made it routine to tell me he was going to kill me). I thought life was pretty good. One of my classes that semester was English Composition II. The class was taught by a professor whose name I have unfortunately long forgotten. The professor was a South African woman, advanced in years, and clearly well read. She taught us how to make proper use of the English language. She taught us about how we were not supposed to say "terrorist," since "freedom fighter" was the correct term. When asked whether Osama Bin Laden was a terrorist or a freedom fighter, she said he was a terrorist. English is a complicated language. The overarching assignment for the semester was an essay on a book titled Nickel and Dimed by Barbara Ehrenreich.

Shepard's job of choice in Scratch Beginnings
© Aim 2 Please Moving

Ehrenreich and Shepard

Nickel and Dimed follows journalist Barbara Ehrenreich as she goes undercover working a variety of minimum-wage jobs. In the book, Ehrenreich describes her experience in those jobs as difficult, injury-inducing, and soul-crushing. The wages she earned were not enough to cover her basic needs, and Ehrenreich, despite her best efforts, ate into the modest amount of savings she set aside for the experiment. The book's conclusion is grim: the American working poor are trapped, with very little-to-no hope of escaping despite their best efforts.

I was not convinced. My task that semester was to write a four- or five-page essay on the book. On account of a flare up of chronic contrarianism, I set out to find a book which was the antithesis to Nickel and Dimed, one which I could wield as a club against it in my essay writing process. I did not have to look for very long. Scratch Beginnings, by Adam Shepard (who, according to his LinkedIn page, is the co-founder of a brand named "Practice Empathy"), is a direct response to Ehrenreich. Shepard, a 23-year-old recent college graduate, started from scratch in Charleston, SC (a city he was unfamiliar with) with nothing but $25 in his pocket. He deliberately avoided using his degree, his connections, or any advantage not available to the general public. Ten months later, he had bought a truck, saved over $5,000, and by his account made friends and even gotten physically stronger. I echoed Shepard's criticisms of Ehrenreich in my essay and got a B. Curiously, I was not docked for the blatant contrarianism or lack of effort, but for using male pronouns a bit too much (such as when saying "if he did so..." instead of "if she did so..."). I explained to the professor that I only wrote that way because my own inner voice was male, and that was being reflected in my writing, but such an explanation was not sufficient. My core criticism of Ehrenreich, then and now, is that her experiment was unrealistic. Sixty-year-old women do not spawn into the world with nothing. In sixty years, a person accumulates skills, connections, and at least the opportunity to save. Her starting point was not a true starting point. Almost every story is a tragedy when the only thing you write is the final chapter. 

Who keeps Tyler home?

Tyler is the opposite of a 60-year-old woman. His story has really just begun; at 19, he has just entered the "agency" part of the human experience. And yet, throughout the article, I couldn't avoid the feeling like I was reading the last chapter of a story, not the first. What exactly could be the reason for that? My main suspect is the town of Grundy itself. Grundy has a population of 875 residents, distributed among 300 households and a bit under 200 families. Of these households, only about one-fifth have children at home. In the last decade, Grundy lost almost 15% of its population. With such conditions, it is not entirely unexpected that there is a lack of good jobs there. Explaining why there are no good jobs is harder. It certainly is at least partially caused by a variety of policy choices made by people far away from the McGlothlins (deindustrialization, climate policy, trade, and many more). Maybe it's just bad luck.

But a lack of good jobs cannot be the end of the inquiry. Tyler's life was more or less on rails before a few events derailed it. He lost his job at McDonald's after missing a shift due to a snowstorm, and he lost his ability to go to school after losing his license as the result of a car accident. Perhaps I am being a bit too cynical, but I doubt that a simple snowstorm and a "car accident" is all that happened. To be clear, I am not accusing Tyler of anything. However, these descriptions do not match at all with my lived experience. What kind of employer fires an employee over missing work once because of a snowstorm? I have worked a variety of jobs in food and retail, and I cannot remember even a single instance of someone being fired due to one episode of (justified) absenteeism. In all the jobs that I have had, when a person missed work due to other commitments, forgetfulness, or just being too busy doing drugs, nothing happened. At worst, they got a write-up. Businesses generally don't like to get rid of  good (or even mediocre) employees for minor absences or tardiness. Training new employees is a cost that most businesses would rather not bear too frequently. Similarly, it seems unusually harsh to take away a person's license over an accident in which they had little fault. Virginia is perhaps harsher than California in this regard, but this is still suspect. Here we come to two policies that could help a person such as Tyler, but which I am unconvinced would do the trick: (1) more stringent laws against wrongful termination, and (2) more lenient penalties for traffic infractions that result in accidents.

But even the lack of any jobs and a driver's license cannot be the end of the inquiry either. If the idea is that rural areas have a high density of acquaintanceship, was there truly not a single person in Tyler or his family's entire social network who could get him closer to a bus, or to school, or a place with jobs? Is Grundy really so far from everything? A quick search reveals that the closest metro area to Grundy is Kingsport, TN (population ~55,000), about a 2-hour-drive. This is a significant (but not insurmountable) distance, and it may explain the lack of opportunities. There are seemingly no public transportation options that would cover that trip either. Here we arrive at yet another policy that could help Tyler's situation: more extensive public transportation options. Admittedly, I have not seen a "commuter" route that stretches as far as the one Tyler would need, so its feasibility is debatable.

Rural people, immigrants, and subsidies

Venezuelan immigrants in Ecuador.

Assuming, for the sake of argument, that there isn't a single job available in Grundy; and, assuming also, that Grundy is simply so remote that it is literally impossible to commute by any means (whether public or private) to any other place where a job might be found, that raises the final question: why not move? How could things be worse anywhere else? I have looked for a satisfying answer to why people in economically depressed areas resist moving, and I have not found one.

As an immigrant, I find the resistance to moving genuinely difficult to understand. If life is so bad where you are and economic prospects are better elsewhere, why stay? I understand loving a place. Most immigrants from my country to the United States that I have met have expressed that they would like to go back some day. Many have expressed that, even if not possible during their lives, they would like to at least be buried back at home (it almost never happens, but it is a really nice sentiment). However, even with attachment considered, isn't leaving and returning with more resources a more productive approach? From my perspective, the McGlothlins' situation resembles something close to the natural, baseline state of things. What historically propels families out of such circumstances is a willingness to take risk, usually when things cannot get any worse. Usually, one member, often male, ventures somewhere harder and less comfortable, lives cheaply, saves aggressively, and slowly creates a foothold for others to follow. It is usually not pretty, but it's also a practice not unique to international migrants.

What I cannot relate to, in terms of my own lived experience, is the $500 in disability payments. Sheila's disability payment is also a policy choice. So is every other federal and state subsidy or program that flows into a place like Grundy. I want to be careful with my words, lest the spirit of David Hess fully take over me. I am not arguing that the government should abandon people in hard circumstances in order to force a sink-or-swim outcome. If the government did, a lot of people would undoubtedly just sink. I am asking whether support sometimes functions as an anchor. Tyler is not facing a choice between certain misery (staying) and possible misery (leaving). He is facing a choice between possible misery (leaving) and a small, predictable share of $500 (staying). There is a Spanish refrain which roughly translates to: "A bird in your hands is worth more than 100 in the sky."

Conclusion

Which brings me to a question that has loitered in my mind for the entire time I spent writing this post: at what point does subsidizing rural and remote areas just become subsidizing misery? Maybe the "death" of places like Grundy (or in less scary terms, their transformation) would benefit everyone, especially the people who live there. And maybe, what is slowing that transformation down is the accumulated weight of everyone's personal share of $500. I did not mean for this post to sound so negative. I do not think the McGlothlins are contemptible people. But perhaps there is something to the contempt that the David Hesses of the world display.

Senators call for investigation into the state of rural child care—and how Trump administration policies are undermining it

Head Start offices in Toledo, WA.
Photo by Joe Mabel, distributed under a CC BY-SA 4.0 license.

On January 26, six senators led by Elizabeth Warren and Raphael Warnock announced an investigation into how the Trump administration's childcare policies affect rural families. The letter, addressed to Todd Lindsey, Acting Under Secretary for Rural Development at the U.S. Department of Agriculture, and Alex Adams, Assistant Secretary for the Administration for Children and Families, requests "information regarding ACF and USDA's current capacity to support child care, particularly in rural communities." The senators highlight the national childcare crisis, emphasizing the high costs and lack of access many families face. 

Child Care Funding in Rural Areas

This letter follows a January 6, 2026, Trump administration attempt to freeze federal funding for child care and family assistance in five states. The administration said it was taking this action due to allegations of fraud in the use of federal funding. Courts restored the funding within three days, allowing child care centers to continue receiving federal funds. The freeze temporarily affected the Child Care Development Fund Block Grant (CCDFBG), a federal funding stream that helps make child care more affordable. It also affected Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF), which provides block grants to states. It has been historically known as cash assistance to families, but it also provides direct childcare assistance, as well as state-wide funding. States can choose to transfer up to 30% of their TANF funds to their CCDFBG funds and funnel them towards childcare subsidies and Head Start programs.

The Senators' statement also follows H.R. 1 (the "One Big Beautiful Bill"), which you can read more about here. The bill expanded the Child Tax Credit and increased the amount that employees can set aside pre-tax for childcare. These changes mostly benefit middle- and upper-income families. On February 3, 2026, the House passed a new spending package, and President Trump signed it. That bill increased the Child Care Development Block Grant and Head Start by $85 million each. 

Head Start provides critical resources to children up to age 5. Its programs include providing breakfast and lunch, mental health care, and school readiness. Almost half of all Head Start slots are in rural districts. In a survey of 10 states, Head Start programs comprised about one-third of childcare centers in rural communities. This program supports children and families. Expanding Head Start has drawn bipartisan support, and  78% of rural Americans support it. 

The Rural Childcare Gap 

The senators cited a September 2025 poll by the First Five Years Fund, which found that rural families experience child care challenges across the board. 

Overall, 4 out of 5 [r]ural Americans say the ability of working parents to find and afford quality child care is either in a “state of crisis” or “a major problem,” including 81% of Rural Parents and 80% of Rural Nonparents.

Further, one in five rural parents report having trouble finding or keeping a job because of the cost or access to child care.  

Data collected by the Buffett Early Childhood Institute at the University of Nebraska further illustrates the gap. 31.5 percent of rural children who may need childcare do not have access to a childcare facility within 10 miles of their home. This data assumes that parents drive, but aproximately six percent of rural households do not have a car. Lack of access to transportation can make finding childcare even more difficult in rural areas, especially when transporting multiple children. 

Kickapoo Community Childcare Center in Lincoln County, OK. Photo by Rebecca South, distributed under a CC-BY 4.0 license. 

Effect on Families

The lack of access and high costs of childcare drive parents out of the workforce. A 2021 Bipartisan Policy Center survey found that 86 percent of parents in rural areas who do not work cited child care responsibilities as a reason they stay home. Child care centers face significant economic difficulties, driven by high turnover rates and low wages. Closures have led to parents, often mothers, leaving the workforce at higher rates than ever over the last two years. 

These funds also provide child care to parents pursuing higher education. Congress did not reauthorize the Child Care Access Means Parents in Schools, pausing the program. Programs at rural colleges make child care affordable for student parents and provide other support to help them pursue higher education. 

One administrator at the University of Wisconsin-Whitewater said she expects that this will make it more difficult for student-parents to graduate. Cutting this program means student-parents will either need to work while pursuing their degree or leave their program to stay home with their child. 

The Future of Rural Child Care

Recent federal legislation surrounding rural children and families has proven to be a mixed bag. While bolstering Head Start programs might expand child care resources in rural areas, other funding cuts could undermine those gains. This administration has shown its willingness to use child care funding as a political football. ACF and the USDA, which work together on child care in rural communities, have had their funding withheld, field offices closed, and major workforce reductions. 

The senators concluded their letter with six questions about the future of rural child care, with a response requested by February 16, 2026. As of today, neither ACF nor USDA has responded. Their response—if and when it comes—will inform the debate around the future of childcare funding in rural communities through the remainder of the Trump Administration. 

Will Trump’s push to increase timber production help rural communities?

Many rural communities in the Pacific Northwest grew up around a once-thriving timber industry. Almost all timber harvesting operations are located in rural areas. Logging has, and continues to be, a source of pride in these communities. The timber industry allowed rural communities to thrive economically. However, the timber industry has slowly shrunk over the years. President Trump wants to revive the timber industry by opening more national forests to logging.

On March 1, 2025, President Trump issued an Executive Order directing the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) to expand American timber production. The Executive Order calls for the reversal of restrictive policies and the implementation of federal policies that promote timber harvesting throughout the United States.

This executive order is meant to assist rural communities that depend on the timber industry and help gain support for the Trump Administration. Will the change in policy work, and will it help the economies of rural communities? The answer is likely no.

The timber industry has been slowly shrinking across the United States, particularly in Western states. Many sawmills near national forests have closed in recent years. With the closure of mills, jobs in the rural communities that surround local mills have disappeared. For many rural communities, the local mill was the largest employer in the area.

One example of this is the closure of the Malheur Lumber Company in John Day, Oregon. John Day has a population of 1,543 people, and the Malheur Lumber Company employed 76 people. Following the closing of the Malheur Lumber Company, two other mills in Oregon closed in 2024. This means that in Oregon alone, seven individual mills have closed in 2024.

The closure of so many mills demonstrates that the timber industry in rural areas has vanished. This means that increasing timber harvesting in national forests will be of little help to rural communities. There is nowhere to go with the logs that are harvested. This is because “logs would have to be transported longer distances, at increased costs.” Struggling mills cannot afford to pay extra transportation costs.

It is also unlikely that any of these closed mills will reopen their doors. Susan Jane Brown, an environmental lawyer and principal at Silvix Resources in Oregon, said that “‘no businessman is going to invest millions of dollars in a new mill or in retrofitting an old mill.’”

Further complicating the implementation of President Trump’s Executive Order is the recent Forest Service budget cuts and employee layoffs. I have previously discussed how the layoffs of Forest Service employees disproportionately affect rural communities, but these layoffs also hamper the Trump Administration’s goal of increasing timber production.

The Federal Government has laid off approximately 3,400 Forest Service workers. Forest Service staff are responsible for organizing and implementing timber sales. Without adequate staffing, the Forest Service will struggle to market timber sales to private companies.

The Trump Administration's ongoing tariff war will negatively affect the wood products industry as well. If the United States’ economy falls into a recession, the timber industry and rural communities will be hit extraordinarily hard. If a recession were to occur, the housing market would suffer. Since the wood products industry is intertwined with the housing market, the effects on rural communities that depend on local mills would be devastating.

President Trump’s Executive Order is unlikely to assist rural communities that depend on the timber industry. Local mills and rural mill communities have already disappeared. The industry that needed to produce wood products no longer exists. Harvesting more trees will be of little use, as there is nowhere to go with the logs.

The Executive Order appears to be an attempt by the Trump Administration to appease rural communities who overwhelmingly voted for President Trump in 2024. However, this push to open more national forests will do very little to help rural communities that depend on the remnants of the timber industry. 

For further reading on the hardships that logging-dependent communities face, please see Jennifer Sherman’s book, Those Who Work, Those Who Don't: Poverty, Morality, and Family in Rural America, and Michelle Wilde Anderson’s book, The Fight to Save the Town: Reimagining Discarded America. 

The USDA pulls back from rural communities

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Out of the wilderness

An extreme concentration of power and corruption is taking over our country like never before . . . and our political system is ill equipped to face this abuse of power.

Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, speaking in front of a crowd in Greeley, Colorado.

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

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

It feels as if the mainline Democrats are operating as if it is business as usual, asking for voters to turn out in 2026 and 2028 in order to regain the House, Senate and White House. The party seem unable to face the facing the truth: that we are facing an ongoing existential threat to American Democracy. 

On the party's progressive flank however, Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez and Bernie Sanders are fighting back.

On March 21, Bernie Sanders and Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (AOC) stood in front of a crowd in Greeley, Colorado (population 108,795, in the conservative county of Weld). As a stop on their “Fighting Oligarchy Tour” the two progressive politicians, both east coasters, stood in front of a crowd of more than 10,000 Coloradans. 

The choice of Greeley for a progressive rally is strange. The next day, Bernie and AOC drew in record numbers in Denver, a city far more hospitable to progressives. With the larger city of Boulder nearby that is home to more Bernie/AOC supporters, why stop in Greeley? 

AOC and Bernie are making an argument: their leftist economic policies are popular in conservative areas like Weld County. The rally there continued a trend of large crowds showing up for Sanders and AOC in districts that voted Republican in 2024. As one Greeley resident stated “I didn’t think things like this happened in Greeley. People would always go to Fort Collins. So it’s just like a little bit of hope.”

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

In a time where political commentators are decrying that Democrats are lost in the wilderness, AOC and Bernie Sanders have chosen a clear path out; leftist economic policy that will help the working class. In addition, they are asking for voters to engage in class solidarity.AOC said at the Greeley rally

Our task here is to build community. That's the deeper, deeper, deeper mission that we have . . . Because community is the most powerful building block we have against fascism, to defeat authoritarianism and to root out corruption.

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

Sanders and Ocasio-Cortez to the Greeley crowd pointed out that Representatives Gabe Evans (recently elected Republican, whose district includes Greeley) and Representative Lauren Boebert (representing the adjacent district), voted to cut Medicaid.

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

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

It might be tempting for urban Democrats to feel that voters deserve this in rural areas, since rural areas are more likely to vote Republican than urban ones. I diagree. Coalition building will take time, and it inherently means that Democrats and liberals and leftists will need to attract conservative voters and those who have supported Trump.

Multiple GOP lawmakers have been booed or jeered at in town halls with their constituents. With this, it seems there is an opening for a new coalition to be made. Rural and urban voters, Trump voters and Harris voters, will all need to come together in order to protect the working class, and save American democracy.

For a recent blog post about Sanders and AOC's "Fighting Oligarchy" tour, look here. For more blog posts about rural politics, rural areas being ignored by democrats, and democrats attempts to appeal in rural areas, look here, here, and here.

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. 

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.

Amid mass layoffs in the National Park 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. These terminations came 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 has funding for "about 13,000 full-time employees nationwide," 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. This contradicted 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 who 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 are likely to be less satisfied. They may withdraw from or lash 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 businesses 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. 

UPDATE 5/4/2025: Federal District Judge William Alsup ordered federal agencies to rehire tens of thousands of probationary employees, including NPS workers. The NPS initially reinstated probationary employees fired by the Trump administration, but a Supreme Court order issued in April temporarily paused Alsup's order, suggesting the probationary workers should not be reinstated and that the firings are legal.