Inside Trump's farm raid tensions
With help from Marcia Brown and Samuel Benson
QUICK FIX
— The Trump administration is looking to stop ICE raids on farms after backlash from agriculture allies.
— Senate Democrats and nervous Republicans will have their sole chance to tweak the GOP-led agriculture cuts and farm investments during parliamentary discussions this week.
— Climate journalist Michael Grunwald breaks down why agriculture's use of land is key to reducing the sector's climate impact.
HAPPY MONDAY, JUNE 16. Welcome to Morning Agriculture. I'm your host Grace Yarrow. Send tips and your summer playlists to gyarrow@politico.com and follow us at @Morning_Ag for more.
Want to receive this newsletter every weekday? Subscribe to POLITICO Pro. You'll also receive daily policy news and other intelligence you need to act on the day's biggest stories.
Driving the day
TRUMP BENDS TO AG NEEDS: The Trump administration has paused ICE raids that would affect farms after intense pushback from key allies on Capitol Hill and in the president's Cabinet.
Those allies — including top GOP ag policy leaders on Capitol Hill and Agriculture Secretary Brooke Rollins — have denounced the potential impact of ICE's aggressive raids at farms and food facilities in California, New Mexico and Nebraska on food supply.
The New York Times reported that Rollins called President Donald Trump last week to relay concerns from agriculture groups and farmers about how his sweeping crackdown would impact their businesses. Trump later instructed immigration enforcement officials to — largely — halt raids on farms, restaurants, hotels and meatpacking plants, per Reuters.
Rollins posted on X Sunday that she's 'fully' supportive of Trump's immigration agenda after backlash from MAGA world and those who are supportive of Trump's sweeping deportation efforts without exceptions.
'Severe disruptions to our food supply would harm Americans,' she said. 'It took us decades to get into this mess and we are prioritizing deportations in a way that will get us out.'
Trump promised in a Sunday night Truth Social post to 'expand efforts' to detain undocumented people in major cities rather than rural areas: 'You don't hear about Sanctuary Cities in our Heartland!'
How we got here: The agriculture industry has historically relied on undocumented workers as well as migrant laborers on legal temporary visas. Agriculture industry and business groups have been sounding the alarm for months that Trump's immigration crackdown could exacerbate ongoing farm labor shortages.
Earlier this year, White House deputy chief of staff Stephen Miller promised Hill Republicans that DHS wouldn't raid farms or adversely affect farm labor, a senior GOP aide familiar with the conversation told MA.
But recent raids have made the reality of Trump's plans clear to those representing agricultural interests in Congress and in the White House.
House Agriculture Committee Chair G.T. Thompson (R-Pa.) said last week that the raids at farms and packing plants are 'just wrong.'
'Let's go after the criminals and give us time to put processes in place so we don't disrupt the food supply chain,' he said.
Next policy steps: Rep. Dan Newhouse (R-Wash.), whose bill to reform the H-2A agricultural worker visa program has garnered some bipartisan support in recent years, said he's hoping the president's eagerness to support farm labor will clear a path for a legislative fix.
'I take [Trump] at his word,' Newhouse told MA last week. 'He recognizes there's a challenge here for American agriculture, and he wants to fix it.'
Newhouse told MA last week that he'll be working with other concerned colleagues to update the marker bill to address 'today's challenges.' The Farm Workforce Modernization Act, led by Rep. Zoe Lofgren (D-Calif.) and Newhouse, has passed the House twice but failed to become law.
'I hate to jinx anything, but I feel very optimistic that this is the session we can get this done,' Newhouse said.
Calling 'bullshit': The United Farm Workers released a statement saying that ICE is still 'hunting down farm workers' despite the reported pause from the Trump administration, pointing to a raid that happened on Friday in Southern California.
'If President Trump is serious about protecting our agricultural economy, then he needs to show not tell,' UFW President Teresa Romero said in an interview last week.
On The Hill
WHAT NOW? The Senate Ag Committee released its plans to cut agriculture and SNAP spending by $211 billion last week to pay for the GOP's policy megabill and $67 billion in farm programs.
The bill has sparked concerns from all Senate Democrats and some Republicans, especially those from states with high error payment rates, whose home states could be forced to take on part of the cost of SNAP.
The Senate Ag Committee won't hold a markup on the bill, so the next step is for panel Chair John Boozman (R-Ark.), committee ranking member Amy Klobuchar (D-Minn.) and their staffs to hash out any necessary changes with the parliamentarian. The Ag Committee and other Senate committees are scheduled for bipartisan meetings with the chamber's parliamentarian this week.
That will be Senate Democrats' lone chance to challenge or tweak the GOP-led bill before it heads to the Budget Committee and a floor vote.
'If the minority decides they want to try to challenge those [farm bill provisions] on Byrd principles, and have those kicked out ... that would reduce the investment for those programs, and I think it's hard to find another path forward to do that outside of this reconciliation process,' said a committee GOP aide granted anonymity to candidly discuss the negotiations.
Republicans' concerns: GOP lawmakers in states like Alaska with higher error rates have privately expressed concerns about the plan that would require them to pay for at least part of SNAP if they have an error rate of more than 6 percent starting in the 2028 fiscal year.
Sen. John Hoeven (R-N.D.) told MA last week that senators are working with USDA and states with lower error rates to brainstorm ways for states to decrease error payments.
'We have ideas on that, because some states have really good systems and we can share that with them,' Hoeven said. 'I think we can make the [FY 2028 start date for the cost-sharing] work for the folks that are concerned.'
Timing: Senate Republicans are hoping to have a bill they vote on by the week of June 23 and Senate Majority Leader John Thune (R-S.D.) has threatened to keep members in town during the Fourth of July recess if the bill isn't done.
AGRICULTURE AND CLIMATE
IT'S THE LAND, STUPID: In his forthcoming book, 'We Are Eating the Earth,' climate journalist Michael Grunwald explains that food's environmental impact isn't just about emissions — it's also about land, writes Marcia.
We spoke with Grunwald, a climate journalist and occasional writer for POLITICO, about the need to make more food with less land, his hopes for meat alternatives and what America can learn from Denmark's agriculture climate policies.
Why do you think we're still having this battle over whether ethanol is environmentally or climate friendly, if the science, as you write in your book, is settled?
Well, the short answer is politics, right? The ag lobby has a lot of clout, not just in the U.S., but everywhere. We're even seeing it with the 'big, beautiful bill,' where, not only are they spending another $45 billion to expand biofuels while they're slashing a trillion dollars worth of just about every other clean — or supposedly clean — energy tax credit that [then-President Joe] Biden had had done in the Inflation Reduction Act, but they've got new language basically saying, 'Since corn ethanol doesn't pencil out, the government needs to put down its pencils. You can't look at the source of emissions, which is land use.' That is what makes this stuff so terrible for the climate.
I would push back a little bit on the idea that the science is settled. It should be settled, but there are a lot of interests, even in the scientific community, that have really wanted to 'make fetch happen' when it comes to biofuels, and they've invested their careers in it.
On your 'Climavores' podcast, you guys talked about farmers markets and the local food movement. You said: 'It's really better to buy from these really efficient mass market grocery stores.' Do you still think that?
I got in trouble on that podcast. I said that farmers markets are like liberal NASCAR. It's like, a fun place to go, and you're with your people.
Food miles are not the climate problem. The climate problem with our food problem is what we're eating, not how or where it's grown.
I'm not an advocate of industrial agriculture, but I am an advocate of high-yield agriculture. We do need to make more food with less land so that we can save the Amazon, so we can feed the poor. That's not just a technocratic, hyper-rational, logical approach — that's a moral approach.
Climate change sucks, and it's going to suck more for the people in the flood plains in Bangladesh than it is going to suck for you and me.
Read the full interview here.
AROUND THE AGENCIES
TRUMP'S BIOFUELS PATH: The Trump administration proposed its first biofuel blending mandates on Friday, increasing volumes over the next two years to record levels but leaving open questions over exemptions from the mandates sought by small refiners, our Kelsey Tamborrino reports.
The EPA's proposed volumes for 2026 and 2027 provide the first look into how the second Trump administration is positioning the future of the Renewable Fuel Standard. The program requires refiners to blend a minimum volume of renewable fuels into the nation's fuel mix or purchase tradable credits, known as renewable identification numbers, to comply.
'We are creating a new system that benefits American farmers while mitigating the impact on gas prices and ensuring the continued existence of liquid fuels,' EPA Administrator Lee Zeldin said in a statement. 'We can no longer afford to continue with the same system where Americans pay for foreign competitors.'
More context: The often-contentious program is closely watched by both the oil and agriculture industries for its impacts to crop demand and fuel prices. The Biden administration garnered criticism for some of its blending requirements, which were deemed inadequate by farm-state lawmakers and industry groups.
Row Crops
— Former first lady Michelle Obama's nutrition adviser Sam Kass on the rise of MAHA, from our Marcia Brown.
— The text of the Senate GOP's tax package is expected to be unveiled today.
— The FDA and CDC are investigating a multi-state salmonella outbreak linked to a pistachio cream product imported from Turkey.
— HHS is planning a new campaign on ultra-processed foods and diabetes.
THAT'S ALL FOR MA! Drop us a line and send us your agriculture job announcements or events: gyarrow@politico.com, marciabrown@politico.com, jwolman@politico.com, sbenson@politico.com, rdugyala@politico.com and gmott@politico.com.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Hill
22 minutes ago
- The Hill
Trump orders a 35% tariff for goods from Canada, citing a lack of cooperation on illicit drugs
WASHINGTON (AP) — President Donald Trump has raised the tariff rate on U.S. imports from Canada to 35% from 25%, effective Friday. The announcement from the White House late Thursday said Canada had failed to 'do more to arrest, seize, detain or otherwise intercept … traffickers, criminals at large, and illicit drugs.' Trump has heckled Canada for months and suggested it should become its 51st U.S. state. He had threatened to impose the higher tariff on Canada if no deal was reached by Friday, his deadline for reaching trade agreements with dozens of countries. Earlier Thursday, the president said Canada's announcement it will recognize a Palestinian state would 'make it very hard' for the United States to reach a trade agreement with its northern neighbor. Trump has also expressed frustration with a trade deficit with Canada that largely reflects oil purchases by America. Prime Minister Mark Carney had tempered expectations over tariffs, saying Ottawa would only agree to a deal 'if there's one on the table that is in the best interests of Canadians.' In a statement released early Friday, he said he was disappointed by Trump's actions and vowed to diversify Canada's exports. 'Canada accounts for only 1% of U.S. fentanyl imports and has been working intensively to further reduce these volumes,' he said, pointing to heavy investments in border security. Carney added that some industries — including lumber, steel, aluminum and automobiles — will be harder hit, but said his government will try to minimize the impact and protect Canadian jobs. Canada was not included in Trump's updated list of tariff rates on other countries announced late Thursday. Those import duties are due to take effect on Aug. 7. Trump sent a letter to Canada a few weeks ago warning he planned to raise duties on many goods imported from Canada to 35%, deepening the rift between the two North American countries that has undermined their decades-old alliance. Some imports from Canada are still protected by the 2020 United States-Mexico-Canada Agreement, or USMCA, which is up for renegotiation next year. The White House's statement said goods transshipped through Canada that are not covered by the USMCA would be subject to a 40% tariff rate. It did not say where the goods might originate. President Donald Trump said Thursday that there would be a 90-day negotiating period with Mexico after a call with that country's leader, Claudia Sheinbaum, keeping 25% tariff rates in place.
CNBC
23 minutes ago
- CNBC
CNBC Daily Open: New Trump tariffs (August remix) have dropped
The first time U.S. President Donald Trump unveiled his "reciprocal" tariffs on the rest of the world, the April 2 event had a cinematic, even grand, quality. It took place at the White House Rose Garden. There was a live band playing, according to The Wall Street Journal. Trump hoisted huge physical charts of his tariff rates, which were helpfully color-coded for visual clarity. This time, Trump's updated "reciprocal" tariffs, released the night before they come into effect on Aug. 1, seemed in comparison stripped of pomp and glamor. The White House's executive order popped up around 7 p.m. ET, just as people in the U.S. were getting off work. There was no live event, no big chart and certainly no entertainment — just a stern website with a black-and-white table. That austerity — and, one might even say, stealth — surrounding the recent announcement suggests two things. First, the White House could be aware that the dramatic shock of tariffs has less power to sway trade deals when staged a second time. The "90 deals in 90 days" that trade advisor Peter Navarro had promised in April are, after all, nowhere in sight. Trump, however, still left ajar the door to making "some kind of a deal." Second, the U.S. might actually be pleased with the effects of its higher-than-expected tariffs on countries without deals, and is willing to keep levies at those levels. In June, the U.S. Treasury Department reported an unexpected surplus thanks to tariff revenue, which were more than four times higher from a year ago. And economists aren't as alarmed by tariff-driven inflation as they once were. All that's speculation, of course. The order could have been released in this low-key fashion simply because the Rose Garden is now more like a Concrete Path. Or perhaps Trump doesn't want the penguins on the Heard and McDonald islands to hear about his levies this time. The U.S. rejigs tariff rates ahead of Aug. 1 deadline. Trump's executive order also imposed a 40% duty on all goods considered to have been transshipped to America. Here's how Asian leaders are reacting to the announcement, made Thursday evening stateside. The S&P 500 falls, retreating from an intraday high. Microsoft shares, however, rose around 4% to push the company's market cap above $4 trillion. Asia-Pacific markets — and tech giants, in particular — fell on Friday as investors digest latest tariff developments. Apple beats expectations for profit and revenue. The Cupertino-based company's iPhone sales grew 13% year over year, while overall revenue rose 10% in its fiscal third quarter, the fastest growth since December 2021. Amazon's gloomy guidance overshadows its earnings. Even though the company surpassed Wall Street's estimates for its second-quarter results, its expected operating income for the current quarter wasn't as high as analysts had hoped for. [PRO] Novo Nordisk's stock plunge isn't that surprising. On Tuesday, the firm's shares fell as much as 26% after it slashed its full-year guidance — and appointed a new CEO. Here's why companies tend to make both announcements simultaneously. Tariff turmoil: How global CEOs are shifting gears In interviews with CNBC this earnings season, CEOs across industries sent a clear message: tariffs are no longer just a political tactic. As trade rules grow more uncertain and tariffs resurface in policy discussions, business leaders say they're rethinking everything from where factories are located to how products are priced. The old "just in time" model is giving way to something more cautious: make goods closer to the buyer, ask for exemptions where possible, and stay alert to shifting consumer habits. —
Forbes
23 minutes ago
- Forbes
A Big, Beautiful Fiction - Does The EU/US Trade Deal Make Sense?
James Thurber's famous book 'The Secret Life of Walter Mitty' is yet another book I would recommend to readers, to continue a recurring theme of recent weeks. It is especially apt in the context of the US-EU trade deal. Walter Mitty appeared at the end of the 1930's, a decade that was shaped by Herbert Hoover's tariff policy, and that was marked by profound economic and geopolitical tensions. Mitty's fantasies were provoked by the reality of his pedestrian, harangued life – which will appeal to European leaders who care to dream of better days. Equally, the giddiness of Mitty's fantasies has its equivalent in the promises that Donald Trump has elicited from the EU – namely, to buy and invest hundreds of billions of dollars in energy. One week on, reaction to the US-EU trade deal is still mixed, and it is not quite clear who has 'won'. This may be because it is not a trade deal in the classical sense – at least in the sense of the laborious trade deals that the EU is used to striking, partly because a large facet of the 'deal' is based on a promise and also because the optics of the deal are quite depressing for Europe. At the headline level, EU exports into the US will be met with a 15% tariff to be paid by the US consumer, not unlike the Japanese 'deal'. Auto companies will not be displeased with a 15% tariff. Wines and spirits, steel and notably pharmaceuticals have yet to have tariff levels finalised and there will be some relief on the confirmation of 15% tariffs on pharmaceuticals, though the investigation into pharmaceutical exports back to the US is a tail risk. Interestingly, the EU has resisted attempts to water down its digital regulations. Politically the spin that the EU is putting on the agreement is that it was the best possible outcome in a difficult geopolitical climate (recall that the recent EU-China summit was a damp-squib). While there were some public expressions of dismay, notably from the French prime minister Francois Bayrou – these can be seen to be largely aimed at the public, rather than Brussels. Though Ursula von der Leyen is unpopular with EU governments for the singular way she runs her office – it is populated with officials who are close to national government (i.e. Alexandre Adam one of von der Leyen's key deputies is an arch Macronist) – there is no sense that the large countries were left out of the negotiation process, and any effort to isolate von der Leyen for blame, is ignoble. However, amongst the professional trade staff, there is still some despair at the humiliating optics of the deal, the fact that it is in many ways not binding, and the risk that there is no undertaking that it is final in the sense that another round of tariffs is imposed later. On the positive side for Europe, and flipping to the 'Mitty-esque' part of the deal, two of the key undertakings in the deal – that European companies invest USD 600 bn in the US, in addition to a commitment to purchase microchips, as well as a commitment from the EU to buy USD 750bn in energy from the US over the course of the Trump presidency – are not at all clear in their implementation, and very much open to a fudge, with the right accounting treatment. In particular the energy purchase commitment is unrealistic because it exceeds what the EU spends on energy in a given year and US energy firms do not have the capacity to service a commitment of USD 250bn in demand from Europe, whilst also serving other markets. In my view there are several aftershocks to watch for. The first is that the deal further damages trans-Atlantic relations, and the level of trust between the EU and the US is likely the lowest it has ever been, and this has strategic implications as far afield as Russia/Ukraine and the Middle East. One other implication may be a drift, by government and consumers, away from US brands – as this may well be an effect that is seen in other regions. Two financial market implications are that the dampening of growth in Europe will maintain downward pressure on rates in Europe. More importantly, in the context of a very oversold dollar, there is now an incentive for EU policy makers to try hard to talk down the euro, and we may see a short-term rebound in the currency pair. On the whole, if this is a 'final' deal and the topic of tariffs does not re-emerge in the next three years, it is not a bad deal for the semi's, autos and aerospace sectors in Europe, though the public optics are not good for the EU. The best parts of the deal for Europe are the fantastical claims of incoming European investment and energy purchases in the US. This is a Mitty style fairy tale that the Europeans hope Mr Trump believes in. The telling factor is that this deal has now emptied all goodwill from the trans-Atlantic relationship, and effectively completes another diplomatic rupture by President Trump. From a European point of view, this is yet another 'wake up call' and the best that can be hoped for is that it accelerates projects like the savings and investment union and 'strategic autonomy'. European leaders and the European policy elite keep talking about this, but until we see hard evidence (for example, German real GDP over the last five years is close to zero), they are the fantasists. Have a great week ahead Mike
