HHS fires staff dedicated to helping low-income Americans pay for utilities: 'There's nobody left to do anything'

About 17% of U.S. households spend more than one-
tenth of their income on energy. (Adobe Stock photo)

A recent staffing purge of Low Income Home Energy Assistance Program employees at the Department of Health and Human Services may leave millions of low-income Americans unable to pay their utility bills. "The Trump administration abruptly laid off the entire staff running a $4.1 billion program to help low-income households across the United States pay their heating and cooling bills," reports Brad Plumer of The New York Times. The loss of assistance could burden millions of poorer rural residents who already spend a disproportionate amount of their incomes on energy bills when compared to their more urban counterparts.

It's unclear how a program that routinely helps roughly 6.1 million Americans can continue to offer assistance without any employees to administer payments. Mark Wolfe, executive director of the National Energy Assistance Directors Association, which works with states to secure funding from the program, told Plumer, “They fired everybody. There’s nobody left to do anything. Either this was incredibly sloppy, or they intend to kill the program altogether.”

While most of the 2025 funds have been paid, a remaining $378 million hangs in the balance. Plumer explains, "Congress had approved $4.1 billion for the program for fiscal year 2025, and about 90% of that money had already been sent to states in October to help households struggling with high heating costs." The $378 million could help lower-income residents pay for summer air-conditioning bills, but LIHEAP disbursements seem unlikely without program staffing.

The firings angered several Democratic lawmakers. Plumer reports, "Representative Jared Golden, a Democrat who represents a largely rural district in Maine that voted for President Trump, wrote in a social media post, 'What efficiency is achieved by firing everyone in Maine whose job is to help Mainers afford heating oil when it’s cold?'" Senator Edward Markey, a Massachusetts Democrat, referred to the LIHEAP staff eliminations as "sabotage."

A study published last year in The Economic Journal "found that roughly 17% of U.S. households spend more than one-tenth of their income on energy, a threshold that researchers often define as a 'severe' energy burden," Plumer adds. "The study also found a strong relationship between energy affordability and winter mortality."

USDA cuts hit schools, farmers and food banks. The lost funding and provisions hurt rural communities the most.

Food bank reductions are tough for rural communities
to replace. (Adobe Stock photo)

In an effort to bring U.S. Department of Agriculture spending back to pre-pandemic times, the USDA terminated more that $1 billion in food support programing. The cuts are likely to leave a path of hungry Americans in their wake.

In early March, the USDA cut more than $1 billion in funding for the Local Food for Schools Cooperative Agreement and the Local Food Purchase Assistance Cooperative Agreement programs for 2025. "The money was designed to pay farmers to provide food to schools and food banks," reports Jeanine Santucci of USA Today. "The abrupt cancellation of government funding for programs to help food banks distribute healthy, local food is being felt across the country, as some already strapped organizations turn to their local communities for help."

Both programs helped local growers boost their incomes while providing fresh food options to local schools and food banks. 

Food banks were dealt another blow when the USDA announced it was halting or reducing deliveries from part of its Emergency Food Assistance Program. Some of those reductions significantly scaled back food bank funding. Jackie DeFusco of NBC reports, "Feeding America, a nationwide network of food banks, food pantries and local meal programs, was recently informed that the USDA is canceling $500 million in federal funding as the administration reviews spending decisions made under the Biden administration."

The losses will be especially tough for rural communities to manage "because they depend the most on USDA-funded programs for the food distributed by food banks, said Vince Hall, chief government relations officer of the nonprofit Feeding America," Santucci explains.

According to Hall, the ways food banks receive donations also will contribute to rural regions struggling more than their urban counterparts to fill gaps in USDA funding and provisions. "They include donations from the community itself or from food producers, food purchased through the USDA programs and food purchased by the banks themselves with very limited resources," Santucci reports. "With the loss of a significant amount of federal funding for food purchases, they'll have to lean heavily on donations, which are harder to come by in spread-out, rural areas, he said."

Food inflation has made it difficult for many Americans to return to life without some type of assistance. Hall told Santucci, "Folks who came to us during the pandemic have found it impossible to ease out of dependency on food banks because inflation has made so many of their monthly budget essentials more expensive than ever."

GOP lawmakers consider snipping SNAP benefits to balance tax cuts. An expert explains SNAP.

The Conversation Chart, from USDA data

Congressional Republicans are eyeing substantial cuts to the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program; however, lopping off grocery dollars from the more than 41 million low-income Americans who rely on SNAP, which includes 1 in 5 children, could prove tricky and unpopular.

To explain what SNAP benefits are, and why some GOP lawmakers want to cut SNAP spending, The Conversation asked Tracy Roof, a political scientist who has researched government food programs, to explain, "What’s going on?" An edited version of their Q&A is shared below.

Why does it look like the federal government may cut SNAP spending?
"SNAP critics believe that the U.S. spends too much on the program, which cost the federal government $100 billion in the 2024 fiscal year. . . . Federal spending on SNAP, however, has been falling since it peaked at $119 billion in 2022. Some Republican lawmakers are calling for new changes that would cut spending on the program."

Is there a SNAP budget? How do people qualify for benefits?
No, there is no limit on what the federal government can spend on SNAP. However, persons applying for benefits must meet a complex set of eligibility criteria, which varies by state. "Americans can usually qualify for SNAP benefits if their income is under 130% of the federal poverty line. In 2025, that would be $41,795 for a family of four, and they have limited savings."

Does SNAP have work requirements? If so, what are they? Can unauthorized immigrants receive SNAP benefits?
"Most adults under the age of 60 are subject to work requirements if they are 'able-bodied' and not caring for a child or incapacitated adult. If adults between the ages of 18 and 54 don’t log at least 20 hours of work or another approved activity, their benefits can be cut off. Immigrants without authorization to reside in the U.S. aren’t eligible for SNAP."

How can the federal government try to cut SNAP spending?
There are two likely ways for lawmakers to trim SNAP costs.

"One is through the farm bill, a legislative package Congress typically renews every four or five years that sets policies for SNAP and programs that support farmers’ incomes. . . .The latest [Farm Bill] extension will expire on Sept. 30, 2025.

"The other option is through the so-called budget reconciliation process underway in Congress. Right now, the primary Republican plan calls for extending $4.5 trillion in tax cuts passed in the first Trump administration and making up to $2 trillion in spending cuts over the next decade."

How popular do you think these changes would be?
Cutting SNAP benefits at a time when food inflation and food insecurity are high is unlikely to be popular. "Polls show most Americans support increasing SNAP benefits, not cutting them. . . . Food banks, already struggling to meet demand and facing federal spending cuts, have warned they will not be able to fill gaps caused by reduced SNAP spending or new limits on benefits."

To read what changes or restrictions Republicans might seek to cut SNAP spending or to read more about the political obstacles to SNAP reductions, read the full Q&A here.

Debate: Is the American Farm Bureau Federation on the side of small farmers?

Journalists debate if the Farm Bureau
Federation is on the side of farmers.
(Photo by Ainur Khakimov, Unsplash)

Ambrook Research has a debate series where two journalists each write an article arguing a side of a topic. A recent debate focused on whether the American Farm Bureau Federation is on the side of small farmers.

Nolan Monaghan, a graduate of the University of Missouri’s Center for Agroforestry, and Deanna Fox, journalist and former CEO of New York Farm Bureau, offered differing views.

Monaghan's article is titled, “Is Farm Bureau a Friend to Small Farmers?” Fox's article is: “American Farm Bureau Is a Lesson in Democracy.”

Monaghan delved into the history of the organization and its purpose when it was created. He wrote that the bureau wanted to “distinguish itself” by “taking a less economically ambitious position” and that according to Stewart Truelsen, author of Forward Farm Bureau, “the federation sought ‘equality’ within agriculture.” However, Monaghan wrote that the equality was not between farmers but between agriculture and other industries.

Fox wrote that 86% of the farming operations in America are small family farms, which the six million members of the bureau help develop policy to advocate on behalf of them. After explaining the start of the Farm Bureau Federation, Fox wrote, “One thing that has not changed is the grassroots policy development that defines the Bureau’s commitment to family farms.”

Monaghan argued that over time the bureau’s goals have shifted to be more business-focused instead of helping small farmers. “Instead of managing overproduction, the strategy of this era was to shove every calorie of output into any market the government could create on behalf of farmers.”

Eventually this came to hurt small farms, “Oversupply reared its ugly head, leading to millions of farm family balance sheets to tilt to the red. Rural banks and small businesses began closing as farms went bankrupt,” Monaghan wrote.

However, Fox said the farm bureau is actively trying to support farmers. “The respect of differing viewpoints is honored, and a commitment to providing sustenance for all Americans is the unifying thread.” Fox also wrote that, “diverse opinions have led to positions that address a range of environmental, climate, and social justice issues.”

U.S. farmers already had big worries. New tariffs, USDA cuts and funding freezes have hit them 'on all fronts.'

U.S. soybean farmers have yet to regain market share
with China after Trump's first-term tariffs. (A.S. photo)

 

U.S. farmers are getting squeezed from all sides by U.S. tariffs, crackdowns on undocumented workers and changes at the Department of Agriculture. Many of the new administration's policies have put farmers' livelihoods on the chopping block. Some farmers admit the pressure cooker of change and uncertain financial outlook is pushing them to reconsider their support for President Trump's policies and the actions of his appointed officials.

Before the new administration began making dramatic policy changes and cuts, farmers were "already struggling with low prices, high expenses and unpredictable — and at times, destructive— weather," reports Kristina Peterson of The Wall Street Journal. "But now, farmers — traditionally a key block of support for Trump — are also contending with USDA and foreign-aid funding that is frozen or in limbo," plus deportations "in an already tight agricultural-labor market" and the possibility of "another crippling trade war."

Jim Hartman is a military veteran turned North Carolina honey bee farmer who has already lost roughly $100,000 in expected farm revenue from USDA program cuts. The lifelong Republican voter told Peterson, “Stuff like this is pushing me left."

Caleb Ragland, president of the American Soybean Association and a soy farmer in Magnolia, Ky., told Peterson, "“It’s hitting us on all fronts. You’re talking about the potential of a flat-out crisis in rural America and the farm economy.”

A recent AgWeb poll shows that a majority of farmers do not approve of Trump's current use of tariffs. "Just over half of farmers, 54%, said they didn’t support Trump’s use of tariffs as a negotiating tool, according to a poll of nearly 3,000 farmers," Peterson reports. "Farmers accustomed to dealing with uncertainty from the weather and the markets said the federal government, which spends tens of billions of dollars to support them each year, is usually a force helping them offset that instability."

Trump's enthusiasm for using and increasing tariffs "has many in rural America nervous," Peterson writes. "Trump’s first trade war led to more than $27 billion in losses of agricultural export. In response, China started importing more soybeans from Brazil, and U.S. soybean farmers have yet to regain their market share."

Hartman believes USDA changes will cut his yearly predicted revenue in half. He told Peterson, "This has fallen on the backs of small farmers. . . . The people Trump's appointed and the way they’re going about things, it’s not OK."

Opinion: Bringing women's leadership back onto the farm could benefit the country

Malia Reisinger runs her family's farm and her house-
hold like generations of rural women before her.

For hundreds of years, American women ran or helped run family farms. The fact that they were female meant little to families who had to rely on every working hand to manage farm animals and crops. As the United States began urbanizing, women were removed from farming leadership, so much so that their decades of farming experience have been largely forgotten.

Book author and public relations consultant Brian Reisinger shares his sister's experience and why he believes revitalizing female leadership on U.S. farms could help bridge rural-urban divides while providing a more secure future for American family farms.

"My sister, Malia, was a skilled welder. . .one of the many trades a farmer picks up, to get [machinery] going again when break­downs halted work on the farm. So, when she needed a part that required going to town, she went in herself," Reisinger explains. "But when she asked a guy for help, she got a response my dad or I never would have: 'Shouldn’t a man be getting it?'"

Quips like that were "one of the countless moments Malia faced being a woman in the 'man’s world' of farming," Reisinger writes. "It was far from the only time she confronted this challenge, despite the independent women she’d grown up working alongside. Rarely, did she encounter openly hostile sexism; more often it was small indignities that piled up over time."

Rural women led social changes for
decades. (Boston Public Library photo)

For some readers, rural life and women's rights may seem at odds, but "American farming once boasted nearly 6.8 million farms, nearly all of them small operations often ran by women as much as their husbands in many ways," Reisinger writes. "For much of our history, rural women led the charge on social progress through many of our country’s biggest crises." 

The place of women as farm workers and as social leaders is marked throughout U.S. history:

• 6.8 million: Farms at America’s height in 1935, mostly small family operations where women did the work of men
• 11.8 million: Men who went off to WWII, leaving behind urban jobs rural women were ready to fill. 
• By the time of World War II, as more than 12.2 million Americans went to war, there was a legion of rural women moving to the city and handling the industrial jobs of the men.
  

Watching and learning from female farm leadership "can challenge us to change. But if we can force ourselves to stop getting rural voters — and each other — so wrong, we can craft new policies to help solve these problems," Reisinger adds. "There’s reason to believe we can do this. We still have nearly 2 million farms in this country, 96% of which are family operations. That’s nearly 2 million families, searching for a way to survive, led by people like my sister who our policymakers could do so much more to understand. . . "

 

Read Reisinger's full opinion here.

Jeremy Gulban is serious about saving local newspapers. 'It’s kind of crazy,' but he's trying to find a way.

Jeremy Gulban

Jeremy Gulban is a man on a mission to save at least 92 community newspapers from shuttering their doors. While he's out in the trenches facing tariffs, polarized audiences and stiff competition, "Gulban is discovering in ways large and small just how hard it is to revive America’s ailing local news outlets," reports Katherine Sayre of The Wall Street Journal. "Americans are increasingly distrustful of print media, podcasts are ascendant as go-to news sources and even finding human reporters to hire has proven tough."

Over the past five years, Gulban has purchased dozens of small newspapers through his company, CherryRoad Media. "Today, the top 30 or so of Gulban’s newspapers are profitable, about 30 post mediocre results and about 30 are losing money. The company had $30 million in revenue last year and wasn’t profitable overall," Sayre writes. "Gulban needs between 15% and 20% of households in his communities to subscribe to be economically viable. . . . Across the company, about 8% of households subscribe now, but that ranges from 2% to 69%, depending on the paper."

Gulban began his foray into print news because he felt "that big tech companies like Meta Platforms and Alphabet’s Google had too much control over the flow of information and commerce for local businesses," Sayre explains. Gulban told her, "If we made the rational business decision, we would take our best-performing markets, say that’s what we’re going with. But that’s not what I want to do. I want to figure out how to make this work.”

Part of Gulban's plan was to hire dedicated reporters who interact with their community. "In some markets, Gulban can’t find reporters willing to do the job," Sayre adds. "The company searched for two years for a full-time reporter at its Crookston Daily Times in Minnesota, offering a salary of $40,000. The newspaper was shuttered in February."

Some people in small towns have reached out directly to Gulban for help. "Kitty Mayo and other residents in the area of Two Harbors, Minn., lobbied Gulban to start a newspaper there after the Lake County News-Chronicle closed in 2020," Sayre reports. "Gulban agreed. The Lake County Press launched in 2022. Mayo said she asked an editor at another CherryRoad newspaper about Gulban before she contacted him. The editor told her: 'This guy, he’s legit. He wants to save small newspapers. It’s kind of crazy. I don’t know if he can do it.'"

USDA cuts and freezes 'ripple' through rural communities, leaving farmers and states scrambling to manage losses

USDA cuts 'are being keenly felt' in Appalachia.
(Adobe Stock photo)

U.S. Department of Agriculture funding cuts and freezes have left farmers and states struggling with supply issues, financial losses and budget shortages. "Along the winding back roads and Appalachian hollers of West Virginia, in a state where Trump won 70% of the votes cast, his administration's vow to cut back on government spending is being keenly felt," reports P.J. Huffstutter of Reuters. Some states may be forced to shutter programs because there isn't enough money to cover gaping budget shortfalls.

In one of its first major cuts, the USDA canceled the "Local Food Purchase Assistance Cooperative Agreement Program, which was due to provide about $500 million this year to food banks," Huffstutter explains. "Trump's administration also rolled out cuts to other federal funding that has kept small agriculture businesses open."

For decades, Washington has used "an intricate web of economic support. . . to pump money into rural America," Huffstutter writes. "Much of it has now been frozen, cut back or eliminated – including at least $1.5 billion in USDA funds for schools and food banks."

To help contain the damage, states are "forced to come up with funding from their own budgets – or shutter programs altogether," Huffstutter adds. "States like West Virginia – where more than half the $19.2 billion annual budget for fiscal 2025 relies on federal funds – are particularly hard-hit. . . . Federal funds on average comprise about one-third of states' annual spending."

Meanwhile, some farmers have excess production that was planned for a Local Food for Schools contract. Kentucky farmer Andre Faul's 1,300-pound problem serves as an example. "His farm had a contract with Oldham County Schools to provide chicken and pork for school lunches," reports Beth Musgrave of the Lexington Herald-Leader. "But Faul and 130 Kentucky farmers who were paid through a federal program were notified the USDA nixed the grant. . . . How was Faul going to pay for the 1,300 pounds of chicken Oldham County had already ordered and he had already paid for and fed?"

Madison Pergrem, a spokeswoman for the Kentucky Department of Agriculture, told Musgrave, "The LFPA program has significantly supported Kentucky agriculture and delivered fresh, local products to our communities in need. . . .KDA will actively pursue and develop new opportunities to advance these efforts.”

Musgrave adds, "Kentucky food programs were started to help local food production and expand markets for smaller growers."

The physical presence of modern technology encroaches over farmland and behind homes

Power lines for Virginia data center may reach across 
Maryland farmland. (Photo by Gary Meulemans, Unsplash)

As the desire for "more" pushes technology to grow and advance, so does the need for electricity to supply its physical growth.

Institutions and businesses used to have their own data centers, but in the past 15 years they began using third parties to house them and warehouses (or computer hotels) followed in quick succession, said Jon Hukill, spokesperson for the Data Center Coalition, according to Stephanie Hanes.

Hanes explored the impact that data centers and their electricity needs are having on communities and farmers in Maryland and Virginia, in an article for The Christian Science Monitor. These data centers are now bumping up to residential areas and the power lines to supply them are proposed to come from New Jersey, through Maryland farms, to the centers in Virginia.

“The industrial scale of data centers makes them largely incompatible with residential uses… And industry trends make future residential impacts more likely,” said Mark Gribbin, chief legislative analyst for Virginia’s Joint Legislative Audit and Review Commission. Hanes said Gribbin's research found that a third of data centers were now located near homes.

The concerns of the residents affected vary, but they are worrying. Brent Hunsinger, a local river steward, expressed his fears to Hanes, “With data centers, the effects are more distributed…There’s water; there’s the electricity demand, also the transmission lines.” 

U.S. Supreme Court looks poised to allow $8 billion for rural and low-income broadband and phone services

The Supreme Court building in Washington, D.C.
(Adobe Stock photo)

The U.S. Supreme Court seems likely to approve continued funding for an $8 billion program for broadband and phone service maintenance and expansion in rural and poor parts of the U.S., reports Mark Sherman of The Associated Press. In what is considered a "new test of federal regulatory power," justices are "reviewing an appellate ruling that struck down as unconstitutional the Universal Service Fund, the tax that has been added to phone bills for nearly 30 years."

John Fritze of CNN reports, "A conservative 'consumer awareness group' challenged [USF] as an unconstitutional 'delegation' of the power of Congress to levy taxes. What’s worse, the group argues, a private entity calculates the amount of money that must be contributed. . . . .The Supreme Court has not invoked the non-delegation doctrine – or the idea that Congress cannot delegate its authority – since the 1930s. It has, for decades, permitted delegations under certain conditions."

The court seem sympathetic to communities that receive USF dollars. Sherman reports, "Liberal and conservative justices alike said they were concerned about the potentially devastating consequences of eliminating the fund that has benefited tens of millions of Americans."

Should the conservative-led court uphold USF funding, the ruling will be a departure from its ongoing efforts to "rein in" federal agencies, Sherman writes. "The Trump administration, which has moved aggressively to curtail administrative agencies in other areas, is defending the FCC program."

Consumer Research calls USF "a 'nightmare scenario' in which Congress has set no limits on how much the FCC can raise to fund the program," Sherman reports. “'Predictably, the USF tax rate has skyrocketed. It was under 4% in 1998 but now approaches 37%,' lawyers for the group wrote."

Congress established the Universal Service Fund in 1996. Fritze explains, "Telecommunications companies contribute billions to that fund – a cost that is passed on to consumers – to pay for programs like E-Rate, which lowers the cost of high-speed internet for libraries and schools."

The court's decision is expected in June.

Rural letter carriers rally against USPS privatization; about 51.3 million rural Americans could be impacted

More than 100 rural letter carriers gathered to rally
against USPS privatization. (The Daily Yonder photo)

Rural letter carriers from around the country gathered last week at the U.S. Capitol in Washington, D.C. to "rally in support of the U.S. Postal Service, which they said faces an increasing threat of privatization under President Donald Trump," reports Julia Tilton for The Daily Yonder. "The rally was attended by members of Congress from both sides of the aisle."

The event also announced the "launch of the NRLCA’s National Campaign to Protect the U.S. Postal Service from Privatization, which the union said is its top priority to preserve what it calls a 'critical institution that serves rural America and the country at large,'" Tilton writes. "Approximately 51.3 million rural addresses would be disproportionately impacted by the privatization of the USPS, according to NRLCA National President Don Maston."

Part of the USPS service mandate is to get mail and packages across the "last miles," which can add to delivery expenses. Tilton explains, "It is unprofitable for private companies to deliver mail to the end of long dirt roads located 50 or 100 miles from the nearest post office, Maston said. Privatization would add surcharges to such rural deliveries, which include essential goods like prescription medications and documents like Social Security checks and ballots."

Maston told the Yonder: “Rural Americans rely on rural carriers. In fact, the entire community relies on the rural carrier, and that sense of community would be taken away, and the disproportionately impacted group in the Postal Service would be rural carriers, rural Americans, and rural communities.”

Rally speakers "called for bipartisan support for House Resolution 70, a resolution in the House of Representatives that affirms the Postal Service’s role as a federal institution and opposes privatization," Tilton adds. "Since being introduced at the end of January, the resolution has garnered 180 cosponsors. . . . After the rally, more than 100 rural postal workers headed to meetings with members of Congress to ask for their support in backing the USPS."

As the battle over water fluoridation continues, rural Americans are at risk for higher rates of tooth decay

Thirteen states and the counties in gray don't report data on fluoride and drinking water to CDC.
(Map by Brett Kelman, Harvard University study from Census and CDC data)

As states consider banning tap water fluoridation mandates, rural America may be at risk for higher rates of tooth decay and its accompanying health problems. "Dozens of communities have decided to stop fluoridating in recent months, and state officials in Florida and Texas have urged their water systems to do the same," reports Brett Kelman of KFF Health News. "Utah is poised to become the first state to ban it in tap water."

Advocates for banning water fluoridation often cite "a government report last summer that found a possible link between lower IQ in children and consuming amounts of fluoride that are higher than what is recommended in American drinking water," Kelman explains. "The report was based on an analysis of 74 studies conducted in other countries, most of which were considered 'low quality' and involved exposure of at least 1.5 milligrams of fluoride per liter of water — or more than twice the U.S. recommendation."

Even as the battle over fluoridation continues, rural Americans already struggle to access basic dental care. Kelman reports, "Republican efforts to extend tax cuts and shrink federal spending may squeeze Medicaid, which could deepen existing shortages of dentists in rural areas where many residents depend on the federal insurance program for whatever dental care they can find."

Removing fluoride from rural water sources could exacerbate dental decay and the numerous other health problems it causes. "Dental experts warn that the simultaneous erosion of Medicaid and fluoridation could exacerbate a crisis of rural oral health," Kelman writes. "The changes could reverse decades of progress against tooth decay, particularly for children and those who rarely see a dentist."

Rural America already has large pockets with few dentists and unfluoridated water. A Harvard study "identified over 780 counties where more than half of the residents live in a [dentist] shortage area. Of those counties, at least 230 also have mostly or completely unfluoridated public drinking water," Kellman explains. "That means people in these areas who can’t find a dentist also do not get protection for their teeth from their tap water."

Several peer-reviewed studies give a glimpse into what ending water fluoridation could look like. Kelman writes, "Studies of cities in Alaska and Canada have shown that communities that stopped fluoridation saw significant increases in children’s cavities when compared with similar cities that did not."

Many Americans favor fluoridation, but "a sizable minority does not," Kelman notes. "Polls from Axios/Ipsos and AP-NORC found that 48% and 40% of respondents wanted to keep fluoride in public water supplies, while 29% and 26% supported its removal."

Social Security recipients can still use phone to contact SSA; however, no paper checks after Sept. 30

SSA had planned to disallow several types of
customer service phone calls. (Farm Journal photo)

In a quick turnabout, the Social Security Administration changed its "plan to demand more in-office visits from beneficiaries after leaders said they would no longer allow benefit recipients to use telephone services to confirm their identification or change direct-deposit information," reports Chris Clayton of Farm Journal. The changes were planned to begin on March 31, but SSA delayed any changes until April 14. Recipients can still contact SSA customer service by phone.

The reversal is a relief for "elderly and disabled residents in rural America who were about to face hours-long drives to Social Security offices if they don't know how to use the internet or have access to the Social Security Administration's website," Clayton explains. "The changes were set to affect millions of rural residents, including roughly one in five farm households."

Lee Dudek, acting commissioner of Social Security, told Farm Journal, "We are updating our policy to provide better customer service to the country's most vulnerable populations. . . . Medicare, Disability, and SSI applications will be exempt from in-person identity proofing because multiple opportunities exist during the decision process to verify a person's identity."

When the updated policy begins on April 14, "individuals applying for Social Security Disability Insurance, Medicare, or Supplemental Security Income who cannot use a personal my Social Security account can complete their claim entirely over the telephone without the need to come into an office," Clayton adds. "The decision to change requirements for Social Security beneficiaries also comes as the Department of Government Efficiency is pressing to close at least 47 Social Security offices nationally."

"There is little hard data breaking down percentages of rural residents who rely on Social Security," Clayton reports. "A 2011 study by the Center for Rural Strategies showed rural counties rely on Social Security benefits nearly twice as much in terms of total personal income than urban counties."

There is a separate Social Security change that some beneficiaries may need to plan for soon. Clayton adds, "People will have to stop receiving their payments by check and provide some details for electronic payment. The SSA will stop issuing paper checks at the end of September." 

Some Republican legislators push for NPR and PBS cuts over alleged bias. Rural stations depend on public funds.

PBS stations in rural areas are more dependent on
tax payer money. (PBS graphic)

During recent hearings with heads of PBS and NPR, Republican legislators zeroed in on alleged reporting bias to justify "dismantling and defunding the nation’s public broadcasting system," reports David Bauder of The Associated Press. "The nation’s public broadcasting system is facing perhaps the biggest threat to its existence since it was established in 1967. . . . The broadcasters get roughly half a billion dollars in public money through the Corporation for Public Broadcasting."

While some Republicans have routinely "grumbled that PBS and NPR news programming leans left, their efforts to cut or eliminate funding usually fade because legislators want to protect their local stations — 336 of them for PBS alone, with those in rural areas most heavily dependent on taxpayer money," Bauder explains. The fact that President Donald Trump said he would 'love to' see both services cut off from federal dollars may keep GOP defunding efforts alive.

The hearings allowed "a succession of GOP lawmakers to complain bitterly about alleged bias, particularly from NPR stations, making clear it was not an issue that was going away quietly," Bauder writes. "Democrats characterized the hearing as a distraction from more important issues, like this week’s revelation that a journalist from the Atlantic was included in a text chain of Trump administration officials detailing a U.S. military strike in Yemen."

Broadcasting leaders acknowledged some past errors in judgment. "NPR President Katherine Maher said the radio network was wrong to dismiss what was on Hunter Biden’s laptop as a non-story," Bauder adds. "Although saying she is not responsible for editorial content, Maher detailed efforts by NPR to ensure a variety of political viewpoints are represented."

PBS chief executive Paula Kerger "emphasized the service that PBS provides to local communities, particularly with its educational programming for children, and said she is worried for the future of its smaller stations," Bauder reports. Kerger told the committee, “This is an existential moment for them.”

Canadian travelers boycott visits to U.S., and the loss of Canadian dollars could 'upend local economies.'

Fearful of problems at the U.S.-Canada border, many
Canadians have canceled U.S. travel.  (Adobe Stock photo)

In a response to U.S. annexation and tariff threats, many Canadians are boycotting U.S. travel and opting to spend their vacation dollars in other countries. "Canadians have long been the top international travelers to the U.S.," reports Allison Pohle of The Wall Street Journal. The loss of Canadian travel dollars "threatens to upend local economies across the U.S. . . . Even a 10% reduction in Canadian travel could mean $2 billion in lost spending and 14,000 job losses."

Craig Treulieb, a Canadian who planned a celebratory trip to the U.S. with his wife, serves as an example of how costly the loss of Canadian visitors can be. "They spent about $3,500 on flights, hotels, an Airbnb booking and a rental car, with plans to spend freely on food and excursions during the nearly two-week trip," Pohle writes. "The day after (former Prime Minister Justin) Trudeau told business leaders that (President Donald) Trump might be serious about annexing Canada, they canceled the trip. They will instead travel to British Columbia."

Canadians' concern over border delays has kept some from visiting the U.S. simply because they fear they won't be allowed home. "Canadians say Trump’s threats of annexation have infuriated and scared them, so much so that they won’t cross the border to spend time or money," Pohle reports. "Recent news about lengthy detentions for tourists and green-card holders has further deterred would-be travelers."

Air travel to the U.S. from Canada has also decreased. "Calgary-based WestJet says it has 'observed a shift in bookings from the U.S. to other sun destinations such as Mexico and the Caribbean among Canadian travelers,'" Pohle writes. "In tiny Whitefish, Mont., which is just 60 miles from the border of British Columbia, spending by Canadians was down 14% in January compared with a year ago."

Two million rural Americans live in 'dead zones' that lack health care providers and reliable internet service

'Dead zone' counties have three things in common: They lack access to high-speed and reliable internet, primary care providers, and behavioral health specialists. (KFF Health News graphic)

In U.S. communities that lack both medical care providers and dependable internet service, residents tend to "live sicker and die younger than others in America," report Sarah Jane Tribble and Holly K. Hacker for KFF Health News. KFF Health News calls regions that lack both services “dead zones.” Roughly 2.7 million Americans live in dead zones, and the vast majority of those zones are rural.

"In 2023, 83% of residents in non-metropolitan, or rural, counties had access to broadband, compared to over 90% of metropolitan residents," reports Sarah Melotte of The Daily Yonder. Out of the 2.7 million Americans who live in dead zones, "two million, or 70% of them, are from rural counties. That means the rate at which rural residents live in these shortage areas is five times higher than the urban rate."

In some cases, communities leverage broadband service and telehealth care to fill in for a lack of providers; but the absence of both options leaves millions disadvantaged. "Compared with those in other regions, patients across the rural South, Appalachia, and remote West are most often unable to make a video call to their doctor or log into their patient portals," KFF reports. "Both are essential ways to participate in the U.S. medical system."

Without reliable high-speed internet, it's hard to attract and keep medical providers in more remote parts of the country. At the same time, poor connectivity means telehealth care isn't an option. "Connectivity dead zones persist in American life despite at least $115 billion lawmakers have thrown toward fixing the inequities," Tribble and Hacker explain. "Federal broadband efforts are fragmented and overlapping, with more than 133 funding programs administered by 15 agencies, according to a 2023 federal report."

The contrast between "the digital haves and have-nots" is stark. "The KFF Health News analysis found that counties with the highest rates of internet access and health care providers correlated with higher life expectancy, less chronic disease, and key lifestyle factors such as higher incomes and education levels," KFF reports. In many rural counties, the lack of reliable high-speed internet access leads to the opposite, where residents tend to live unhealthier, poorer and shorter lives."

Rural advocates push for plan to install fiber optic infrastructure as the best way to close the digital divide

Map by Sarah Melotte, The Daily Yonder, from American Community Survey data

The question of how to close the digital divide between rural America and the rest of the country may not have a simple answer; however, many advocates insist that allowing Low Earth Orbit satellite connection instead of fiber optic build-outs shouldn't be part of the federally subsidized solution.

"In early March, Secretary of Commerce Howard Lutnick proposed changes to a federal broadband connectivity program that would favor Low Earth Orbit (LEO) satellite connectivity," reports Sarah Melotte of The Daily Yonder. "Critics say Lutnick’s proposal to prioritize LEO will worsen the digital divide by abandoning rural communities without the long-term economic benefits of fiber optic infrastructure."

In Washington, most of the battle over rural internet installation centers on the $42 billion Broadband Equity, Access and Deployment program, with some Republicans griping about its regulatory attachment to fiber technology. "BEAD aims to connect 25 million Americans with high-speed internet in all 56 states and territories," Melotte explains. "Lutnick said he wants to make the program 'technology-neutral' by shifting the focus to LEO satellite connectivity."

While shifting BEAD funding to LEO might lead to faster internet roll-out in rural areas, some experts point out that LEO is a sub-standard internet offering when compared to fiber optic. Melotte explains, "Benton Institute’s Broadband & Society Director of Policy Engagement Drew Garner told The Daily Yonder that fiber optic infrastructure is faster, more reliable, and a larger driver of economic growth compared to satellite internet technology."

BEAD aims to provide fast, reliable internet access for all communities -- even those in remote regions -- while creating a nimble platform for further technology developments. "Garner wrote in a March 4 press release, 'Secretary Lutnick’s reported meddling is likely to leave millions of Americans with broadband that is slower, less reliable, and more expensive,'" Mellote writes. "Fifty-six percent of non-metropolitan counties have low access to broadband, compared to the national average."

Mike Romano, executive vice president of the NTCA – the Rural Broadband Association. said "that BEAD funding is critical in the effort to connect areas where larger internet providers haven’t previously had the financial incentive to invest," Melotte reports. "After connecting all unserved households with high-speed internet, states and territories can invest in programs that advance broadband equity, like remote learning and telehealth services."

As tariff wars continue, Farm Journal asks farmers their opinion on tariffs as a trade tool

As the U.S. continues to levy or threaten heavy tariffs to renegotiate international trade terms, Farm Journal asked farmers how they feel about being caught in trade war crosshairs again.

"As both targeted and blanket tariffs are applied, retaliatory tariffs on U.S. agriculture are also caught in the middle of the latest trade war," reports Tyne Morgan of Farm Journal. "How do farmers feel about this?"

AgWeb's latest poll asked, “Do you support President Donald Trump’s use of tariffs as a negotiation strategy?” Morgan writes, "Even though the majority of farmers say they don’t support Trump’s use of tariffs, according to the AgWeb poll, it wasn’t an overwhelming majority."

Farm Journal polled 2,891 farmers in March 2025. (Farm Journal graph)

The poll's second question asked, “Do you believe USDA will compensate farmers for losses if agriculture is affected by a trade war?” Morgan notes, "The responses were much more mixed."

• 36% responded “no”
• 34% said “yes”
• 30% responded they were “unsure”

"What are farmers saying in the field? Michelle Jones, a fourth-generation farmer in south central Montana was asked the question about if she supports Trump’s use of tariffs on 'AgriTalk' last week," Morgan reports. 'No, definitely not,' Jones said. 'I don’t think that tariffs are an effective negotiation strategy, and I also don’t think that we’re truly being surgical in how we are applying them.'"

Not everyone agrees with Jones' assessment. "Some farmers and those in agriculture support the president’s heavy use of tariffs," Morgan writes. "One of those is Bubba Horwitz of Bubba Trading, who focuses on the commodity markets. . . . Horwitz said on AgriTalk, 'I think it’s a great tool to use. . . .You can bargain with those tariffs, you can do whatever you want.'"

At a recent interview with Fox News, Agriculture Secretary Brooke Rollins "defended the president’s use of tariffs, also saying he’s holding Canada accountable," Morgan reports. "Rollins pointed out the president has been very clear that there will be an interim period where the economy readjusts."

Morgan adds, "Ninety-two percent of economists think Trump’s strategy of using tariffs as a negotiating tool won’t benefit U.S. agriculture in the long run."

Federal layoffs leave many military veterans unemployed. If firings continue, the 'burden will only grow on veterans.'

Veterans make up roughly 30% of federal civilian
employees. (Adobe Stock photo)

U.S. veterans are losing their jobs as the Trump administration continues to terminate federal employees to cut costs. "From layoffs at the Department of Veterans Affairs to a Pentagon purge of archives that documented diversity in the military, veterans have been acutely affected by Trump’s actions," reports Stephen Groves of The Associated Press. "The burden will only grow on veterans, who make up roughly 30% of the over 2 million civilians who work for the federal government."

Even though more than half of all military veterans voted for Trump, many openly reject his current money-saving tactics. "At a series of town halls last week, veterans angrily confronted Republican members as they defended the cuts made under Trump adviser Elon Musk’s Department of Government Efficiency," Groves writes. Most Republican lawmakers have continued back Trump's approach to saving dollars, even if it cost veterans jobs.

While Republican House Speaker Mike Johnson "advised his members to skip the town halls and claimed that they were being filled with paid protesters, some Republicans were still holding them and trying to respond to the criticism," Groves explains. "At a town hall, Texas Republican Rep. Dan Crenshaw told the audience, 'We’re learning about this stuff at the speed of light, the way you are. I think there’s been some babies thrown out with the bath water here, but we’re still gathering information on it.'"

Some terminated veterans "have now been put on administrative leave, but a sense of dread and confusion is still hanging over much of the federal workforce," Groves reports. "Other [veterans] are angry they have been portrayed as deadweight and cut from jobs they felt played a direct role in helping veterans get health care."

Democrats see veteran firings as a way to recast their image and "have zeroed in on the cause of protecting veterans," Groves writes. "In both the House and the Senate, Democrats have introduced legislation to shield veterans from the mass layoffs. And when Trump spoke to Congress this month, many lawmakers invited veterans as their guests."

Sen. Tammy Duckworth, an Illinois Democrat who is an Iraq War veteran and former assistant secretary at the VA, told Groves, “They said Donald Trump promised to watch out for them. And the first thing he does is fire them.”

Sen. Ruben Gallego, an Arizona Democrat, who is also a veteran, was unsure if the firings would shift  veteran political alliances but said the terminations give Democrats an opportunity to "hammer home a message," Groves reports. He told Groves, “Elon Musk and his buddies would rather just deal with the bottom line and try to save billions of dollars so they can have more tax cuts at the expense of veterans.”

Researchers explore bringing medical care to rural Vermonters by adding telehealth hubs to libraries

Almost two-thirds of Vermonters live in rural places.
(Adobe Stock photo)

A lack of rural health care providers often leaves residents with few ways to see medical providers without long-distance traveling. While telehealth services are an option in some smaller communities, a lack of reliable internet can get in the way. A new grant in Vermont aims to answer both challenges by exploring "the feasibility of offering telehealth services at the state’s 185 libraries," reports Chris Teale of Route Fifty. Library telehealth hubs would allow medical care in some of the state's most remote areas.

The research project, known as VITAL-VT, aims to remove obstacles Vermonters face when trying to access health care. Teale explains, "The majority are in rural communities located sometimes hours away from providers. . . . Accessing telehealth is also a challenge due to slow connectivity and gaps in understanding of how to use technology."

Along with a grant from the University of Vermont, the Vermont Community Broadband Board, which coordinates the state's broadband reach, is also supporting VITAL-VT. Robert Fish, VCBB’s deputy director, told Teale, “Everybody is pretty spread out. . . Most of the major health care providers [are in] larger towns, which makes getting access to good health care very difficult for rural Vermonters. . . . Telehealth reduces the need to do that, it's also access to experts around the world you can connect with. It also saves money for the provider, the outcomes can be better, it's better for the environment, there's less transportation, and it also allows more people to participate in care.”

FAIR Health, a nonprofit that looks to make health insurance and health care costs more transparent, "found that telehealth utilization and insurance claims have increased nationally and in every region of the U.S. except the West," Teale reports. "The Northeast region saw a 3.1% jump in telehealth claims." VITAL-VT hopes to pave new ways for telehealth services to reach and care for its residents even in the most rural parts of the state.

A small town saves its local newspaper with citizen-led fundraising and a 2-year search for a new owner

There's a new paper in town for La Conner, Wash.

When their small-town newspaper closed, the citizens of La Conner, Wash., didn't sit idly by and let their community become another "news desert." Instead, town activists "raised $70,000 and worked for two years to find someone to save it," reports Eric Wilkinson of KING-TV. Last week, the newly revived paper celebrated its "first day of delivery as the La Conner Community News, keeping a journalistic tradition that has connected townspeople for more than a century."

The newspaper's new owner, Kari Mar, said she bought the paper because she "saw an opportunity to make a difference at a time when facts and accuracy are critically important," Wilkinson writes. She told Wilkinson, "The pain of not having a local newspaper was pretty widely felt. There was no place to send an obituary. The town council didn't have a way to get the word out. Firefighters were having a fundraiser. They couldn't tell anybody about it. The need for the paper was palpable."

Small newspaper closures have become almost commonplace. Wilkinson reports, "Over the past 20 years, more than 3,200 newspapers have vanished, nationwide. Since 2004 Washington state has lost 20% of its local papers. . . . The situation is so dire, that a bill is being considered [in Washington] that would tax social media platforms and search engines to help fund the state's struggling newsrooms."

Meanwhile, folks in La Conner are celebrating a special win for local journalism. "The La Conner Community News already has more than 900 subscribers in a community of fewer than 1,000 people," Wilkinson writes. Mar told him, "We have almost everybody. . . .That's pretty good."

The U.S. isn't ready for another pandemic, but it could happen anyway. As bird flu spreads, the threat grows.

Bird flu, or H5N1, kills between 90% and 100% of infected
chickens, normally within 48 hours. (Adobe Stock photo)

Whether it's high egg prices or the fear of another pandemic, many Americans want bird flu, also known as avian flu, contained and a long-term answer found. Secretary of Health and Human Services Robert F. Kennedy Jr., however, "recently mused about a novel way to contain bird flu, which is to let it 'run through the flock so that we can identify the birds, and preserve the birds, that are immune to it,'" reports Hanna Rosin of The Atlantic. "This could involve millions of birds dying slower, more horrible deaths."

While studying birds -- not necessarily chickens -- that are immune to bird flu is important work that could help breed more resilient flocks, many scientists would not recommend letting bird flu "run through" flocks "because it would only give the H5N1 virus that causes bird flu more opportunities to evolve, which it’s already doing at what experts see as an alarming rate," Rosin explains. "So far, the outbreak has caused one human death in the United States and several others overseas."

Looking back, the U.S. government had a brief window to act and contain the virus in the spring of 2024, when bird flu surfaced in a small number of dairy cows. Science reporter Dr. Katie Wu explained to Rosin how the virus spread: "Instead, they let business proceed as usual and dairy cattle move all over the place throughout their lifetime. They gave the virus more opportunities to spread. That should have been a five-alarm-fire level of: We need to ratchet up this response and make sure that the virus does not move any further than it already has. And that did not happen."

Will the virus reach a tipping point from a growing concern to a full-blown epidemic? That point is uncertain and perhaps there are more important concerns. Wu told Rosin, "I think the right question to be asking is: How prepared would we be if this truly escalated to that point? And the answer is: not at all. Like, not even a little bit. It’s impossible to say with any kind of certainty, Oh, there’s exactly, you know, a 14.7 percent chance this is going to turn into a pandemic. . . .We can’t know those things. A lot of this is about randomness, about how we continue to respond, about just vagaries of the virus that people don’t fully understand yet."

Covid-19 and Americans' response to it still has many citizens weary from years of mask debates and misinformation wars. Wu told Rosin, "The public is still really fatigued from having to respond to all of that — there was a lot of trust in public health and science eroded during that time —and I think because of the nature of the slow burn of all this, just slowly percolating through animals, affecting certain farm animals, maybe sort of affecting some aspects of the food supply."

To read more about how bird flu could mutate into something much more harmful for humans, read Rosin's full transcript here or listen to the podcast. To explore a more complete snapshot of bird flu's effect on the the U.S. economy, click here.