The cat's out of the bag now: Kentucky is home to one of journalism's rising stars

Grant Gerstner after being presented first place in print reporting 
at the CFINR annual awards ceremony. (Photo via the Era)

Grant Gerstner, the editor of The Oldham Era and the Henry County Local for Paxton Media, won "one of the nation’s most prestigious journalism awards during a May 19 ceremony in Washington, D.C., when he received first place in the print reporting category during the Center for Integrity in News Reporting’s annual awards ceremony," reports the Oldham staff.

Gerstner's award-winning series followed the path of a controversial data center build planned in Oldham County. He succeeded in out-writing competition from "major publications, including The New York Times, The Washington Post and others," they add. He is the first Kentucky-based reporter to win the award, which comes with a $25,000 prize.

The CFINR judges praised Gerstner's reporting as remarkably fair and thorough. The Era reports, "The judges singled out the work for what is often hardest in small-market reporting: covering a contested local issue from start to finish without taking a side, and trusting the reader to understand the trade-offs."

Era and Local Publisher Jane Ashley Pace praised Gerstner's work as an example of the important part media can play in a community, saying, "Grant's coverage became a trusted source of information and proves why local newspapers like the Era are so important."

Gerstner graduated from South Oldham High School in 2019,  the Era reports. "He later joined the Era and Local in 2024 after graduating from the University of Louisville."

Gerstner told reporters, "Winning this award is the honor of a lifetime, and it is made all the sweeter by the fact that my reporting followed one of the largest issues in the history of my hometown."

China commits to purchasing at least $17 billion a year in farming products, but other agreements aren't as clear.

China's $17 million farming purchase commitment is 
good news for U.S. producers. (Adobe Stock photo)

In some good news for American farmers, following President Donald Trump's summit last week with Chinese leader Xi Jinping, a White House fact sheet confirmed that China agreed to purchase "at least $17 billion in U.S. agricultural products annually through 2028, in addition to soybean commitments already agreed to," reports Ari Hawkins of Politico. The announcement is among "the few concrete deliverables" from last week's summit.

Beyond its agriculture purchase commitment, the White House said Beijing has "renewed expired registrations for more than 400 U.S. beef facilities and added new listings," Hawkins writes. "A move aimed at widening market access for American farmers." Additionally, China will now accept U.S. poultry imports that the U.S. Department of Agriculture confirms are free of avian influenza.

The summit included agreement on several other issues, but the specific engagement between the two countries on topics such as Iran remained vague. For instance, "Both countries agreed Iran cannot get ahold of a nuclear weapon," Hawkins reports. They also agreed that the "Strait of Hormuz shipping corridor should reopen, and that no country or group should be allowed to charge tolls."

The White House fact sheet didn't include details on how, or even whether, the countries planned to work together to resolve issues with Iran's nuclear capability or its blockage of the Strait of Hormuz.

Although President Trump noted that tariffs were not discussed at the summit, that "appears to contradict a statement from China’s commerce ministry, which said the two sides had reached a preliminary agreement to reduce some tariffs and also confirmed agricultural and aircraft deals, though it did not provide specifics," Hawkins adds. "Trump and Xi are expected to meet as many as four times this year."

Opinion: Rural America needs Congress to require data center developers and the federal government to disclose plans

Nondisclosure agreements leave community members in the dark.
(Photo by Daniel Bernard, Unsplash)

When urban and suburban Americans don't want to live near an institution or business designed to address a larger societal problem, they send it to rural America. Prisons, power plants and landfills are a few examples, writes Rotimi Adeoye in his opinion for The New York Times. "These days, two more intrusions have been added to the list: immigrant detention centers and data centers. … Congress should address this problem."

While it may seem logical to assume the federal government would be required to share information with smaller townships before purchasing large buildings or tracts of land in town, that isn't the case.

In Tremont, Pa., a tiny town with roughly 300 people, the federal government purchased "a 1.3-million-square-foot warehouse that had been a Big Lots distribution center" to repurpose into an immigration center designed to hold 7,500 detainees, Adeoye writes. By the time the township's supervisor learned of the sale, the deed had already been signed.

In other instances, small-town residents learn that a hyperscale data center is being planned in their community only when rezoning paperwork is filed. Nondisclosure agreements between data center developers, landowners and town officials enable companies to keep area residents in the dark.

In both cases, transactions are "intended to be finished long before the people who would have to live with the consequences could ask questions about what was being planned," Adeyoe adds.

To help rural Americans know and have some agency in deciding what gets built in their communities, Adeyoe suggests that Congress "require companies planning large-scale facilities to publicly disclose who they are and what they intend to build before they seek to change how the land is used, and to notify local governments before acquiring property in their communities. … The same principle applies to federal agencies."

Requiring public disclosure does not mean that a detention or data center facility won't eventually be constructed in a rural community, but it "would stop it from being built in secret," Adeyoe adds. "Rural communities are often fighting both kinds of facilities simultaneously, often without knowing who they are fighting or why, because neither the federal government nor private developers are currently required to tell them anything before the decisions are made."

Big Bend residents push against the ongoing border build-up the Trump administration is rushing to install

Reeds and mesquite trees line the banks of the Rio Grande River as it flows through the western Texas region known as Big Bend. Residents of this rural area are deeply worried about the Trump administration's use of eminent domain to proceed with a controversial "border barrier" that will include 30-foot tall steel border walls, Carlos Morales reports for NPR. 

Big Bend's rough terrain makes it a less popular place
to illegally cross into the U.S. (Texas Almanac map)

For Joe Pineda, who ranches along the river in Redford, Texas, that may mean selling or losing land that has been in his family since the late 1800s. Morales writes, "Pineda received a letter from the federal government warning of eminent domain proceedings if they don't agree to sell the land or voluntarily give access for border wall construction."

Pineda is not alone; many Big Bend community members are alarmed by the private property the federal government wants to use and the disruptive elements such as patrol roads, flood lighting and surveillance systems that the government will include in its border barrier project.

Unlike many partisan issues today, the push against a border build-up in Big Bend has "united an unusual coalition of people across the political spectrum who say a wall is not needed here," Morales reports. "They worry about threats to the environment and Indigenous sites, to impact on the region's famously dark skies and on wild animals, like Black bears, bobcats and bighorn sheep."

Big Bend businesses are also worried about what the border barrier will do to the region's growing tourism economy, which brings in roughly $56 million a year, according to Morales.

Sunset at Big Bend National Park in Texas.
(Photo by Caleb Fisher, Unsplash)

Many residents point to the area's rugged terrain as a reason fewer illegal crossings are attempted in the region. In short, a wall isn't needed in Big Bend. Morales adds, "In the first three months of this year, Customs and Border Protection's Big Bend Sector saw 498 apprehensions, which is just over a tenth of the apprehensions made in Texas' busiest sector."

Big Bend residents also say there's a better way to spend taxpayer money. Morales explains, "The price tag for a single mile of border barrier is over $17 million." Brewster County Sheriff Ronny Dodson, who grew up in the region, told Morales, "We agree with border security. We agree there needs to be walls ... but not here. We just need to be monitored, we need the manpower, and I think we'd be very fine."

Meanwhile, some property owners are adamant that the region be left alone. Morales adds, "They say they're willing to do whatever it takes, including filing their own lawsuits against the government, to stop the build-up at the border."

Trump may see high gas prices as 'peanuts,' but they are squeezing lower-income Americans the most

Photo by Yassine Khalfalli, Unsplash

In a frustrated remark, President Donald Trump referred to surging gas prices across the U.S. as "peanuts" compared to the threat of Iran producing a nuclear warhead.

And while many Americans might agree that wallet-draining gas prices are preferable to horrific global outcomes, the war is costing poorer Americans a higher percentage of their income than it is wealthier Americans.

"For households in the bottom quarter of the income distribution — those earning roughly $40,000 a year or less — commuting fuel costs now consume an average of about 4% of their income," report Julie Z. Weil and Federica Cocco of The Washington Post. "For households in the top quarter, earning $100,000 or more, the same costs amount to less than 1%."

Lower-income workers get squeezed from all sides when gas prices increase. "They tend to live farther from their jobs, in areas with little or no public transit, and are more likely to drive older, less fuel-efficient vehicles," the Post reports. For most, working from home is not an option, leaving them unable to escape the need to buy gas — no matter the price. The only other option is to skip work, doctor's appointments or social outings that require a car fueled by gas.

The more than 40% increase in gas prices from May 2025 to the present has left some lower-income Americans facing tough choices. Debbie Zambrana, who lives on a fixed disability income, used to help her son out by driving his children to school events. Weil and Cocco write, "For the first time, she recently told him that she could only drive them if he covered the fuel."

With gas prices recently reaching $4.50 a gallon, there is little low-income workers can do to help themselves — even when they budget carefully. "Personal finance experts commonly advise that people shouldn’t spend more than 10% of their after-tax income on commuting expenses," Weil and Cocco add. "Spending 4% of income on gas alone can quickly throw everything out of whack."