Rash of federal firings will hurt rural communities' economic health and development possibilities

Map by Sarah Melotte, The Daily Yonder, from Bureau of Labor Statistics data

The Trump administration's federal employee purge has plunged several sectors into chaos and disarray. Some firings include rural workers employed by public land agencies. "In a radical move to stave off perceived bureaucratic bloat, the administration has laid off thousands of federal employees," reports Sarah Melotte of The Daily Yonder. "Over a quarter million federal employees are stationed in rural counties across the country."

By cutting federal payrolls, the Trump administration hopes to fund part of its "proposed $4.5 trillion in tax cuts," Melotte explains. "The firings will hurt many rural communities that rely on the federal government for a large share of their economic base."

The loss of government jobs is particularly harmful to rural communities because federal positions generally pay better and will be more difficult for individuals to replace. Melotte reports, "In 2023, wages in rural private sector jobs were $50,600 per job, on average, compared to $79,300 per job in the federal government. . . . Federal jobs only make up 1.6% of the total rural workforce, but in many rural communities, they are one of the largest employers.

Explaining the domino effect federal firings could have on rural communities, Megan Lawson, from Headwaters Economics, told Melotte, "Especially in the West, where many federal layoffs are affecting public land agencies, these employees will not be able to manage our natural resources and serve the public. Our gateway communities whose economies depend on natural resources or recreation on federal land will feel the ripple effects when the resources and their visitors aren't being managed well. It's unclear how quickly these effects will be felt."

Nationwide, the tally of federal wages paid to rural employees is substantial. "Federal wages accounted for $21 billion in non-metropolitan, or rural, counties in 2023," Melotte adds. So far, the Trump administration fired more than 1,000 Department of Veteran Affairs employees and cut 3,400 Forest Service jobs.

When it comes to the economy, many rural Americans feel left out of the conversation, study groups suggest

When it comes to the economy, rural Americans tend to
feel unheard. (The Daily Yonder photo)

When news outlets claim the U.S. economy has shown "surprising resilience" or robust job growth, their analysis often neglects rural Americans, leaving people feeling more marginalized and unheard, The Daily Yonder polling found. Daily Yonder Publisher Dee Davis outlines their research efforts and gives voice to some rural experiences and needs. Below is a condensed version of his commentary based on the polling and discussions with rural residents.

"For the last couple of years, we have been working with groups around the country to get a sense of what rural communities were feeling about the economy. Are country people hurting? Are they optimistic? Is it the same old up one day and down the next? As part of our research, we have commissioned polling, conducted eight focus groups in four states, and shared what we have found with policy professionals and political analysts. As the fog begins to lift, here is what I see.

"My uncle used to tell me he was too poor to pay attention. News that the economy is rip-roaring, with crashing unemployment and rising wages, is lost on most rural Americans we surveyed right now, even with those who say they are better off than before. The price of things — a gallon of gas, a dozen of eggs — has knocked rural communities off course and money is not what it used to be.

"And a measurable part of the rural population is pissed. They have had it with oil companies, drug makers, and distant corporations who care not a whit what country people are going through. Rural people are of two minds about government in that, one, they want it out of the way, and two, they want it to intervene to create new jobs in rural America.

The following are comments made by participants in the focus group sessions. "Focus group participant from Wisconsin: 'It's really difficult not to fall into the trap . . . where you really do start to internalize it and think 'Well I must be a failure, because I don't have what my parents had. I certainly don't have what my grandparents had.'. . . A participant from Kentucky: 'I'm in survival mode every day.'. . . Participant from Ohio: "I'm really worried about the kids because it's way worse than a lot of people realize. Like so many of them are depressed and anxious and don't know what to do. Losing hope, being suicidal. I mean children, like little children even, we are not even talking teenagers. And they need hope. They need to see something get better. Some reason to become an adult.'

"Our analysis of these rural focus groups showed us:

• People want to share their stories and be heard, but they often feel ignored: misunderstood and maligned by the media.
• People are struggling with loss — loss of status, wealth, a valued role — but they try not to give in to despair.
• People will act out of hope in situations where they can receive and offer community support. Being of service to others is a valued purpose.
• People in our groups want to push back against partisan politics and culture war rhetoric."

Go here to read the about the complete polling analysis.

Changing how the federal government defines 'persistent poverty' areas could hurt rural communities, writers say

A 'centroid' is a circle with its center at the center of a geographic shape. (Economic Innovation Group map, via The Daily Yonder, based on census data and five-year estimates from Census Bureau's American Community Survey, a national poll)

Changing how persistent poverty is determined could reduce rural communities' chances of receiving federal aid, report Keith Wiley and Joe Belden for The Daily Yonder: "In a detailed new report, the Economic Innovation Group says that using counties as the unit of evaluation for 'persistent poverty' means that poor urban neighborhoods get overlooked when their economic performance is averaged with more prosperous parts of an urban county. The result is a picture of persistent poverty that skews rural. . . . That problem could be addressed by looking at persistent poverty in census tracts, a smaller geographic measure, rather than in the traditional focus on counties."

Persistent poverty is now defined by county. Counties "where more than 20% of the population has lived below the federally defined poverty level for 30 years" are included, the Yonder reports. How long-term poverty is measured is significant because it decides which areas qualify for "special federal support" to address the problem.

"The U.S. has 415 persistently poor counties with 20.5 million people. The South is home to 81% of these counties, and 84% of the 415 counties are non-metro," Wiley and Belden explain. When census tracts are used, the picture skews urban. "Over 9,400 census tracts are persistently poor and have a population of 34.2 million people. The population increase in going from a county to a census tract methodology is in metropolitan areas. The study recommends defining persistent poverty areas as those with four contiguous persistently poor census tracts."

Rural areas already struggle to get "government assistance and lack the dedicated funds, which larger communities receive" through grants/entitlements," Wiley and Belden write. That means more rural areas have to compete for assistance "rather than [receive funding] in the guaranteed entitlements received by larger urban areas. . . . These smaller places often have the least capacity to produce a winning proposal."

Should the definition of "persistent poverty" change, a series of unintended consequences could unfold, leaving more of rural America without needed assistance as the definition refocuses efforts in urban areas that often have the advantage of shouldering more urban, resourced areas. It is easier to "invest in an area in the Pittsburgh metropolitan area than an isolated Central Appalachian county," Wiley and Belden add. "Part of what makes persistent poverty counties chronically poor is their isolation and difficulty to serve."

They acknowledge, "It is true that the current definition on a county basis does overlook persistent poverty pockets in urban/suburban areas. These communities need investment and focused policies, something that should be promoted. Overall, this very important and ground-breaking study deserves consideration. But would focusing on census tracts rather than counties lead to less attention to rural poverty? Rural advocates need a seat at the table."

Dept. of Transportation issues 12 rural grants as Biden-Harris administration reaches for more rural voters

Traffic builds on West Reserve Drive in Kalispell, Mt.
(Photo by Casey Kreider, Daily Inter Lake)

In mid-December, the U.S. Department of Transportation announced a dozen grants for rural communities, and "strategists within the Democratic Party say it’s one way the Biden-Harris administration is getting out a message to rural voters," reports Kristi Eaton of The Daily Yonder. "The grants were announced in a press release that touted how the 12 projects would improve and expand transportation infrastructure in rural communities across the United States."

Transportation Secretary Pete Buttigieg said in a news release, "Infrastructure investments haven’t always reached rural America, leaving far too many roads, bridges, and other parts of the transportation system across our country in disrepair. Today’s announcement is one of many ways this administration is delivering the investments that rural communities have gone without for far too long, modernizing transportation, creating economic opportunity, and making life better for millions of people.'"

One project is a Bureau of Indian Affairs improvement of South Dakota Route 7, Eaton reports: "In Todd County — which is completely within the borders of the Rosebud Indian Reservation – USDOT is investing $26.2 million in the reconstruction of approximately 24 miles of roadway stretching from US Route 18 to US Route 83."

In Kalispell, Montana, USDOT is "investing $25 million in pedestrian and road safety and economic mobility," Eaton notes. Bob Lombardi, who has worked for Democratic Sens. Max Baucus and Jon Tester, told Eaton, “In Montana, they drive for a long distance for basketball games, football games between the Bobcats and Grizzlies. So people know how important it is, especially in rural areas. And just when we had a … cold snap, it was hugely important to make sure those roads were open not only for Montanans to shop but also for utility workers.”

Teresa Purcell, who was senior rural-engagement adviser for the Democratic Party during the recent midterm elections, told Eaton that "it’s important for the Biden-Harris administration to showcase the 'transformational investments in rural America' taking place." Purcell told Eaton that it's not as simple as announcing grants: “It’s also, how are we making sure that, frankly, the county commissioners and elected officials who are choosing not to apply for those grants are held accountable to turning away money that will actually help their communities thrive."

Feds, faculty seek symbiotic 'Reese's Cup' mix of farms, solar; Pa. creates a solar guide for farming communities

A combine harvests soybeans under hanging solar panels on an agrivoltaic site in France. The federal government hopes to inspire similar projects in the United States. (Photo by Patrick Hertzog, Agence France-Presse via Getty Images)

"Your solar panel shaded my corn!" "Your corn shaded my solar panel." "Wait! This could be the beginning of an incredible relationship." So might go a 21st century version of the 50-year-old Reese's Cup myth of magical beginnings.

For clean energy, some "Reese" options are being considered, report Daniel Moore and Maeve Sheehey of Bloomberg Law: "Developers are often eyeing fields of wheat, corn, and hay; ranches roamed by cattle and sheep; and plots bursting with berries and lettuce. If built there, solar panels can level farms that feed the country. Yet federal energy officials and university researchers believe there’s no conflict. The Energy Department is scaling up the emerging field of 'agrivoltaics,' which seeks innovations in both solar technology and farming techniques that can produce clean energy and food at the same time, on the same plot of land."

The department, which has been researching the topic since 2015, "announced $8 million for another six research projects that plan to assess issues like soil health, grazing methods, and outreach to minority farmers," Bloomberg reports. "Farming can also help solar panels. Arid land around solar installations can be a problem, blowing dust and hurting farmers next door. Planting crops like broccoli keeps the back of panels cool while conserving water—a win-win for plants and solar productivity, and especially important in the drought-plagued West."

The story's candy angle came from Andrea Gerlak, director of the University of Arizona’s Udall Center for Studies in Public Policy, who said, “It’s like a Reese’s peanut butter cup. You want to bring the chocolate and the peanut butter together." Michele Boyd, who leads DOE's agrivoltaics portfolio, told Bloomberg that the pairing "needs to work economically for the farmer, and it needs to work economically for the solar industry—that’s the sweet spot. Otherwise, why would they do it?”

Meanwhile, Pennsylvania, a state with little solar regulation, has released a community guide for solar projects, reports Philip Gruber of Lancaster Farming: "The document has no regulatory force, but it provides a set of principles designed to balance renewable energy, food production and environmental protection. . . . A key point is solar companies should do their best to ensure farming can continue within the solar array. This could involve elevating the panels or spacing them widely, using livestock to manage vegetation, and designing the project so that a farmer who rents the land can continue to do so."

Corps denies permit for huge mine in Bristol Bay watershed after GOP division, surreptitious recordings of executives

New York Times map

The Army Corps of Engineers "denied a permit for the Pebble Mine in Alaska on Wednesday, effectively killing plans to build the massive copper and gold project that opponents had warned could wipe out the world's largest sockeye salmon fishery" in Bristol Bay, report Anthony Adranga and Annie Snider of Politico. "The decision from the Trump administration, which had reversed course several times on the issue, comes just weeks before President-elect Joe Biden takes office. Biden has said he opposed the project."

Pebble Limited Partnership, said it would appeal. the U.S. subsidiary of Canadian mining firm Northern Dynasty Minerals said it was dismayed because it had revised its plan in recent months to mitigate issues raised by environmentalists. But this time the enviros had unusual allies, and the developers talked too much, dooming their case.

The project "divided Republicans and Alaska politicians normally in favor of expanding domestic mineral production," Politico notes. "President Donald Trump faced a public pressure campaign from Republicans, including mega-donor Andy Sabin, Bass Pro Shops CEO Johnny Morris, Fox News commentator Tucker Carlson and his eldest son, Donald Trump Jr., to block the project."

Then, secret recordings of Pebble's CEO at the time revealed him "boasting about how he would influence Alaskan politicians," prompting Republican Sens. Lisa Murkowski and Dan Sullivan to "affirm their outright opposition to the projection after sending mixed signals up until that point," Politico reports. 

In the recording, Pebble executives also "suggested that they were planning for a much larger mine, and one that would operate far longer, than what had been proposed to the Corps," The New York Times reports. "The recordings were obtained by an environmental advocacy group, with two members who were posing as potential investors in the project meeting by video with two project executives. The executives described how the mine could operate for 160 years or more beyond the proposed 20 years, and how its output could double after the first two decades."

Seven who occupied wildlife refuge facility are found not guilty of federal conspiracy charges

Defendant David Fry was released after the verdict.
(Oregonian photo by Stephanie Yao Long)

The leader of January's armed takeover of a facility at the Malheur National Wildlife Refuge in Oregon was acquitted Thursday, with six other defendants. "The verdicts finding Ammon Bundy, older brother Ryan Bundy and five others not guilty of a federal conspiracy drew elation from defense attorneys who spent five weeks arguing that the armed takeover amounted to a time-honored tradition of First Amendment protest and civil disobedience," Maxine Bernstein reports for The Oregonian.

"Prosecutors had argued the case was simple: The refuge occupiers took control of a wildlife refuge that wasn't theirs. The heavily armed guards that manned the front gate and watchtower during the 41-day takeover, in and of itself, was 'intimidating,' and prevented officers from the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and U.S. Bureau of Land Management from carrying out their work. But defense lawyers said they believe the jury held true to the judge's instructions, and couldn't find beyond a reasonable doubt that their 'intent' was to prevent the federal employees from going to work."

Fred Barbash of The Washington Post looks at the implications:

“I fear this ruling will embolden other militants to use the threat of violence and I worry for the safety of employees at our public land- management agencies,” said John Horning, executive director of WildEarth Guardians, in a statement. “It is entirely possible there will be threats or intimidations from militants that believe such actions are justified by this verdict.”
Lisa Ludwig, described as a standby counsel for Ryan Bundy, told the Oregonian that “maybe this is a lesson that that’s not the way to engage with these people who want nothing more than just to be heard …”
By contrast, Jennifer Rokala, executive director of the Center for Western Priorities, said the decision puts park rangers and scientists at great risk just for doing their jobs and will “undoubtedly embolden extremist groups.”