Federal Court stops USDA’s restructuring plans, for now

The United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) announced a radical restructuring plan in March, which aimed to relocate the U.S. Forest Service to Utah, close all nine forest service regional offices and close 23 research facilities. Thousands of employees were also set to be relocated out of Washington, D.C., reports Emily Gardner for Eos.

But on Oct. 13, U.S. District Judge Vince Chhabria ruled the USDA can’t continue with its plans through a preliminary injunction, which "asks that the status quo is maintained until a ruling is reached. In this case, it means disallowing major restructuring for the time being."
 

The plans were ruled against because the agency would use funds appropriated by Congress for a purpose (shutting down offices and relocating staff) they did not approve of at the time funds were given.

Agency secretary Brooke Rollins, who was nominated by President Trump, said the restructure did not involve cutting staff, but the USDA’s Reductions in Force and Reorganization Plan "acknowledged that the approach would cut the workforce by 23%, which led some to call the relocation efforts a ‘RIF in disguise.'" Patrick Moran, president of the American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees (AFSCME) said the agency’s attempt to gut staff would threaten programs like SNAP, hinder wildfire responses and hurt farmers.

The USDA cannot move forward with any restructuring plans until Dec. 11. While Judge Chhabria was able to strike down the plan this month, the statutes used against them will expire in two months, "which means that the agency could convince Congress to appropriate funds toward initiatives like office closure and employee relocation in the future."

A federal program that helps landowners restore forests after a disaster has run out of funding

The Emergency Forest Restoration Program (EFRP), an initiative in the Federal Farm Service Agency, has received more requests for aid than it can pay for. Congress created the program in the 2008 Farm Bill, and it provides disaster relief to private, nonindustrial land owners, or reimburses them up to 75% of the cost of restoring damaged woods. 

"Almost two years ago, Congress appropriated $357 million for the program 'to remain available until expended,'" Vivian La reports for Grist. Much of that money was granted to landowners devastated by 2024’s hurricane season, and more recently, to Michigan property owners affected by 2025’s ice storm. Work can include clearing trees to prevent fire risk, replanting or managing invasive species.

Residents say dealing with the federal program "has been mired in delays, confusion about eligibility, and what’s been described by landowners and foresters as little communication from federal officials."

Many homeowners cannot wait for restoration to come, and sometimes, they cannot afford to begin efforts themselves. If they do, they may be disqualified from the program in the future. Tony Fox, a forester in Lake City, also said the EFRP is "a little unfair to the folks at the FSA" because it lumps a forestry program in with a primarily agricultural agency.

As weather conditions become more intense with climate change, foresters stress the importance of the program. U.S. Rep. Jack Bergman, a Republican who represents all of northern Michigan, said, "If Washington calls this emergency relief, it needs to act like it’s an emergency."

Trump shifts funds from National Parks to projects in Washington

Funding U.S. National Parks Service projects has not been a priority for the Trump Administration, which has siphoned money from the USNPS for several Washington, D.C., projects, including the unveiling of gold leaf statues, reopening ornamental water fountains and repairing the Lincoln Memorial pool. This spring, the Trump Administration used at least $67 million generated by park entrance fees to fund such projects, reports Maxine Joselow for The New York Times. 

About 1,500 projects at more than 200 sites nationwide were deemed “low priority,” while projects in Washington were added to a list of White House priorities. There is currently a $24 billion backlog of deferred maintenance projects across the parks.

Staff cuts and funding shifts have left 433 USNPS sites in turmoil, with 20% of the parks being significantly understaffed. A proposal to sell a small parcel of Yosemite’s land to a private developer has become a bipartisan issue, Joselow writes. “Polling shows that Americans of all stripes and political persuasions overwhelmingly love their parks.”

Trump has taken other actions that affect the parks, including putting his face on park passes and ordering the removal of exhibits that "inappropriately disparage Americans,” as was the case for one exhibit about slavery and a sign about climate change.

Fran P. Mainella, a Republican who led the Park Service under President George W. Bush, said that Trump may not realize the value of parks to the public and the economy, and said there needs to be a way to better tell Trump that story. The parks and politics are no strangers; the Bush Administration was accused of promoting religious and conservative content at the parks.

Nonetheless, “Senator Steve Daines, a Montana Republican who leads a subcommittee on national parks, said in an interview that Mr. Trump ‘has been an incredible supporter of the parks.’ He dismissed reports of funding and staffing issues at parks as ‘fear-mongering’ by the president’s critics before the midterm elections.”

USDA staff cuts leave farmers unable to obtain loans and grants

Navajo farming couple, Mary and Zachariah Ben, sought a loan from the U.S. Department of Agriculture for
their dream property last fall in Aztec, New Mexico, but quickly learned that only half a dozen loan specialists remained to process claims for the entire state. Approval of their low-interest loan had been on hold since November’s government shutdown, but after learning about the staffing shortages — which would have held up their loan even longer — they turned to private lenders, reports Linda Qiu for The New York Times.

The Bens are not unique. “Across the country, farmers and rural residents describe struggling to obtain the basic services the Agriculture Department is meant to offer, including loans and grants, technical assistance and financing for housing and utilities,” Qiu reports.

This comes after President Trump’s Department of Government Efficiency push for USDA employees to voluntarily resign, to “trim a bloated agency” with too many employees hired in the previous administrations. 

More than 20,000 workers of the 110,000 in the USDA left in the first half of 2025. In the division of the Farm Service Agency, which the Bens hoped would approve their loan, there is no staff left in dozens of counties, which Qiu writes has forced “farmers to travel long distances for assistance or to simply give up.”

In the Rural Development subagency of USDA, nearly 1,700 workers — one-third of its staff — have left under the Trump administration. More than 2,700 workers have left the Natural Resources Conservation Service, a branch helping farmers practice sustainability. Queries wait for weeks, charities that had been approved under Biden are now waiting years for federal funding, and Oui reports that farmers “turn to expensive private consultants for advice.”

It's unclear whether staffing cuts have been a factor in Rural Development cuts, but far fewer loans and grants have been financed in the past year.

Trump’s budget proposed a nearly $5 billion cut to the USDA in the next fiscal year, which Qiu writes will essentially eliminate “programs for beginning farmers, conservation and rural aid.”

What it’s like to be disabled in a rural community as Medicaid cuts hit?

Trillions of dollars will be cut from Medicaid over the next 10 years because of the One Beautiful Bill Act, which will have a major impact on rural families who relied on the program for healthcare. Marsh Naidoo, a physical therapist, advocate and mother of a child with cerebral palsy, sat down with Madeline de Figueiredo of The Daily Yonder to discuss navigating life with her son, Kellen, amid today’s political landscape.

Naidoo, of Dyersburg, Tennessee, said the American healthcare system is extremely complicated to manage with a child who has a disability. “The advocacy part came around when we [realized] that there were so many policies being shaped by legislators who didn’t actually know what it meant to be in the lives of families experiencing disabilities.”

Her community has embraced her son, Naidoo said, but there are still barriers in place. There isn’t always access to efficient healthcare providers when it’s needed, patients are not without the administrative burden of multiple appointments in different locations, and telehealth is not always the answer.

“But the fact is not all rural communities are set up with broadband, nor is internet access always a given,” Naidoo told de Figueiredo. “I also see this in my experience as a healthcare provider. My physical therapy patients would rather come in to see me than communicate through a screen.”

With fiscal cuts for the coming years, Naidoo said families like hers aren’t sure how the loss will affect them. Medicaid is the largest healthcare payer source in the United States, but “Being the richest nation on earth, where 17% of our GDP goes toward healthcare, and not knowing you have healthcare security when you have a child with complex medical needs is frightening.”

Trump deems Digital Equity Act illegal on basis of racially designated grants; new applications will be required

“Rural residents live sicker and die younger on average than people in the rest of the country when they live in counties lacking high-speed internet access and healthcare,” reports Sarah Jane Tribble for KFF Health News. “While 81% of white adults surveyed said they subscribed to broadband at home, only 71% of Black adults and 68% of Hispanic adults said the same.”

Congress allocated $2.75 billion for the Digital Equity Act under the Biden administration in 2021. The money was for skill development under the broader “Internet for All” infrastructure initiative. “The Digital Equity Act lists exactly whom the money should benefit, including low-income households, older people, some incarcerated people, rural Americans, veterans, and members of racial or ethnic minority groups,” Tribble reports.

A few months into Trump’s second term, he called the DEA program “illegal.” This came in the wake of two executive orders dismantling DEI and the 2023 Supreme Court decision invalidating affirmative action.

U.S. District Judge John D. Bates sided with the administration in an opinion, stating “that it was unconstitutional for the government to use race or ethnicity as the basis to award money under a program created to expand internet skills and access.”

The National Telecommunications and Information Administration halted DEA grant programs after the decision, heavily impacting the National Digital Inclusion Alliance. The NDIA serves rural and marginalized communities, providing programs where community workers teach internet and technology skills.

With Bates’ decision, federal attorneys said the government would reinstate NDIA competitive grants without racial classifications. A new grant application is expected for release in December, and the NDIA must reapply for the grants they once had.

If Congress doesn't extend enhanced health care tax credits, 4 million rural Americans could face steep premium hikes

Average health care premium comparison before and after ACA credits for 10 'farm states.'
(Robert Woods Johnson Foundation graph)

Without the Affordable Care Act's enhanced tax credits, roughly four million rural Americans could see significant increases to their health care insurance premiums. Last year, the Health and Human Services reported that 17% of individuals who purchased insurance through the ACA marketplace were rural residents, reports Chris Clayton of Progressive Farmer.

While Washington lawmakers focus on eliminating programs that could use American tax dollars to pay for health insurance for illegal immigrants, "there is less talk about how much rural America relies on those tax credits," Clayton explains. "The tax credits have been a major driver for reducing the number of uninsured Americans."

In 2024, the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation reviewed "enrollment of Medicaid and marketplace policies in ten 'farm states,'" Clayton reports. "In that study, eight states -- all but Iowa and Kentucky -- showed more than 5% of residents were enrolled in ACA marketplace policies."

Without ACA enhanced tax credits, health insurance premiums may be out of reach for many rural Americans. According to the article, an individual making $35,000, with enhanced tax credits, would pay a health care premium of $1,033 per year. Without ACA credits, the premium jumps to $2,615 annually, representing a $1,582 increase.

"Overall, the enhanced tax credits saved rural enrollees an average of $890 per year, about 28% more than their urban counterparts," Clayton reports.

Clinicians in rural Idaho brace for Medicaid cuts that 'are already creating hurdles'

Pregnant women in Idaho often drive hours for
prenatal care. (Adobe Stock photo)

New rules for Medicaid have Idaho clinicians predicting more emergency visits, fewer residents with health care coverage and more maternity care deserts, reports Madeline de Figueiredo for The Daily Yonder. The systemic Medicaid changes will be the hardest on rural residents who tend to be more reliant on Medicaid.

Many Idaho medical providers see new Medicaid work requirements, income checks and possible co-payments as "changes [that] are already creating hurdles and could lead to major coverage losses and reduced access to care," according to the article. 

Coverage losses often increase emergency room visits because people delay care until their symptoms are so severe that they have no choice but to go to the emergency room. Individuals can be left with costly ED bills for care that could have been affordable if it had been sought sooner.

Idaho is already facing rural hospital closures and provider shortages, both of which impact prenatal care for expecting mothers and their babies. Figueiredo reports, "Bonner General Health, the only hospital with OB-GYNs in Bonner County, closed its obstetrics services in 2023. . . . All four OB-GYNs from Bonner County told NBC that Idaho’s strict abortion laws influenced their decision to leave."

The lack of obstetric care throughout the state means pregnant women often have to travel hours for care. Many are told to purchase insurance for emergency medical flights. Amy Klingler, a primary care physician assistant in Stanley, Idaho, told Figueiredo, “We encourage everyone, really, in our community to have that [coverage]. . . . Helicopter rides are probably anywhere from $25,000 to $50,000."

A housing program for working Americans is in 'political limbo'; more than 40% of its builds were in rural places

A new home built in Owsley County, Ky. with HOME
funding. (Partnership Housing, Ky., photo)

Since the 1990s, grants from the HOME Investment Partnership have helped fill financial gaps, so more affordable housing is available for working Americans. But the program's funding isn't included in the new federal budget, and its future remains uncertain.

The loss of HOME's investment in communities would be particularly painful for "Appalachian towns and rural counties where government aid is sparse and investors are few," report Charlotte Kramon, Jesse Bedayn, Michaela Herbst and Aaron Kessler of The Associated Press. Over the past 30 years, the program has "helped build or repair more than 1.3 million affordable homes of which at least 540,000 were in congressional districts that are rural or significantly rural."

Even though the program has spent more than $35 billion helping to address the country's affordable housing crisis, "a spokesperson for HUD, which administers the program, said HOME isn’t as effective as other programs where the money would be better spent," AP reports. Some Senate Republicans are working to save the program by including it in their draft budgets.

Despite the program's effectiveness in some regions, it is often criticized for its cumbersome red tape. Kramon adds, "A bipartisan group of House lawmakers is working to reduce HOME’s notorious red tape that even proponents say slows construction."

Meanwhile, its future remains in political crosshairs, where it is needed by working Americans, but is easier for lawmakers to eliminate without drawing public ire. Kramon explains, "HOME is an easier target than programs such as vouchers because most people would not immediately lose their housing."

If HOME funding is axed or even drastically cut, places like rural Owsley County, Kentucky, will feel it. "Affordable homes are needed there, but tough to build in a region that doesn’t attract larger-scale rental developments that federal dollars typically go toward," AP reports. "Partnership Housing in Owsley has relied on the program to build the majority of its affordable homes for at least a dozen years."

Given the new federal budget cuts, more affordable medical care for many Americans seems unlikely

Many Americans will pay more for health care in
the coming months. (Adobe Stock image)

Americans who hoped to see their medical costs decrease during the next four years are likely to be disappointed, as federal-level decisions aimed at cutting or reducing benefits take effect and other expenses are passed off to states and the public.

"Millions of people are expected to lose health insurance in the coming years as a result of the tax cut legislation, leaving them with fewer protections from large bills if they get sick or suffer an accident," reports Noam N. Levey of KFF Health News.

President Donald Trump "promised a rosier future while campaigning last year, pledging to 'make America affordable again' and 'expand access to new Affordable Healthcare,'" Levey writes. "Polls suggest voters were looking for relief."

People who purchase health insurance on state marketplaces can expect to see substantial increases over the next year, which may cause more people to drop coverage or opt for higher-deductible plans. Certain Medicaid enrollees may be required to cover copays up to $35.

For consumers who can’t pay their medical bills, there are fewer guardrails. Levey writes, "(In July), the Trump administration secured permission from a federal court to roll back regulations that would have removed medical debt from consumer credit reports."

Arika Sánchez, who oversees health care policy at the nonprofit New Mexico Center on Law and Poverty, sees how negative credit report "dings" can hurt a family struggling to survive. She told Levey, "When families get stuck with medical debt, it hurts their credit scores, makes it harder to get a car, a home, or even a job. Medical debt wrecks people’s lives.”

Overall, medical debt is a national problem and not a partisan issue. "About 6 in 10 adults — Democrats and Republicans — say they are worried about being able to afford health care, according to one recent survey," Levey explains. 

Congress allotted $50 billion to support rural hospitals over the next 5 years; many advocates say it won't be enough

Rural hospital often care for sicker patients with lower
incomes. (Photo by J.B. Morris, Unsplash)

The newly approved federal budget includes a $50 billion purse to help rural hospitals address current and future needs; however, many experts warn that the money, which will be managed through the Rural Health Transformation Program, may not be enough to cover foreseeable Medicaid and budgetary reductions. 

The plan "calls for federal regulators to hand states $10 billion a year for 5 years starting in fiscal year 2026," reports Sarah Jane Tribble of KFF Health News. "But health advocates and researchers doubt it will be enough to offset expected cuts in federal funding."

Meanwhile, many rural hospitals require additional financial support now and are likely to face shortfalls when federal cuts begin to take effect. "Nearly 1 in 4 people in rural America use Medicaid, the state and federal program for low-income and disabled people," Tribble explains. "People who live in the nation's rural expanses have more chronic diseases, die younger, and make less money." 

Out of the $10 billion allotted each year, "half of the money will be 'distributed equally' among states that apply to and win approval from the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services," Tribble explains. "States are required to submit a 'detailed rural health transformation plan' by the end of this year, according to the law."

The current CMS administrator, Dr. Mehmet Oz, "will determine how to distribute the other half, or $25 billion, using a formula based on states’ rural population and need," Tribble writes. The law says funds should be used by states and the CMS administrator "for such things as increasing use of robotics, upgrading cybersecurity, and helping rural communities to right-size their health care delivery systems.'"

While the plan is intended to fill funding gaps in rural health care, stakeholders are unclear about who creates state proposals and what measurements are required after funding is received. Sarah Hohman, the director of government affairs at the National Association of Rural Health Clinics, told Tribble, "There’s just some confusion about who actually gets this money at the end of the day. . . and what it is actually going to be used for?"

As health advocates review the program, some believe that politics, rather than the health of rural constituents, will drive how the $50 billion fund is spent. Michael Cannon, director of health policy studies at the Cato Institute, a libertarian think tank headquartered in Washington, D.C., told Tribble, "As long as it’s a government slush fund where politics decides where the money goes, then there’s going to be a mismatch between where those funds go and what it is consumers need." 

Hospital advocates have two years to push lawmakers to repeal the most 'painful' parts of Trump's new budget

Hospitals are busy planning how to lobby for changes
in the new law. (Photo by P. Guillaume, Unsplash)

Since President Donald Trump's "One Big Beautiful Bill" became law, news headlines have warned how its Medicaid cuts will devastate local hospital systems. But many of those changes don't take effect until 2028, giving "hospitals [and] their armies of lobbyists and many allies on Capitol Hill. . . two and a half years to persuade lawmakers to rescind them," report Robert King, Amanda Chu and David Lim of Politico. "And 2028 is not only an election year, but a presidential one."

Chris Mitchell, the head of the Iowa Hospital Association, told Politico, "We’re going to talk to our delegation early and often about the impact of these cuts and how looming cuts down the road impact how hospitals run in the interim. . . . Are they really going to want to cut rural hospitals in an election?"

Congress does have a history of "delaying or repealing the painful parts of major legislation," King, Chu and Lim write. "Congress, for example, never allowed a tax on high-end 'Cadillac' insurance plans in 2010’s Affordable Care Act to take effect, and rescinded a tax on medical devices."

The stretch from now until 2028 gives hospital executives and health care advocates time to push Congress into making changes or to pull back cuts. Politico reports, "Several state-based hospital associations say they will ramp up meetings with lawmakers to stress the need for an off-ramp before the 2028 elections."

Eliminating Medicaid cuts comes with a downside for the U.S. economy and cost-weary consumers. "It’ll mean the One Big Beautiful Bill Act will be even more expensive than the Congressional Budget Office expects: $3.4 trillion in deficit spending over a decade," Politico reports. "That will have ramifications across the U.S. economy, exposing Americans to higher interest rates and slower economic growth, budget experts warn."

Rural housing support is on the chopping block. Proposal would cut billions from programs rural residents use.

The proposed budget would cut many USDA housing
programs that help rural Americans. (Adobe photo)

 

President Trump's newly released federal budget proposal cuts billions from rural housing support programs. "If adopted by Congress, key Department of Agriculture rural development and housing programs would be completely eliminated," reports Joe Belden for The Daily Yonder. "Major Housing and Urban Development programs that are important in rural areas also would get zero dollars next year, and many social safety net programs would be cut."

Similar cuts were suggested and rejected during Trump's first term, but this Congress may think differently.

The new budget ends funding for the 502 loan program, which has existed since the 1950s, and has helped "2.2 million low-income rural families to become homeowners," Belden writes.

Trump's 2026 budget cuts billions in U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development disbursements by ending financial support for Community Development Block Grants and the HOME program, which "were used extensively in rural areas and small cities," Belden reports. "One of the federal government’s most important and largest social safety net programs, tenant-based rental assistance, would be cut by $26.7 billion."

Other proposed cuts that could impact rural communities include the end of the Low-income Home Energy Assistance Program, zero funding for the Community Development Financial Institutions Fund’s discretionary grants and the elimination of the Community Services Block Grant program.

Along with cuts, the proposed budget has a silver lining, which "says that it furthers investment in rural communities by creating a new $100 million award program that would provide access to affordable financing and spur economic development in rural America," Belden explains. "This new program would require 60% of Community Development Financial Institutions’ loans and investments to go to rural areas."

Congress will decide during its budgetary process how to act on the president's budget proposal.