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. 

USDA announces plan to move staff out of Washington, D.C.; many in Congress want more details, answers

Brooke L. Rollins

In a bid to lower costs and cut the federal workforce, the U.S. Department of Agriculture announced it will "relocate much of its Washington, D.C., workforce to five regional hubs and vacate several buildings in the area, including its flagship research center," reports Leah Douglas of Reuters. "More than 15,000 USDA employees, about 15% of its total workforce, have this year taken one of the agency's two financial incentive offers to leave."

The restructuring plan would keep roughly 2,000 USDA employees employed in Washington, D.C, but the "rest, about 2,600 people, will be relocated to hubs in Raleigh, North Carolina; Kansas City, Missouri; Indianapolis, Indiana; Fort Collins, Colorado; and Salt Lake City, Utah," Douglas writes. "The phased plan to relocate workers was made to bring USDA staff closer to its 'core constituents,' Agriculture Secretary Brooke Rollins said in a video to staff."

Despite the goal of cutting expenses, critics say relocating staff is costly, often inefficient and can mean less oversight guidance. Laura Dodson, an economist with the USDA Economic Research Service, told Douglas, "While this is bad for employees, it will be worse for the American public."

Meanwhile, lawmakers are weighing in on the restructuring plans, with many wanting to hear more about the plan and others opposing it, report Steve Davies and Rebekah Alvey of Successful Farming. 

John Boozman at Agriculture Committee Hearings
(Photo via Successful Farming)

Senate Agriculture Committee Chair John Boozman, R-Ark., and the committee’s top Democrat, Amy Klobuchar of Minnesota, are "calling for a hearing on the USDA’s reorganization plan, which Klobuchar said was 'completely unacceptable' and would 'decimate research work at the USDA,'" Davies and Alvey write. "Klobuchar said she got only a brief advance notice of the announcement for something that’s going to 'destroy the whole USDA.'"

Many lawmakers were caught off guard by the announcement and want to see the plan in detail. Representatives from states where new "hubs" would be located tended to see the announcement more positively. Some experienced agribusiness professionals cast doubts on how much cost savings or service assistance moving thousands of employees could accomplish.

Gbenga Ajilore, who served as a senior adviser in the office of the undersecretary for rural development, said "the messaging in the plan about making USDA a customer-focused agency conflicts with the fact that more than 15,000 people from across the country have taken buyouts," Successful Farming reports. 

Ajilore told reporters, "They’re moving people out of D.C. and moving them into pretty much big cities ... at the same time that they’re removing staff from these field offices that may end up being closed. I just don’t see how that’s going to work.” 

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."

Fatal Texas flooding leads to controversy over National Weather Service staffing cuts

The violent waters of the Guadalupe River flipped this
 motor home. (Photo by Sergio Martínez-Beltrán, NPR)

The fatal July 4th flooding in central Texas has led to questions over whether staffing cuts at the National Weather Service and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration contributed to the tragedy, which left more than 100 people dead. "The floods occurred along Texas’s Guadalupe River, roughly an hour’s drive northwest of San Antonio," reports Miriam Waldvogel of The Hill.

"The Austin/San Antonio Weather Service office’s warning coordination meteorologist, who organizes alerting the outside world about agency forecasts, took a Trump administration buyout in April," reports Rachel Frazin of The Hill. 

Rick Spinrad, who headed NOAA during the previous administration, "pointed to the absence of a warning coordination meteorologist," Frazin writes. Spinrad told her, "Information went out with significant lead time of several hours, and yet no action was taken. . . . In the weather forecast offices, the one who follows up with that is the position called the warning coordination meteorologist. And guess what, there is no WCM in the San Antonio/Austin weather forecast office, because that’s one of the positions that was lost in the cuts. . ."

A NWS spokesperson told The Hill that the Austin/San Antonio office and the San Angelo office "had additional forecasters on duty during the catastrophic flooding event in Texas’s Hill Country during the July 4 holiday weekend."

While Democrats want NWS cuts scrutinized for the part they may have played in the catastrophe, "President Trump said staffing cuts didn’t impact the handling of the incident," Frazin reports. Trump told reporters, "That was really the Biden set-up … but I wouldn’t blame Biden for it, either. . . . This is a hundred-year catastrophe, and it’s just so horrible to watch."

Trump will be in central Texas today, although "it’s not clear yet where he will visit," Waldvogel reports. "The deadly flash floods [swept through] Kerrville, Ingram, and Hunt, along with summer camps including Camp Mystic."

Kennedy pledged to protect Native American health, but staffing and funding cuts have already taken a toll

Navajo Nation leaders took turns hiking alongside Kennedy to detail
the tribal nation’s priorities. (Photo by Katheryn Houghton, KFF) 

Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. pledged to make Native American health a priority, but federal cuts have already sliced into plans and services tribal members need.

While Kennedy’s intervention saved the Indian Health Service from some government cuts, "health officials across tribal nations say those overtures are overshadowed by the collateral harm from massive cuts to federal health programs," report Katheryn Houghton, Jazmin Orozco Rodriguez and Arielle Zionts of KFF Health News.

Tribal members living in more remote areas will have the most difficulty accessing medical services not affiliated with the Indian Health Service. "Many tribal members don’t live near an agency clinic or hospital. And those who do may face limited services, chronic underfunding, and staffing shortages,” KFF reports. “To work around those gaps, health organizations lean on other federally funded programs.”

"Tribes have lost more than $6 million in grants from other HHS agencies, the National Indian Health Board wrote in a May letter to Kennedy," Houghton, Rodriguez and Zionts write. Across many Native American communities, HHS staffing and grant cuts have chipped away at overdose prevention programs, heat and cooling assistance, and vaccination initiatives.

Native Tribal leaders continue to voice deep concerns over the GOP’s “proposed cuts to Medicaid,” KFF reports. "About 30% of Native American and Alaska Native people younger than 65 are enrolled in Medicaid, and the program helps keep Indian Health Service and other tribal health facilities afloat.”

“Some tribal leaders say the recent cuts, and the way the administration made them, violate treaties in which the U.S. promised to provide for the health and welfare of tribes in return for taking their land,” KFF reports. “Tribal consultation is legally required when federal agencies pursue changes that would have a significant impact on tribal nations."

OPINION: Veterans should not have to prove poverty to 'qualify' for disability payments

Carroll Davis Jr. is a U.S. Marine Corp veteran and adjutant with the Disabled American Veterans Department of Mississippi. A new budget might change his benefits. (Photo by R. Solis, AP Via DY) 

As Congress searches for ways to pay for the massive tax cuts included in the One Big Beautiful Bill, the Congressional Budget Office has proposed cutting disability payments to U.S. Veterans who make too much money. "America is inching toward means-testing for disabled veterans benefits," writes Christy White in her opinion for The Daily Yonder. "We shouldn’t treat our honorably discharged military personnel like beggars."

Current VA guidelines for disability benefits do not consider a veteran's finances. "Benefits are a direct result of a service-related illness or injury," White writes. Means-testing would examine a veteran's "wages and other income to be considered eligible. … If the government determines they have the 'means' to pay for necessities … they don’t get the benefit."

She believes changes to disability payments could upend veteran income and trickle down to economic difficulties for rural regions. White explains, "There are almost five million disabled U.S. military veterans, and roughly two million of them are Appalachian residents. … How many of our kin folk may be affected by harmful means-testing? Encouraging financial success among veterans should be the goal, not penalizing them for achieving it."

White says asking veterans to prove a "lack of means" to receive military disability payments fails to honor the relationship the U.S. government has with its servicemen and women. She writes, "The suggestion that 'wealthier' veterans should not receive full compensation fails to acknowledge the contractual obligation between them and the U.S. Government; that when they sign up to serve, they are told they’ll be taken care of."

Even as the CBO argues that means-testing veterans’ benefits saves taxpayer dollars, it "ignores the fundamental nature of disability compensation — that it is a payment for service-related injuries, not a poverty relief measure," White writes. "Russell Vought is the director of the OMB. . . . [He] believes that disabled veterans should not be compensated for negative health effects caused by exposure to burn pits in Iraq and Afghanistan."

Policy director for Rural Democracy Initiative warns of budget bill’s ‘devastating’ impacts

Members of the 119th House applaud the passage of the One Big Beautiful Bill Act. (The Hill video reel photo)

After weeks of wrangling, the U.S. House of Representatives passed President Donald Trump's "one big, beautiful bill" on May 22. The bill, which has moved to the U.S. Senate, includes massive spending cuts to support tax cut extensions and additional tax cuts.

Michael Chameides, the communications and policy director for the Rural Democracy Initiative, in an opinion piece published in Iowa's Times-Republican, points out six ways the bill could hurt rural residents. He writes, "I’ve been hearing from rural leaders across the country about the devastating impacts this bill would have. . . .The good news is it’s not too late. But there’s little time to spare." 

Here are the six concerns Chameides cited:

1. The bill "guts" rural health care. "It would take health care away from 13.8 million Americans and increase the cost for millions more. In some states, 50% of rural children get healthcare from Medicaid. Millions more rely on access to clinics and hospitals that would likely close because of these cuts."

2. It cuts federal Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program spending. "More than 15% of families in small towns and rural areas rely on this support to feed their families."

(The Department of Agriculture canceled "about $660 million in funding this year for the Local Food for Schools program, which is active in 40 U.S. states," reports Aimee Picchi of CBS News. The cuts were announced in March and have left schools and farmers scrambling.)

3. The bill shifts more costs onto state and local governments. "Slashing federal funding to states would create new burdens for rural states that are already struggling to provide critical public services like health care, transportation, and emergency response services to local communities."

4. It takes away local land control. "Landowners have fought to stop the use of eminent domain for carbon pipelines by passing bans and moratoria. . . .This bill would overrule state and local laws and ordinances. . . and deprive residents of a fair opportunity to evaluate the adverse impacts of pipelines."

5. The bill phases out clean energy and infrastructure spending, including tax credits. "It would also take away $262 million in funding for energy efficiency and conservation grants as well as transportation infrastructure. . . .Ending these tax credits will increase household energy costs, which are already higher in many rural communities."

6. The bill favors bigger agribusiness companies and mega-farms. "Leaders in Congress are using the budget reconciliation process to give big farms a $50 billion windfall. Add the heightened pressures and instability caused by the Trump administration’s erratic trade policy and more family farmers would lose their farms — while Big Ag consolidates more of the market."

Chameides calls on rural residents and businesses to speak up: “Lawmakers have already heard from the giant corporations who helped write the bill. Now they need to hear from the rest of us. It’s up to us to alert our communities and tell our lawmakers: Don’t sell rural America out to big corporations and the wealthy.”

A longer version of the Times-Republican op-ed was originally published by Barn Raiser. To learn more about what could happen to the bill in the Senate, click here. 

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. 

Rural round-up: USDA plan to lower egg prices; cuts to rural education research; relief payments to farmers; USFS firings

Photo by J. Egger,
Unsplash

As egg prices keep pecking at American pocketbooks, Department of Agriculture Secretary Brooke Rollins has a 5-part plan to lower egg prices. Rollins writes, "Avian flu can still penetrate [almost any] facility; it is transmitted through wild birds that often enter through perimeter gaps that need to be fixed. . . . The USDA has developed a successful pilot program. . . to identify and implement more safety measures. . . . Second, we will make up to $400 million of increased financial relief available to farmers whose flocks are affected by avian flu, and we will assist them in receiving faster approval to begin safe operations again after an outbreak. . . ." Read all of Secretary Rollins' strategy here.

President Donald Trump's first campaign and term may have helped bring rural needs for investment and support to the forefront, but the current Trump administration "could bring that progress to a sudden halt," reports Nick Fouriezos for The Daily Yonder. "The first cuts were reportedly aimed at the Institute of Education Sciences, the Department of Education's independent research and evaluation arm, with at least 170 contracts shuttered. . . . The National Rural Higher Education Research Center just opened in September, after being awarded a 5-year, $10 million grant through the IES. . . . Led by MDRC, which conducts nonpartisan research to improve the lives of low-income Americans, the center is conducting eight major studies in rural areas across 10 states and 25 colleges."

Outdoor Recreation Roundtable photo

The wave of U.S. Forestry terminations put a precious rural resources at risk. "About 3,400 U.S. Forest Service employees within their probationary period have been fired due to Trump’s reforming the federal workforce executive order," reports Ilana Newman of The Daily Yonder. "National forests are vital to rural economies. The outdoor recreation industry contributed 1.2 trillion dollars to the American economy in 2023. . . . A source revealed that seasonal firefighters may be in the next round of terminations."

Sections of Appalachia were doused with rain last week, leaving parts of Kentucky, Virginia, West Virginia and Tennessee soaked and flooding -- again. The region's repeated natural disasters have caused heartbreak and extreme financial distress for many residents, but they have also helped Appalachian communities rely on one another. "Willa Johnson, a lifelong eastern Kentuckian, lived in McRoberts when the 2022 flood overturned her life," reports Katie Myers of Grist. "Johnson and others throughout the area feel their experience has prepared them to face future disasters with strength, and, when other rural communities go through the same experience, understand what they face and how best to help them."

In late December, Congress passed the American Relief Act, which earmarked $9.8 billion in agriculture relief payments to farmers, with a 90-day window for the Department of Agriculture to issue the checks, reports Tyne Morgan of Farm Journal. "With less than 30 days left before the deadline, farmers are asking one question: When will those payments be released? . . . .  On Thursday Secretary of Agriculture Brooke Rollins confirmed payments will be released before the March 21 current deadline. She also outlined the timing of the $1 billion just announced to combat avian flu. Rollins is schedule to give another keynote talk today. To watch Farm Journal's most recent update interview with Rollins, click here.

After its hospital closed, N.C. county works to be the first in the nation to reopen its hospital under ER-only designation

Martin General closed in 2023. (WITN TV photo)

After serving rural Martin County, N.C., for 73 years, Martin General hospital closed its doors, leaving the community's 22,000 residents without a medical care center. Like many rural hospitals across the United States, Martin General had faced shrinking profits and bankruptcy before it closed. But that's not the end of Martin General's story, reports Jaymie Baxley of NC HealthNews. "The county [is working] on a complex plan to resurrect Martin General — a plan that, if successful, could become a blueprint for other rural communities where hospitals have closed."

To make reopening possible, Martin County and hospital officials applied to change Martin General's designation from a full-service hospital to a 'rural emergency hospital,' which means the hospital would offer 24/7 emergency care but give up its inpatient services. Baxley explains, "In exchange, the hospital would receive millions in annual funding from the federal government. . . and be eligible for increased reimbursement rates for some outpatient services covered by Medicare."

But Martin General faced an unusual hurdle to becoming a rural emergency hospital -- it had already closed. Hospitals that had successfully made the switch did so while they were still open, Baxley reports. "Officials in Martin County, however, believe the hospital [could be] reopened using the rural emergency model — something that had not been attempted anywhere else in the nation. . . . Earlier this year, the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services confirmed that Martin General could reopen as a rural emergency hospital, clearing the first and arguably most important hurdle in the county’s path."

Martin General's status as a "closed hospital" also means state laws present reopening obstacles. Ben Eisner, interim Martin County manager, told Baxley, “As far as we can tell, this is really the first such situation in the country. Trying to navigate that has certainly been tricky. It’s taken us a number of months to work through some of the regulatory issues of opening a closed hospital as a rural emergency hospital.”

At present, Martin General's resurrection remains a work in progress. "In addition to being the first hospital in the nation to reopen as a rural emergency hospital, Martin General would be the first hospital in the state to receive the designation," Baxley writes. "Because the program is not open to facilities that closed before 2023, it cannot be used to bring back the state’s other shuttered hospitals. . . . But Martin County’s experience could provide a road map for other rural communities facing a similar situation in the future."

In their first 3 years, Biden has sent as much federal money to farmers as did Trump, who likes to talk about his largesse

Politico illustration

Former president Donald Trump "makes hay in farm states like Iowa by reminding farmers of how much money the federal government paid them during his presidency," but President Biden has delivered about the same in the first three years of their presidencies: $57 billion.

So reports Garrett Downs of Politico's Weekly Agriculture, adding, "Nearly half of Trump’s total $109 billion in direct payments were delivered in his final year, 2020." That's when the Department of Agriculture "paid farmers more than $52 billion, an unprecedented sum since USDA began recording farm payment data in 1933. Those tallies don’t include billions in other types of farm support, like crop insurance and loan financing — traditionally the largest types of ag subsidies."

Applying other measures, "Biden has been better for farmers than Trump," Downs writes. "Net farm income has actually gone up since the Democrat entered the White House. On average, net farm income has totaled $165 billion between 2021 and 2023, compared to $94 billion between 2017 and 2019. Farm income reached a record high of nearly $189 billion in 2022. And while it is projected to drop off in 2023 (USDA is still tallying receipts from December 2023), it remains above the 20-year average for receipts."

Looking ahead, Downs notes that Trump is proposing "a universal tariff on nearly all goods," while Biden "is telling farmers that his administration is working to distribute the recent surge in ag profits to farmers across the spectrum, not just the largest ag conglomerates." Joe Glauber, former chief USDA economist, told Downs that Trump’s proposed tariff could bring another trade war and “really hurt U.S. agriculture.”

When that happened under Trump, he used the USDA's Commodity Credit Corp. to send $28 billion in relief to farmers, but Glauber said farmers shouldn't expect another bailout. “I think that’s taking a big leap of faith,” he said. “Those were big, extraordinary payments, and I think it may be naive to think that they would be there year in and year out.”

Republicans float $50 billion in cuts to farm programs that Democrats want to preserve; top Democrat's role debated

Republicans have tentatively proposed $50 billion in possible cuts to farm programs, and all the Democrats on the House Agriculture Committee are objecting, while some worry about how the committee's top Democrat is handling negotiations with the Republican majority, Politico reports.

The cuts include money for conservation and climate-change-prevention programs that were included in the so-called Inflation Reduction Act passed by House Democrats when they were in the majority, "to make up budget shortfalls in other sections of the Farm Bill, like the commodity support title," Politico reports. Democrats "contend the money should be kept where it is because demand for the Conservation Stewardship Program and the Environmental Quality Incentives Program, two programs boosted by the IRA, far exceeds the available funding."

Rep. Scott (Photo by Bill O'Leary, The Washington Post)

The list of possible cuts "was presented to Democrats by ranking member David Scott at a previously unreported meeting two weeks ago, and it raised new concerns about his ability to negotiate a Farm Bill with Republicans," Politico reported Friday. "Scott didn’t tell panel members where the $50 billion would come from before the meeting, only that the committee had found extra money to be used for bipartisan priorities," according to anonymous sources. "So Democratic members were flummoxed when Scott’s staff presented the list of climate and nutrition programs that would be hit."

The list includes "$15 billion in unspent funds from Democrats’ prized IRA climate-agriculture programs, limits on future updates to the Thrifty Food Plan and the Conservation Reserve Program," as well as "potential clawbacks to the Commodity Credit Corp., USDA’s internal bank," which "has come under intense scrutiny from both sides of the aisle after it was used to bail out farmers injured by former President Donald Trump’s trade war, and to stand up the Biden administration’s flagship Partnerships for Climate-Smart Commodities program."

Fact-checking the first presidential debate of the 2024 race

The first debate of the 2024 presidential race, among eight Republicans, featured some claims that were false or "misleading at best," CNN reports.

Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis said the federal government locked down the economy during the pandemic while Florida "kept our state free and open," when in fact he "imposed significant restrictions" at the start of the pandemic, CNN's Daniel Dale said on the cable channel's post-debate report. The restrictions were imposed by states, not by the then-President Trump.

Former Vice President Mike Pence said the Trump-Pence administration spent money "to backfill on the military cuts of the Obama administration," but that's misleading, CNN’s Haley Britzky writes: "While military spending decreased under the Obama administration, it was largely due to the 2011 Budget Control Act, which received Republican support and resulted in automatic spending cuts to the defense budget." Pence, an Indiana congressman at the time, voted for the law.

Former South Carolina Gov. Nikki Haley said Trump, who did not participate in the debate, added $8 trillion to the national debt. The figure is accurate, but "The increase in the debt during any president’s tenure is not the fault of that president alone," CNN notes. "A significant amount of spending under any president is the result of decisions made by their predecessors – such as the creation of Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid decades ago – and by circumstances out of a president’s control, notably including the global Covid-19 pandemic under Trump."

U.S. Sen. Tim Scott of South Carolina said the Biden administration is calling “parents that show up at school board meetings . . .  domestic terrorists.” That is false, CNN’s Hannah Rabinowitz writes: "The claim stems from a 2021 letter from the National School Boards Association asking the Justice Department to 'deal with' the uptick in threats against education officials and saying that 'acts of malice, violence, and threats against public school officials' could be classified as 'the equivalent to a form of domestic terrorism and hate crimes'." Attorney General Merrick Garland issued a memo encouraging federal and local authorities to work together against such harassment campaigns "but never endorsed the 'domestic terrorism' notion," Rabinowitz writes.

Trump, who counter-programmed the debate with an online interview, "did not receive any pushback from pundit Tucker Carlson after promoting false statements about the 2020 election," reports Dominic Mastrangelo of The Hill.

Rural areas still have fewer jobs than 13 years ago; federal program for regional coalitions isn't very rural-centric

Rural employment has not recovered to the levels of the Great Recession, which ended over 13 years ago, while metropolitan areas have made steady gains. To help rural areas, they were targeted by an Economic Development Administration grant program that funded 21 regional coalitions. But only three of the 21 regional coalitions are both rural-centric and rural-led, report Anthony F. Pipa and Zoe Swarzenski of the Brookings Institution.

The EDA's financial awards flowed through the $1 billion Build Back Better Regional Challenge, which is aimed at creating rural opportunities by leveraging regional collaboration, Pipa and Swarzenski write. "Yet formulating a regional cluster approach that is effective in benefiting rural places requires sensitivity to a complex set of dynamics. Almost by definition, a focus on industry clusters puts metropolitan areas at the center. . . . EDA acknowledged that clusters are likely to follow a traditional hub-and-spoke model, where a metro area acts as a central hub for a coalition that reaches into or engages other communities."

The regional model does not lend itself to inherently rural challenges, they write: "Rural places are often less than full partners in regional coalitions; intentional interventions to meet their unique challenges related to governance capacity, distance, workforce, and access to capital are frequently necessary to enable them to receive proportionate benefits. Program parameters can also play a role. Matching funds requirements, for example, immediately place a substantial burden on rural and tribal places, which often have less fiscal buffer and less access to outside resources."

The Build Back Better Regional Challenge gave five-year grants of $25 million to $65 million to 21 regional coalitions, after choosing 60 finalists from 529 initial applications. "To better understand the extent to which rural areas were included among the 60 finalists that received $500,000 planning awards, we experimented with different quantitative approaches, which yielded very different impressions of the level of rurality," Pipa and Swarzenski report. When rural areas applied using a "'Rural County Share' where each applicant used a defined geographic service area that would benefit from the proposed strategy, 11 became awardees—more than half of the final set of successful applicants. . . But when 'Rural Population Share' was used to measure the proportion of rural people served, only two became awardees, less than 10 percent of the final set of awardees."

Pipa and Swarzenshi divided the pool of applicants into three major categories, defined as Rural-Led, Rural-Centered, Metro-Led, Rural-Relevant, and Metro-Led, Metro-Centered. They report, "While a laudable number of applicants cast a wide net and included rural places in their geographic service areas, the density of population in the urban areas serving as hubs for their regional coalitions suggests a strong magnetic pull that creates a nexus of political attention, leadership, decisionmaking, and beneficiaries."

Their recommendations for the EDA "to help advance the equitable participation and integration of rural places into future efforts to incentivize and support regional strategies include "incorporating rural expertise and qualitative analysis to assess rural relevance, establishing rural set-asides or preferences, Modifying program design to promote innovative practices incorporating rural places, increasing transparency about the participation of rural places."

U.S. Supreme Court greenlights Mountain Valley Pipeline

The Mountain Valley Pipeline has gone all the way to the U.S. Supreme Court and won, at least for now. Thursday the court overturned a lower appeals court and said work on it can resume, "potentially moving the project closer to completion as a legal fight continues," The Wall Street Journal's David Harrison reports.

U.S. Sen. Joe Manchin, D-W.Va., won "a provision in the bipartisan debt-ceiling bill signed into law last month [that] stripped the lower court of its jurisdiction over the natural-gas pipeline and mandated that it be completed," Harrison notes. "The environmental groups behind the suits argued that stopping legal challenges before the Fourth Circuit violated the separation of powers clause of the Constitution, in effect giving Congress the power to decide the outcome of judicial proceedings. The Fourth Circuit agreed to pause the project while it sorted out the effect of the debt-ceiling law, prompting [pipeline owner] Equitrans Midstream to appeal to the Supreme Court. As is typical in emergency orders, the Supreme Court didn’t explain its ruling. There were no noted dissents. The court’s ruling didn’t dismiss the legal challenges to the pipeline entirely, allowing project opponents to continue making their case before the Fourth Circuit," which had a hearing scheduled Thursday.

The pipeline "has aroused controversy ever since it first was proposed almost a decade ago. Opponents, including adjacent landowners and environmental groups, have challenged the project’s environmental permits, delaying the project for years," Harrison notes. "Last year, the Biden administration struck a deal with Manchin: He would agree to provide the pivotal vote for the administration’s climate bill, and in exchange the White House and Senate Democratic leaders would support Manchin’s efforts to get the pipeline finished."

Quick hits: Electric co-op leader says broadband is key to rural jobs; how do you pronounce Appalachia? 'Apple-atcha!'

The Department of Agriculture announced Wednesday $11 billion in grant and loan opportunities to help rural communities access clean, reliable, affordable electricity, calling it "the single largest investment in rural electrification since the 1936 Rural Electrification Act." One program has $9.7 billion for renewable energy, zero-emission and carbon-capture systems. Another program has $1 billion in partially forgivable loans to renewable-energy developers and electric service providers for wind, solar, hydropower, geothermal, biomass and renewable energy storage projects.

An Illinois rural electric cooperative official told the Senate Agriculture Committee's Subcommittee on Rural Development and Energy Wednesday that broadband is the key to rural economic development. Jesse Shekleton, director of broadband operations at Jo-Carroll Energy, said federal broadband subsidies should flexible and “future-proof. . . . Consumer demands and needs for increased internet speeds continue to grow and are trending toward a need for multi-gigabit service by 2030.” 

How do you pronounce "Appalachia?" In Appalachia, Va., they say "Apple-atcha," and Kentucky teacher Willie Carver not only agrees, he provides a historical and linguistic basis for it: The region was named for the Apalachee, an indigenous people who lived in the Florida panhandle: "The first part of the word, appala, most likely means 'on the side' or 'by the water/river/sea.' . . . The chee part of the word most likely means 'people'." Read more on 100 Days in Appalachia.

Applications are due by June 1 for the Appalachian Regional Commission's Applachian Leadership Institute, a free economic-development training opportunity for Appalachia's public, private, and nonprofit leaders. If you live or work in Appalachia and are passionate about helping Appalachian communities thrive, learn more here.

"In rural areas, many property owners must build and maintain their own systems for drawing from groundwater for household use. Wells are a huge investment we rely on every day. But how much do you know about yours?" asks The Daily Yonder, where Donna Kallner answers.

EPA spending $177 million to help communities advance environmental justice through help with grants, organizing

Environmental Protection Agency map shows regions
for EPA's new environmenal justice program.

The Environmental Protection Agency is spending $177 million to advance local environmental justice through a new program, the Environmental Justice Thriving Communities Technical Assistance Center. The money is being distributed through 17 regional centers that will get at least $10 million each.

"These centers will provide training and other assistance to build capacity for navigating federal grant application systems, writing strong grant proposals, and effectively managing grant funding," EPA says. "In addition, these centers will provide guidance on community engagement, meeting facilitation, and translation and interpretation services for limited English-speaking participants, thus removing barriers and improving accessibility for communities with environmental justice concerns."

The initative aims to "enhance leadership and organizational capabilities among individuals and communities, foster community decision-making and cooperative ventures, facilitate connections, and furnish research and information that strengthens community and economic development," says the University of Kentucky, one of eight universities that are part of the Southeast center, run by the nonprofit research institute Research Triangle International.

“Many communities in need tend to be places where there's a higher ratio of minority populations as well as higher levels of poverty,” said UK agricultural economics professor Alison Davis, executive director of the Community and Economic Development Initiative of Kentucky, which will lead Kentucky’s involvement in the program.

Rural broadband has an old-fashioned obstacle: utility poles

Utility poles near Socorro, New Mexico, where a dispute over their use for high-speed internet service has left two elementary schools without high-speed service for several years. (Photo by Ramsay de Give, The Wall Street Journal)

As the United States launches its largest effort ever to get broadband to rural areas, "an old-fashioned obstacle stands in the way: utility poles," reports Ryan Tracy of The Wall Street Journal. "The poles are owned by electric or phone companies that often aren’t getting public money to build out broadband, triggering skirmishes that some internet providers blame for slowing needed upgrades. Disputes involving utility poles have gummed up broadband projects in Kentucky, Michigan and South Carolina. One squabble in Socorro, N.M., left two elementary schools without high-speed internet for several years."

Pole owners, such as AT&T and rural electric cooperatives, "say they accommodate other lines on their poles as long as they are fairly compensated for 'make ready' costs, such as replacing old poles or moving existing wires," Tracy reports. "Internet providers who don’t own poles, such as Charter Communications, counter that utilities often drag their feet in allowing access or pad their fees."

Charter, which uses the Spectrum brand and has a 24-state rural expansion plan that would use $1.2 billion in federal subsidies, is leading a campaign to get the Federal Communications Commission and states "to shift more pole-replacement costs to utilities," Tracy reports. "Pole owners are pushing back, saying that raising utilities’ costs could lead to more disputes and delays."

The New Mexico schools wanted to attach about 23 miles of cable to poles of Socorro Electric Cooperative, which said 189 of the 341 poles would need to be replaced because they "weren’t strong or tall enough to accommodate the new wires," which would cost $765,450, about $200,000 more than its initial estimate, Tracy reports. An evaluation funded by Socorro County described the poles as “collectively the worst poles we’ve seen anywhere.” Now the schools have decided to put the wires underground. Socorro Electric CEO Joseph Herrera told Tracy, “The poles are adequate for electric service. The ratepayers of electricity should not be burdened with the cost of upgrading to accommodate fiber.” Tracy notes that some co-ops are "potential competitors" with companies that want to use their poles.

Charter and other internet providers want to change rules that generally require them to pay if new poles are needed, saying that gives pole owners a free pole. "It is also lobbying state or federal governments to pay for new poles and create faster systems for resolving disputes," Tracy reports. "Jonathan Spalter, president of the trade group USTelecom, whose members include AT&T, said Charter should have anticipated pole-replacement costs when it accepted public funds."

Iowa editor sees a coalition to pass Farm Bill that has more for conservation and avoids cuts in nutrition programs

By Art Cullen
Storm Lake (Iowa) Times Pilot

A new five-year Farm Bill could be one of the rare accomplishments this year from an otherwise deadlocked Congress. Talks are just beginning as House Republicans and Senate Democrats organize their respective agriculture committees. They are starting amicably enough.

Art Cullen

It was not so last time around, when the bill was delayed a couple of years, mainly by House radicals trying to burn down the food-stamp program [officially the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, or SNAP]. House Agriculture Committee Chair G.T. Thompson, R-Pa., and Ranking Member David Scott, D-Ga., both come from purple districts. Thompson is defending nutrition programs against Republican assaults, and last week brushed off suggestions of new restrictions on SNAP benefits. He did criticize a Biden administration expansion of benefits.

Thompson said his priority is to strengthen crop insurance, as half the corn growers in his state don’t buy in. He’s looking to sweeten that pot.

Senate Ag Committee Chair Debbie Stabenow, D-Mich., puts conservation at the center of the discussion and, of course, defending nutrition program from cuts. Their common interests may result in one of the best farm bills in history for conservation and food security.

The main rap on Agriculture Secretary Tom Vilsack is that he is too cozy with agribusiness. But he managed to assemble a “climate-smart ag” coalition that includes titans like Cargill, ADM and Tyson alongside the Farmers Union and Practical Farmers of Iowa. Vilsack doled out several billion last year in pilot projects designed to promote sustainable production and resiliency, with many of those corporate players leading projects.

Critics call it greenwashing. Call it what you will. You could call it smart politics. The ag supply chain understands that change is underfoot. Farmers get that the climate is changing — if you’re growing corn in Western Kansas, you should be highly interested in how you can convert to grassland grazing.

Vilsack bringing in the corporate players helps reminds House Republicans that conservation programs might play a role in sweetening crop insurance — for example, a generous spiff for planting cover crops that actually could get something seeded.

There will be money for carbon pipelines to protect the ethanol industry, for manure digesters that interest the livestock industry, and “smart fertilizer” programs to keep Koch Industries at bay.

In return, Thompson makes kind remarks about nutrition programs. Of course, there will be a lot of rhetoric about welfare queens feeding at the USDA trough. There also will be whispers to keep a rein on it if you want to keep the climate spigot open to the big boys.

This will be Stabenow’s legacy bill, as she intends to retire. She also wields tremendous influence in energy legislation that draws the interest of these same corporate players. Michigan’s interests are in many ways Pennsylvania’s.

Vilsack has claimed that the next Farm Bill could be “transformative” for rural America through conservation and renewable energy. Armed with $20 billion for climate and agriculture in the Inflation Reduction Act, Vilsack has been deferential to Congress in marching forward. So far, the administration has taken baby steps in addressing food security and sustainable agriculture in a rapidly changing environment. You would have to squint hard to see transformation.

There is unquestionably an openness to conservation agriculture that there was not before. Thompson and his colleagues insist on voluntary programs. Regulation is their red line, as it is with the corporate lobby. Vilsack has enough sugar cubes in his pocket to keep the horses from nipping. The Farm Bill is supposed to be finished by September. It may get held up a couple months, but not a couple years. It should be good for crop insurance and conservation, and food stamps [SNAP] will get protected.

The coalition has been assembled. It’s hard to fight the most powerful players in world food markets. It is better politics at the moment to dance with them. As Thompson said, “The Farm Bill is always bipartisan, always bipartisan. At the end of the day, final votes are fairly bipartisan, and my goal is to keep it that way from the very beginning.” Go along to get along.