Regenerative-ag farmers had to persuade Trump to sign order over opposition from Farm Bureau boss in Oval Office

Cattle farmer Will Harris shared this photo of the meeting by White House photographer Parick Witty.

"A group of farmers walked into the Oval Office last week expecting to smile as the president signed an executive order supporting the popular farming practice called regenerative agriculture, a method cheered by the Make America Healthy Again movement as an alternative to pesticides. Instead they were greeted by a virtual buzzsaw as President Donald Trump also brought in a top advocate who opposed the policy, prompting a live debate between top advisers, Cabinet secretaries and farmers," reports Politico's Cheyenne Haslett.

Zippy Duvall (Farm Bureau photo)

After an hour of back-and-forth between the farmers, the president, and American Farm Bureau Federation President Zippy Duvall, Trump signed the executive order, "which directs government agencies to promote holistic farming practices that rely on natural land rehabilitation over chemicals," Haslett reports. Also in the room were Health Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. and Agriculture Secretary Brooke Rollins, who supported the order.

“I thought the farmers … were going in there just for a photo opportunity,” Jonathan Lundgren, a former Agriculture Department scientist who runs a regenerative farm in South Dakota, told Haslett. He and two other farmers said Duvall told Trump "he was concerned that the order would insinuate a negative impact from pesticide use and said he would not be able to advocate for Trump on behalf of farmers if he signed it," Haslett reports.

A Farm Bureau spokesman denied that Duvall said he would forsake Trump. "Trump went back and forth with Duvall, asking him what he opposed, to which Duvall said he hadn’t been able to fully read the order, the three farmers said. Trump eventually told him he didn’t think the order posed a threat to farmers," Haslett reports.

Regenerative farmer Rick Clark of Indiana told Haslett, “President Trump was just making sure that he had everyone’s opinion and was given all the information before he signed that document,” Clark said. “Was there passion in the room? Yeah, most definitely passion.” Cattle farmer Will Harris of Georgia shared on his blog what he told Trump.

Earlier that day, the Supreme Court shielded Bayer, maker of the weedkiller Roundup, from "thousands of lawsuits that claim the company failed to warn people about the health risks associated with its products," Haslett notes. Lundgren told Trump that families were being “poisoned by these chemical companies and didn’t have recourse anymore.” He "found the president to be concerned," Haslett reports. "Trump turned to Rollins and Duvall, who explained the ruling to him, Lundgren said."

Kennedy and senior adviser Calley Means "framed the ruling as a black eye to MAHA, two of the farmers said, and Kennedy said the executive order on regenerative agriculture would be an important part of repairing relations with the MAHA supporters," Haslett reports.

Gas prices are high, and inflation has continued to climb. How do Trump voters feel about his performance so far?

Many Americans say that gas prices may impact their
midterm election choices. (Photo by GG, Unsplash)

Campaigning for his second term in the White House, President Donald Trump pledged "no new wars" while he worked to "make America affordable again." A year and a half into his presidency, U.S. consumers face high inflation, hefty tariffs on imported food and goods, and bloated gas prices due to the war with Iran.

So how do those voters feel now? Tim Balk, Rachel Richardson and Sam Easter of The New York Times asked some Trump voters how they feel about their vote now and how their opinion of his leadership so far might influence their midterm election choices. Some edited selections of their opinions are shared below.

Adele Wilson, 30, of Ada Township, Mich., population 14,400
When asked about gas prices, Wilson told the Times, "Last time I filled up I was like, ‘Oh, this hurts.’" Wilson, a dental assistant, believes "Trump’s second term has been unsuccessful," the Times reports. "She called the war a 'horrible idea.' She was unsure how she would vote in the midterms, she said, but she had already ruled out voting for JD Vance or Marco Rubio in the 2028 presidential race."

Matt Yerkes, 74, of New Richmond, Ohio, population 2,730
Yerkes, who is retired, told the Times he thinks Americans' current economic strain is "temporary and needed.” Overall, he agrees with the war with Iran. The Times reports, "He said he disliked the president’s personality, but added, 'I agree with essentially everything he does from a policy standpoint.'"

Luke Stanley, 28, of Hermon, Maine, population 6,500
"Stanley, who owns a metal fabrication company, said he did not 'necessarily' support the war, and suggested he would like the president to change his approach," the Times reports. "But he said that business had been good for him overall during the president’s second term." He told the Times that continued high gas prices might sway his choice in the midterm elections.

Farmers are 'on the hook' for millions of dollars in repairs and improvements as promised USDA funds are paused

Many U.S. farmers are waiting to be reimbursed for
out-of-pocket investments. (Photo by Richard Bell, Unsplash)

U.S. farmers are concerned about when and if they will get paid the millions of dollars owed to them by the federal Depaartment of Agriculture, report Daniel Wu, Gaya Gupta and Anumita Kaur of The Washington Post. "Despite promises from the Trump administration that a federal funding freeze would not apply to projects directly benefiting individuals. . . . President Donald Trump ordered the USDA to freeze funds for several programs."

The frozen funds are part of the 2022 Inflation Reduction Act which helps farmers "address natural resource concerns, and the Rural Energy for America Program, which provides financial assistance for farmers to improve their infrastructure," the Post reports. With their funding paused, farmers are "on the hook" for expenses that range from new crops to fencing to renewable energy builds.

The battle over the frozen funds remains in play even after "a federal judge temporarily halted its implementation," Wu, Gupta and Kaur explain. "But over the weekend, farmers reported that their funding remained frozen — another blow to farmers who are also facing threats of tariffs and freezes to foreign-aid spending that involved food purchased from American producers."

Last week, National Farmers Union President Rob Larew "testified before the Senate Agriculture Committee that the Trump administration’s sweeping decisions on federal funding were creating concern for farmers across the country," the Post reports. Larew said the freeze and extreme changes are increasing farmer hardships in "an already tough farm economy.”

In 2024, the USDA made $3.1 billion available "for climate-smart agriculture activities, according to the department, including grants and loans for initiatives such as the Environmental Quality Incentives Program and the Rural Energy for America Program," they write. "The funding freezes have also paused large projects across states."

Journalists grapple with Trump's threats toward the U.S. media. How can free speech and truth remain the priority?

Trump has made continuous threats against U.S. media leaving reporters apprehensive about his upcoming term.
(Adobe Stock Images)

News organizations and journalists are experiencing unease as President Donald Trump reenters the White House, and what that means for them.

During a speech after being named TIME magazine's Person of the Year, Trump referenced the media and "threatened to use the power of his incoming administration to stifle free speech... [and] has made it clear that he will use the apparatus of government to go after his critics," wrote Rob Tornoe for E&P Magazine.

“The media is tamed down a little bit. They like us much better now, I think… If they don’t, then we’ll just have to take them on again, and we don’t want to do that,” said Trump at the New York Stock Exchange.

Writers are aware that their words carry weight, but now there is increasing concern that strong opinions will drive away readers or lead to backlash. Tornoe wrote, “The impact has been felt especially hard by the nation’s editorial cartoonists, who continue to dwindle,” including Mike Luckovich, who has drawn political cartoons for three decades and is a two-time Pulitzer Prize-winning cartoonist.

Besides Trump's threats, the news industry is also struggling with decreasing digital advertising rates, notable algorithm changes at Google, increasing impacts from artificial intelligence (AI) on journalism, and a lack of trust in institutions like news organizations, according to Tornoe.

E&P wrote that in an interview, Luckovich said that while visiting the Pentagon over 20 years ago multiple generals told him that besides whether or not they liked his cartoons they would defend his right to make his point. Luckovich told Tornoe, “To me, that is what America was all about — and I hope it still is.”

Opinion: As president, Jimmy Carter made rural health, economics and energy a priority

Carter was raised on his family's farm in Plains, Ga.
(Adobe Stock photo)

Given all the memorial writings about Jimmy Carter, it seems his life as a farmer has faded into the background. But as a president and humanitarian, Carter never forgot his country upbringing, writes Charles Hayslettin his opinion for The Daily Yonder. "Carter’s rural roots ran deep. Born and raised in Plains, Georgia, he understood the challenges facing America’s heartland on a very personal level. This background informed his approach to governance."

As governor of Georgia, Carter "recognized early on that economic growth and environmental protection could coexist when grounded in faithful stewardship of the land," Hayslettin writes. "Upon reaching the White House, Carter elevated rural issues to national prominence. In 1979, he unveiled a comprehensive Small Community and Rural Development Policy, a first of its kind."

As president, Carter worked to address rural health care disparities by supporting the Rural Health Clinic Services Act of 1977. Hayslettin explains, "This landmark legislation increased Medicare and Medicaid reimbursement rates for rural health centers and allowed payment for nurse practitioners and physician assistants in these facilities."

Carter used his uniquely personal understanding of rural life to extend his rural advocacy beyond health care. Hayslettin writes, "He established the Department of Energy and championed renewable energy and conservation as moral imperatives – a focus that had particular relevance for rural energy consumption."

Carter’s rural legacy is marked by an ironic political change that began during his term. Hayslettin adds, "The 1980 presidential election, which Carter lost to Ronald Reagan, marked the beginning of a tidal wave shift in rural voters away from the Democratic Party and toward the Republicans."

Carter was defeated by Reagan in "one of the worst defeats ever inflicted on an incumbent president," Hayslettin writes. "He later described his own presidency as 'mediocre.' But time and history have a way of correcting and perfecting records, as they have done for Carter’s international work and post-presidential work. The same should certainly be true for his efforts to improve the lives of rural Americans."

Opinion: Jimmy Carter brought human rights to the forefront and 'made a lasting impact on the U.S. and the world'

Statue of Jimmy Carter outside the
Georgia State Capitol. (Adobe Stock photo)

Jimmy Carter was one of the few U.S. presidents in the past 50 years who grew up in a rural area. He was cherished by many Americans as a man of deep intelligence and wisdom who spent his life actively working to improve the lives of others. In her opinion for The New York Times, Samantha Power reminds readers of Carter's political and personal dedication to humankind. A selection of her thoughts is excerpted below.

"Jimmy Carter’s elevation of human rights in U.S. foreign policy offers many urgent lessons for today. . . . As president, he made a radical break with decades of foreign policy tradition, changed the world’s understanding of America’s aspirations, showed deep empathy for individuals who had suffered human rights abuse and, in so doing, made a lasting impact on both the United States and the world.

"As president, his foreign policy legacy. . . includes the negotiation of the Camp David Accords, which brought about an enduring peace between Israel and Egypt, and the establishment of diplomatic relations with China.

"Carter didn’t just change the way U.S. officials talked; he also changed the way they worked, taking steps no American president had taken. When he assumed office, the United States Agency for International Development had nearly twice as many staff members in Washington as in the field — an imbalance his administration corrected, in addition to significantly expanding the agency’s presence in sub-Saharan Africa.

"He issued Presidential Directive 30, which stipulated that 'countries with a good or substantially improving record of human rights observance will be given special consideration in the allocation of U.S. foreign assistance, just as countries with a poor or deteriorating record will receive less favorable consideration.'

"Carter was the first U.S. president to publicly denounce apartheid in South Africa and the first to make a state visit to sub-Saharan Africa. . . . He was the first president to assert clear American support for a 'Palestinian homeland.' . . . He was the first American president to elevate environmental conservation to a global concern.

"He became president after public trust in government had plunged. More than 70% of Americans believed the Vietnam War was not just a mistake but was 'fundamentally wrong and immoral.' He viewed his embrace of human rights as a means of restoring faith in America.

"As we mourn the loss of Jimmy Carter, we should remember that in doing something so radical for his time — elevating attention to the plight and dignity of individuals in U.S. foreign policy and then living those values until his final days — he changed our world for good."

Samantha Power is the administrator of the United States Agency for International Development.

Vilsack says legacy of his 12 years at USDA is new revenue sources that will help smaller farmers and small towns

Rural voters strongly rejected President Biden, but his administration has started programs that are already reversing the decline of rural America, says Agriculture Secretary Tom Vilsack, a longtime politician who has given 12 years of his life to the job, more than anyone.

Vilsack summoned Jonathan Martin of Politico for an exit interview, and his frustration came through. “I think the challenge that we have in rural America is that we talk a lot about programs and not about vision,” he said when Martin asked what went wrong for Democrats in rural America.

“The vision is, you don’t have to get big or get out,” which has been a basis of federal agriculture policy since Richard Nixon was re-elected president in 1972, Vilsack said. “You can actually have diversity within your agriculture and in your national resource base in your rural economy and that can create enormous opportunity. And we’re investing in it.”

Vilsack cited “carbon market” payments for preventing greenhouse-gas emissions and other programs designed to help small and medium-sized farmers and boost local and regional food systems. But he said rural voters have yet to feel the impact of changes made under Biden.

“After 50 years of one approach, you can’t do this in a matter of a couple of years. You have to build the foundation. Now, the foundation has been built. The economic model is changed by virtue of the investments we’ve made in this administration. At least 10,000, probably more than that, investments have been made just in this department, in creating a different model so that small and mid-sized farming operations have an opportunity to stay in business.”

Vilsack served eight years under Barack Obama and four
under President Biden. (Associated Press photo by Carolyn Kaster)

Vilsack voiced frustration that the news media and others in Washington haven’t recognized the importance of those changes.

“Change is occurring,” he said. “It just hasn’t resonated with people like you. Or people in this city. You gotta understand the economics of this. You don’t. Nobody in your business understands it, which is the frustrating part for me. When you have a ‘get big or get out’ mentality, when you have an economy that is commodity-based, the big guys do really, really well,” but smaller producers may not.

He said 2022 was the best year ever for farm income, “but if you went out and talked to folks in rural places about that . . . that’s not how they would have seen it. It was a record year for a relatively small number of folks. So what happens, these folks are on knife’s edge, bad year comes, they have a hard time. Who is in a position to buy their farm? The larger farm or investment banks. . . . So you’ve got this model that we’ve had for 50 years that has slowly eroded economic opportunity in rural places.”

While debate about the Farm Bill is “all about reference prices” for crops, “The reference prices are about half a dozen commodities out of 100 some commodities,” Vilsack said. “We’ve created an opportunity in all 50 states, over 100 commodities. We’re paying farmers to do this. We’re giving premiums for what they’re growing and raising. It’s a brand-new concept. It’s really innovative. And it creates not only a better value for the farmer, it creates the ability to get that ecosystem market credit, to transform their waste into something more valuable.”

He added, “People out there are beginning to get it. I’ve had people come up and say, you know, for the first time, I see my kind of operation at USDA. For the first time, I see some change. I see some investment in small and mid-sized farming operations. You want to ask about legacy? That, to me, is the most important legacy.”

Vilsack said USDA “doesn’t get anywhere near the attention it deserves. Not for lack of trying, man. We tried.”

When Martin noted “the collapse of local and regional press, which would be a way to get your story out,” and cited a newspaper Vilsack knows well, the two-term Iowa governor interjected, “That’s bullshit. . . . The Des Moines Register is a shadow of what it was. But it doesn’t necessarily mean that it can’t cover what it should cover.”

A snapshot of Trump's Pennsylvania win: Most rural voters stuck with Trump, and some major metro voters went red

Graph by Sarah Melotte, The Daily Yonder

Heading into the presidential election, Pennsylvania was a key swing state. But on Election Day, voters across the state, including more rural residents, voted red, helping Donald Trump secure his second presidency.

"Donald Trump reclaimed Pennsylvania and the presidency on Tuesday when the urban coalition that gave Joe Biden his 2020 victory in the state failed to show up for Vice President Kamala Harris," report Sarah Melotte and Tim Marema for The Daily Yonder. "Trump won the state by 171,000 votes, primarily by eroding Democratic turnout in the major metropolitan areas of Philadelphia and Pittsburgh."

Even though Trump's metro gains were slight, when paired with Harris' poor performance in those same areas, it was enough to turn the tide. "Trump earned about 30,000 more votes this year than he did in 2020 in those same counties in and around Philadelphia and Pittsburgh," Melotte and Marema explain. "Harris earned 89,000 fewer votes in these major metropolitan areas than Biden did in 2020. . . . The difference was determinative in a state that both candidates needed to win the Electoral College vote."

Trump also prevailed in the state's "small rural areas and medium-sized cities," the Yonder reports. "And he improved on his 2020 performance in doing so. . . . Rural counties saw the least shift to Trump from 2020 to 2024, but that’s partly because his margin was already so high. Trump won 73.4% of the rural Pennsylvania vote this year, compared to 72.5% in 2020."

Graph by Sarah Melotte, The Daily Yonder

Despite lower gains in rural areas, Trump added to his 2020 numbers. "Trump improved his percentage of the rural vote in Pennsylvania by less than a percentage point compared to 2020. Trump picked up about 17,000 additional votes compared to 2020, while Harris lost about 2,100 compared to Biden’s performance in 2020," Melotte and Marema add. "Trump won rural counties by over 45 points."

Sixty-nine percent of Americans are worried about the 2024 presidential election, but there are steps to reduce stress

Shannon Sauer-Zavala
Licensed Clinical Psychologist,
University of Kentucky

Today is Election Day in the United States, but the country may not know the results of some races until later. And while most U.S. citizens know conscientious ballot counting can be time-consuming, unknowns often stress the human mind. To manage worry and prevent catastrophizing, Shannon Sauer-Zavala for The Conversation shares science-based approaches to reduce election tension.

If this particular election feels distressing, rest assured, that you are not alone. Sauer-Zavala writes, "A recent survey found 69% of American adults are seriously stressed about the 2024 presidential election. It’s difficult not to be worked up about politics in today’s polarized climate. Regardless of which side of the political aisle you sit on, you may find yourself glued to your browser or TV, gobbling up every tiny tidbit of news."

Being mindful and accepting of stressful feelings can keep them from skyrocketing. Sauer-Zavala explains, "Be present. Anxiety can draw you into an uncomfortable spiral of 'what-ifs' about the future. When you make a point to be present, you remind yourself what is actually happening right now, rather than letting hypothetical fears take over."

When the news feels like impending doom, take a deep breath and "shift away from rigid, all-or-nothing thinking about the future," Sauer-Zavala recommends. "When people are anxious, they tend to focus on the worst-case scenario. For example, you might be telling yourself, 'With this candidate in office, things will be terrible and I won’t be able to cope.' . . . Try thinking through what you’d do if the undesirable candidate takes office – thoughts like 'I’ll donate to causes that are important to me' and 'I’ll attend protests.'"

Concentrating on healthy daily behaviors that reinforce a sense of balance and peace also keeps worry from taking over your day or week. "Remember the goal of 24-hour news networks is to increase ratings. It’s in their interest to keep you riveted to your screens by making it seem like important announcements are imminent," Sauer-Zavala adds. "As a result, it may feel difficult to disconnect and take part in your usual self-care behavior. . . . Go for a walk or, better yet, to bed. Keeping up with healthy habits can help reduce your vulnerability to uncontrolled anxiety."

Rural Wisconsin communities face division and racism fueled by immigration concerns as presidential race tightens

Sauk County is as diverse as its voters. The community includes
farms, outdoor and natural attractions, arts and a robust tourism sector.

As both presidential campaigns vie for votes in Wisconsin, some of the state's rural voters say election rhetoric has become harmfully divisive and tinged with racism, reports Dionne Searcey of The New York Times. In Sauk County, Wisconsin, residents can see their community's partisan divide by tallying neighborhood political yard signs. The heated debates even moved owners of the Square Tavern in Baraboo, the county seat, to "post handwritten notes admonishing customers along the giant mirror behind the bar: 'No Politics and No Religion.'"

While Trump and Harris court all Wisconsin residents to swing to their side, winning over Sauk County voters may be the jewel in the battleground state's rural crown. "Sauk County has been a presidential bellwether in recent years, voting for the winner in the past four elections," Searcey explains. "Sauk County, which is mostly white with a small but growing nonwhite population, has been roiled by its own racial skirmishes in recent years."

Like many Americans, Sauk County voters want the next president to address crime, abortion "and especially immigration," Searcey writes. 

Some Harris supporters "complain that much of Trump’s message is aimed at stoking racist attitudes to earn him votes. Their chief example: Trump’s proclamation from the debate stage that Haitian immigrants are eating cats and dogs." Searcey explains. While Trump's claim is false, it resonates with some Sauk County voters who may fear immigrants. "This summer, a county board meeting turned hostile over worries that refugees might someday settle nearby."

As Harris and Trump stump in pivotal states, how racial and migrant conflicts will be dealt with by the next commander-in-chief matters. Searcey reports, "Trump’s backers say it is Democrats who are using race to win votes, tossing around accusations of racism as a cudgel. His supporters say they are tired of being labeled racist or xenophobic for complaining about urgent issues, in particular immigration."

Meanwhile in places like Baraboo, "the divisions were evident on a recent afternoon of door knocking with Karen DeSanto, a Democrat running for the State Assembly," Searcey adds. "On the same block, three residents had three different ideas about the election: one undecided, one supporting Harris and the other backing Trump. Immigration was on everyone’s mind."

Disagreement, diversity and a look that 'reflects the face of America better' give the Midwest political power

Candidates from the Midwest 'often bring a kind of approachable, average-American feel to a national ticket.' (Wikipedia and Election press photo)

What makes the nation's upper Midwest different is what makes it an election-year game-changer. "While many other parts of the country have sorted into neat red and blue columns, the big upper Midwestern states continue to sit on the dividing line between the two parties," reports Gerald F. Seib of The Wall Street Journal. "The upper Midwest reflects the face of America better than any other region of the country. . . . And it is populous enough to be decisive in the Electoral College, making it political ground zero."

Midwestern balance and diversity have made some of its regions political "power brokers," Seib explains. "In the latest Wall Street Journal poll, the Midwest overall was the most evenly balanced region of the country, with the two parties essentially tied there in both the presidential race and preferences for control of Congress. . . .The region is much more complicated, demographically and economically than is often assumed."

Politicians who've found success in Midwestern elections have always had to walk a keen tightrope between urban and rural needs while facing a gamut of diversity among other constituents. "At a time when the political split between urban and rural areas has become one of the starkest in the nation, [Midwestern] leaders have to be able to bridge that difficult divide," Seib reports. Candidates who "have successfully navigated the complexity of a big Midwestern state are well prepared to do the same nationally."

On the campaign trail, a Midwestern running mate can make a presidential pairing feel more down-to-earth for voters. Seib writes, "Candidates from the Midwest often bring a kind of approachable, average-American feel to a national ticket. . . . 'They look like and sound like a lot of America,' says Democratic pollster John Anzalone. In this year’s race, that means Vance and Walz nicely offset Trump the New Yorker and Harris of San Francisco."

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.”

Big non-metro vote gives Trump a majority in Iowa caucuses

Trump, in red, prevails in caucuses. Haley's share in dark red, DeSantis's in pink. (NBC News projects graph)

Donald Trump's majority win in Monday night's Iowa Republican presidential caucuses was driven by rural and small-city caucus-goers, who have him 57 percent of their votes compared to 47 percent of those in cities and suburbs, according to the entrance poll for news organizations. Overall, Trump got 51 percent. Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis, the second-place finisher, did best in suburbs, getting 27%; former South Carolina Gov. Nikki Haley, who finished a close third, did best in cities, with 27%.

Other findings in the poll reflected Trump's rural dominance. He got 55% of white evangelicals, 63% of those with no college degree, and 74% of those who have never been to college. Trump carried every county but Johnson, home to Iowa City and the University of Iowa and the county with "the highest share of voters with bachelor’s degrees of any Iowa county," The Washington Post reports.

Wall Street Journal map, adapted by The Rural Blog; click to enlarge.

UPDATE, Jan. 17: The Wall Street Journal reports, The Republican front-runner saw his biggest improvement over 2016 in counties that reflected his core supporters: older voters, those without a college degree, lower-income voters and evangelicals. . . . One of Trump’s biggest increases in support came in counties with a higher proportion of older voters, growing by an average of nearly 35 points compared with 2016, versus his nearly 27-point increase statewide. Many of those counties are also rural areas, another source of strength for Trump."

Post columnist David Von Drehle writes, "Huge margins among sparse populations gave Trump an appearance of invulnerability. But the closer the race drew to a population center — someplace big enough to have a Costco or a Chick-fil-A — the weaker he appeared. . . . Recent history teaches us that this year’s general election will be won or lost on precisely that ground, not in farm country but in the Chick-fil-A precincts."

Presidential campaigning in Iowa has traditionally been about "championing policies aimed at helping the state’s farm-driven economy. But this year, the Republicans seeking their party’s presidential nomination have largely avoided over-the-top pandering to local priorities — and any such attempts appear not to be as effective as in the past, report Anjali Huynh and Kellen Browning of The New York Times. The main reason is "Trump, who has run in the style of an incumbent, has dominated the state while barely setting foot in it. Though he refers to Iowa farmers in his speeches and talks about how he has poured money into the state, Mr. Trump has eschewed the classic retail politicking that is a mainstay of the caucuses in favor of larger rallies while focusing his message more on national issues. . . . Local issues have instead served more as a differentiator among the candidates competing for second place, rather than part of a winning strategy."

Facebook, Instagram allow ads saying election was stolen; AP allows weeklies to use its story debunking the claim

Meta Platforms is letting ads on Facebook and Instagram question the legitimacy of the 2020 election, The Wall Street Journal reports. "Meta made the change last year, but it hasn’t gained wide attention," the Journal's Salvador Rodriguez writes. "The company decided to allow political advertisers to say past elections were 'rigged' or 'stolen' but prevented them from questioning the legitimacy of ongoing and coming elections."

The change was one of several "the social-media company and other platforms have made to loosen constraints on campaign advertising," Rodriguez reports. "Executives at Meta made the decision based on free-speech considerations after weighing past U.S. elections in which the results might have been contested by a portion of the electorate, according to people familiar with the issue."

"An Associated Press review of every potential case of voter fraud in the six battleground states disputed by former President Donald Trump has found fewer than 475 — a number that would have made no difference," AP's Christina Cassidy reported in December 2021. At the request of the Institute for Rural Journalism at the University of Kentucky, AP agreed in 2021 to allow weekly newspapers that are not AP subscribers to republish the story and its sidebars with details on individual states, if they alos include links to it and the sidebar. (The institute publishes The Rural Blog; if you have republished the AP material, please email al.cross@uky.edu.)

"Some candidates already appear to have questioned elections in ads," Rodriguez reports, noting that Trump ran a Facebook ad in August saying “We had a rigged election.” Rodriguez writes, "Katie Harbath, a former Facebook public-policy director who wasn’t involved in the decision, said it would be challenging for social-media companies to preach free speech yet ban politicians from questioning the results of the 2020 election, which has become such a significant part of the public discourse." Harbath leads the elections program at the Integrity Institute, which studies and addresses the social harms of internet platforms.

The Washington Post's first Freedom of Information Act director explains how to find important information

Image by Marissa Vonesh, The Washington Post

Nate Jones of The Washington Post reveals how he finds the materials others don't want found in his "Revealing Records" series. Below is an excerpted version of his first installment.

"Few things make a journalist happier than receiving a manila envelope full of internal government records. These days, a large email attachment is pretty good, too.

"As the Post's first Freedom of Information Act director, I work to ensure that our entire newsroom receives as many of those envelopes and email attachments as possible. Those documents have helped us publish stories that have exposed government waste and wrongdoing, and led to congressional hearings and new laws. Successful requests take strategy, creativity and a tenacity for overcoming bureaucratic resistance. Now, I'm writing a periodic column about how I do it.

"The federal Freedom of Information Act is one of a reporter's most powerful tools. Commonly known as FOIA, this law requires federal agencies to release records to the public upon request — unless the records are exempt for privacy, national security or other reasons. Each state also has its own version of the federal law that applies to state and local governments. When agencies refuse to produce the records, the laws allow those making the requests to sue.

"Unfortunately, the Post has had to turn to the courts to force state and federal agencies to follow FOIA laws. As a newly barred attorney, I research the chances of succeeding in a lawsuit, then work with The Post's legal counsel and outside lawyers to file a suit.

"Generally, the Post only sues when we believe we can make a strong case. When we do prevail, the agencies often have to pay our attorneys' fees. That is a cherry on top of any records the agencies are ordered to produce. 

"More often, we are able to use public records laws to obtain documents without going to court. After Osama bin Laden was killed in 2011, many people saw the famous photo of President Barack Obama and his aides tensely watching the raid on bin Laden's compound, one of just nine photos taken by the White House photographer that day and released on the official Flickr page. But I wanted to see what else was photographed that day, including pictures that might counter the official White House narrative.

"The Freedom of Information Act doesn't apply to records of presidents still in office. . . . At the time of the bin Laden raid, Obama was running for reelection. If he won, I would have to wait until 2017 to start the five-year clock to request his presidential records. So I marked my calendar. . . . On Jan. 20, 2022, five years to the day after Obama left office, I filed a slew of requests — including one for all official White House photographs taken the day bin Laden was killed. . . .After a year, the National Archives processed the request and provided a 161-page PDF of thumbnails and file names for all White House photographs taken between May 1 and 3, 2011. . . . These photographs — like all internal government records — are powerful because they help reveal what actually happened within our government, not just the view officials want to present.

"These manila envelopes and email attachments do not always come easily. Post reporters are constantly thinking and inquiring about the government documents behind public statements and official actions. I've helped them file requests for records in the federal government and every U.S. state, district and territory. Without public records laws, they would not be able to tear open the envelopes, download the attachments and share the stories of the documents within."

Feds propose the first minimum-staffing rules for nursing homes, and they are weaker than the industry expected

Federal officials' proposed minimum standards for nursing-home staffing are weaker than expected, Bridget Early reports for Inside Health Policy.

The nursing-home industry had anticipated a proposal for about 4.1 hours of employee work time per resident day, meaning that a home with 25 residents would require 18 staffers (times 4.1 hours per resident day = 175 hours per week, divided by 40 hours per week = 17.9 employees).

Instead, Early reports, "The minimum staffing scenarios assessed in the report ranged from 3.3 HPRD to 3.8 HPRD," which would call for 14.4 to 16.625 employees to cover 25 residents.

The regulation could have major implications for rural nursing homes, which generally have more difficulty recruting and retaining staff than those in cities.

The regulation, proposed by the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, "cleared the White House Office of Management and Budget on Tuesday, Aug. 29, the same day a CMS study underpinning the rule was leaked and created a firestorm among stakeholders," Early reports. "The White House budget office also canceled its two remaining stakeholder meetings on the issue in the wake of the leak. The proposed rule had been pending at OMB since May 30. The two meetings were scheduled for the first and second weeks of September. The meetings were requested by the Organization of Nurse Leaders and the Association of Jewish Aging Services."

Early notes, "The nursing-home industry has lobbied hard against staffing minimums and has called for a White House event to explore alternatives, but patient advocates have backed staffing minimums."

Rural commentators on PBS, from right and left, agree Haley had strongest peformance in Republican debate

Gary Abernathy and Sarah Smarsh (PBS image)

The commentary section of "PBS NewsHour" Friday night was all rural, as former southern Ohio editor Gary Abernathy and Kansas author and freelance journalist Sarah Smarsh filled in for their conservative and liberal counterparts, respectively. They agreed on most things, including a belief that former South Carolina Gov. Nikki Haley did best in the first presidential debate, among eight Republicans,

After a clip of Haley telling Mike Pence that a federal abortion ban won't fly because of the Senate, Abernathy said, "Republicans have overstepped on abortion. I think the Supreme Court was right to send it bach to the states. Nikki Haley was right . . . I felt she was the strongest in that debate."

Smarsh agreed. Noting last year's Kansas referendum in favor of abortion rights, she said Democrats are "reclaiming the notion of freedom or liberty and applying that to bodily automony. . . . The post-Roe landscape seems to have affected voter behavior in ways pre-Roe models can't necessarily predict."

Butg that hasn't changed how GOP candidates approach the issue in their race, Abernathy said: "You can't be too pro-life for the Republican electorate."

When host Geoff Bennett played Ohio biotech entrepreneur Vivek Ramaswamy's declaration that "The climate-change agenda is a hoax" and said "Climate change is settled science," Abernathy said, "It's not settled among Republicans, Geoff. . . . Ramaswamy was playing right to that base."

Asked about the Atlanta booking of former president Donald Trump. Smarsh said, "Millions of Americans are aghast that this person facing all these indictments and criminal charges is still the eminent front-runner." Abernathy, describing the widely circulated mug shot, said "That's a portrait Trump may have commissioned and sat for himself, the way it turned out."

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.

Iowa State Fair, a celebration of rural life and a must for presidential candidates, is on; voters get up close, personal

The Des Moines Register's soapbox draws a crowd. (Photo by Salwan Georges, The Washington Post)

The Iowa State Fair began today, and every Republican presidential candidate is expected to attemd, seeking support for the caucues that will see the first votes for president in 2024. It's a celebration of rural life in an agricultural state that has trended Republican under Donald Trump, who will attend but will not join other candidates in conversation with Gov. Kim Reynolds, "whom he has recently criticized as being too close to a rival presidential candidate," Dylan Wells of The Washington Post reports. DeSantis and Trump, both coming Saturday, will both skip the Des Moines Register’s Political Soapbox, where candidates make brief speeches "and answer questions directly from fairgoers."

"The Democratic National Committee voted in February to replace Iowa as the party’s first nominating state, rendering it irrelevant to securing the party’s nomination," Wells notes. "Still, both of President Biden’s long-shot challengers — Marianne Williamson and Robert F. Kennedy Jr. [here's a FactCheck on him] — plan to attend the fair. . . . Most candidates hope to make common ground with working-class people. They will flip pork chops and sample Iowa’s notorious fried foods while trying to avoid awkward photos of themselves eating. . . .The fair offers candidates a unique opportunity to showcase their skills in retail politics, gain national recognition and prove themselves as relatable people — or just the opposite, should they make a gaffe or become a meme for their behavior at the event."

Wells offers examples: "In 2011, Mitt Romney told someone while being heckled during a speech, 'Corporations are people, my friend' — a line that came to haunt his campaign. . . . Candidates are under a microscope at the event, given the large amount of face time with Iowans and the constant presence of news media. Candidates also have suffered from ordering the 'wrong snack': John F. Kerry went for a smoothie . . . Although good politicking at the fair isn’t an indicator of who will become president, a strong performance can refresh a struggling campaign or lift political underdogs into the national spotlight."

USDA's voluntary tack on climate change brought farmers along; next job is convincing Wall Street, environmentalists

Methane emissions from livestock are not targeted by the USDA's
initial program, which focuses on soil. (Photo by Mario Tama, Getty)

President Biden’s plan to help farmers reduce their greenhouse-gas emissions "has the powerful, conservative Beltway farm lobby smiling ear-to-ear," Garrett Downs of Politico reports. "That’s enough investment to turn the agricultural lobby around on Biden, for now. But the administration acknowledges it still has a long way to go in proving to climate advocates that its plan will reduce the effects of global warming in a meaningful way."

Biden's main tool is "a $3 billion initiative dubbed Partnerships for Climate-Smart Commodities," which is spending to test farming methods that reduce carbon-dioxide emissions, "akin to a large-scale science experiment," Downs writes. It aims to involve 60,000 farms and 25 million acres. "The Agriculture Department estimates the results will produce emissions benefits equal to taking around 12 million cars off the road."

Administration officials hope the "influx of cash will produce an impressive feat: turning some farmers, generally a conservative group, around on Biden," Downs reports. The so-called Inflation Reduction Act "will grow the incentive-driven climate-ag space by nearly $20 billion," and "They have even broader hopes for the new $3 billion initiative: that Wall Street will see the financial possibilities of turning farms green and make their own investments in similar projects."

Cover crops seeded into mature corn are a big part of the private
carbon-control market. (Photo from DTN/The Progerssive Farmer)

“This can’t just be government money; we have to attract private investment,” said Robert Bonnie, the USDA’s undersecretary of farm production and conservation. “Part of the real interest in the Partnerships program is a way to provide seed money to entice more folks in the private sector to come in … The government’s not going to do it alone.” He added, “If we’re going to maintain agriculture and forestry support for this, it’s got to stay voluntary. And if we can prove that this approach works, we have a high probability of doing that.”

Bonnie, a Kentucky native, is "a veteran of the Obama administration and saw that administration’s cap-and-trade approach go up in smoke," Downs notes. "He researched how to gain support in rural communities for environmental efforts."

Downs points out, "Wall Street has been nervous about investing in green supply chains — and in particular in purchasing carbon credits under government programs designed to quickly offset pollution from farms. Last year, a Bloomberg article exposed that scores of companies claiming to be eco-friendly actually purchased carbon credits that turned out to be bogus. . . . But after USDA provides significant monetary incentives to farms around the country to go green, Wall Street will have a better idea of what works and what doesn’t — and which carbon credits and sustainable farming tools are worth the money."

UPDATE, Aug. 11: Chris Clayton of DTN/The Progerssive Farmer reports, "With at least 22 different carbon programs being marketed now to farmers by private companies, a new research paper looks at how those programs should be transformed to deal with barriers to adoption and ideally broaden the adoptions of conservation practices in the process."