SUBSCRIBE TO OUR FREE NEWSLETTER
Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
animal welfare
Trump USDA Pick Backs Mass Deportations and 'Ready to Bow to Corporate Interests'
"As usual, President Trump appears more concerned with buoying business interests than reforming our broken system to deliver safe, affordable food," one advocate said.
Jan 23, 2025
In her confirmation hearing before the U.S. Senate on Thursday, President Donald Trump's agriculture secretary nominee Brooke Rollins expressed support for the mass deportation of undocumented immigrants, work requirements for federal food aid, and a law that would prohibit states from passing independent regulations of agricultural products.
Her testimony sparked concern from food justice and sustainable agriculture advocates, who said her lack of agricultural experience and pro-corporate worldview would harm farmworkers, animals, public health, and families in need.
"Rollins, as secretary of agriculture, will be a serious setback for farmers, ranchers, and rural communities already burdened by extreme weather events; livestock disease outbreaks; challenges in accessing land, capital, and new markets; food insecure families who rely on federal assistance to reach their nutritional needs; and for small and family farms being squeezed out by powerful food and agriculture corporations," Nichelle Harriott, policy director at Health, Environment, Agriculture, Labor (HEAL) Food Alliance, said in a statement.
"Her history demonstrates a disregard for and lack of commitment to supporting Black, Indigenous, and other farmers and ranchers of color, as well as small and family farmers, farmworkers, and the working people who sustain our food system."
Rollins, who testified before the Senate Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry at 10:00 am Eastern Time on Thursday, was a surprise choice to lead the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) for many agricultural groups as well as other members of the Trump team. While she grew up on a farm in Texas, participated in the 4-H and Future Farmers of America, and earned a bachelor's degree in agricultural development from Texas A&M University in 1994, her career diverged from the agricultural world once she graduated from the University of Texas School of Law. She worked for then-Texas Gov. Rick Perry, served under the first Trump administration in the White House Office of American Innovation and then as acting director of the U.S. Domestic Policy Council, and co-founded the right-wing America First Policy Institute think tank after 2020.
"Essentially, in more than three decades, Rollins has never had a job solely focused on food and agriculture policy," Karen Perry Stillerman, director in the Food and Environment Program at the Union of Concerned Scientists (UCS), wrote in a blog post ahead of Rollins' hearing.
One statement that particularly concerned food and agriculture justice campaigners was Rollins' support for the Ending Agricultural Trade Suppression (EATS) Act. This act would repeal California's Proposition 12, which bans the sale in the state of pork, veal, or eggs from animals "confined in a cruel manner." It would also prevent other states from passing similar laws and is backed by agribusiness lobby firms like the National Cattlemen's Beef Association, the National Pork Producers Council, and the Farm Bureau.
"Brooke Rollins is a well established Trump loyalist, ready to bow to corporate interests on Day One. Her endorsement of the EATS Act signals the dangerous pro-corporate agenda she appears ready to bring USDA, if confirmed to lead the key agency," Food & Water Watch senior food policy analyst Rebecca Wolf said in a statement.
"The USDA has massive leverage in shaping our food system, but, as usual, President Trump appears more concerned with buoying business interests than reforming our broken system to deliver safe, affordable food," Wolf continued. "Congress must stand up to Trump's corporate cronies and their dangerous legislation. That means stopping the EATS Act, which threatens to exacerbate consolidation in the agriculture sector and drive an archaic race to the bottom in which consumers, animals, and our environment lose out to enormous profit-grubbing corporations."
During the hearing, senators questioned Rollins on how her USDA would handle key aspects of Trump's agenda that are likely to impact farmers. His planned 25% tariffs on China, Mexico, and Canada could lead to retaliation from those countries that would block U.S. access to their markets, as happened with China in 2018.
Rollins said that the administration was prepared to give aid to farmers as it did during Trump's first term.
"What we've heard from our farmers and ranchers over and over again is they want to be able to do the work. They want to be able to export. They don't want to solve this problem by getting aid," Sen. Michael Bennet (D-Colo.) responded.
Rollins answered that she would also work to expand access to agricultural markets.
Sen. Dick Durbin (D-Ill.), meanwhile, raised the question of how Trump's USDA would respond to his plan to deport millions of undocumented immigrants, given that around 40% of U.S. farmworkers are undocumented.
"The president's vision of a secure border and a mass deportation at a scale that matters is something I support," Rollins answered. "My commitment is to help President Trump deploy his agenda in an effective way, while at the same time defending, if confirmed secretary of agriculture, our farmers and ranchers across this country... And so having both of those, which you may argue is in conflict, but having both of those is key priorities."
Another major policy area that Rollins would oversee as agriculture secretary is the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP), formerly referred to as food stamps. SNAP makes up the bulk of federal spending in the Farm Bill, which has been delayed as Congress debates both nutrition and work requirements for the program, according toThe Texas Tribune. While most SNAP recipients are already required to work unless they have child- or eldercare responsibilities, lawmakers are debating stricter requirements.
Rollins told senators that she thought work requirements were "important."
In her pre-hearing article, UCS's Stillerman also expressed concerns about Rollins' history of climate denial and marriage to the president of an oil exploration company.
"In 2018, then-White House aide Rollins told participants at a right-wing energy conference that 'we know the research of CO2 being a pollutant is just not valid'—a perspective that is extreme even in the Trump era," she wrote.
Further, Stillerman noted Rollins' history of repeating "hateful and dangerous conspiracy theories," in particular about Democrats, left-wing organizations, and movements for women's and Black rights.
"Given her apparent antipathy for social justice movements, I have to wonder what Rollins thinks about the 66 recommendations made in early 2024 by the USDA Equity Commission to address a long history of racial discrimination and level the playing field for farmers of all kinds," Stillerman wrote.
After the hearing, Harriott of HEAL Food Alliance said: "Our food and farming communities deserve leadership that champions the needs of everyone, regardless of where we live or what we look like. The next secretary of agriculture must ensure that all farmers, ranchers, farmworkers, and food system workers have the resources they need to thrive."
"Unfortunately, despite her testimony today, Brooke Rollins lacks the agricultural expertise required to effectively lead the USDA. Her history demonstrates a disregard for and lack of commitment to supporting Black, Indigenous, and other farmers and ranchers of color, as well as small and family farmers, farmworkers, and the working people who sustain our food system," Harriott continued.
In the case that Rollins is confirmed, Harriott called on her to "prioritize disaster relief for farmers facing climate-related disruptions; invest in small farms and those practicing traditional, cultural, and ecological farming methods; ensure protections for food and farmworkers; and safeguard vital nutrition programs like SNAP to reduce hunger nationwide."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Can Preventive Policies Like the OCTOPUS Act Truly Stop Animal Suffering?
Already passed in Washington State and California, this bill seeks to ban octopus farming altogether before it ever becomes reality and before a powerful lobby emerges to defend it.
Nov 27, 2024
Octopuses, with three hearts and remarkable intelligence, remain among the most intriguing non-human species ever studied. Despite their unsuitability for domestication, multiple plans are emerging to farm them intensively.
The most worrying proposal comes from the company Nueva Pescanova, which aims to establish Europe’s first octopus farm in the Canary Islands, as well as breed and kill over 1 million octopuses per year.
In the United States, hope takes the form of the OCTOPUS Act. Already passed in Washington State and California, this bill seeks to ban octopus farming altogether before it ever becomes reality. Animal rights organizations are not stopping there, as they plan to introduce this preventive bill in at least five additional states.
What exactly are preventive policies? Why are they becoming a preferred strategy for animal rights organizations?
Preventive policies function as a preemptive strike, making it possible to ban or regulate activities that have the potential to cause harm. Such policies are particularly valuable in the context of animal welfare because they can stop inhumane practices before they become ingrained, or before powerful lobbying groups form around them. As the old English proverb goes: “Better safe than sorry.”
Why do animal rights organizations favor preventive policies?
One of the most powerful, albeit challenging, ways of countering animal suffering at scale is through policy change. Over the past three decades, preventive policies have gained momentum as a key tool for environmental protection. More recently, animal rights organizations have also turned to this strategy as a way of protecting animals.
The OCTOPUS Act stands as a promising example of how we can protect animals before cruelty becomes entrenched.
Preventive policies are also more politically feasible. At present, octopus meat is caught wild, and local fishermen have not been targeted by the policy. They are even in favor of the OCTOPUS Act because it will protect their activities. There is less resistance to such a ban because no industry currently exists for farming octopuses. Contrast this with efforts to end factory farming for chickens or pigs, where deeply entrenched lobbies make change difficult.
Overall, preventive policies lay the groundwork for long-term, sustainable change. They can create a ripple effect, setting a precedent that can inspire other countries to follow suit. Eurogroup for Animals has already suggested that the European Union should consider similar legislation: “If the U.S. can do it, the E.U. can too.”
Do preventive policies live up to the expectations?
While preventive policies are powerful, they are not without drawbacks. Policies take a long time to draft, introduce, pass through the appropriate legislative bodies, and, at last, implement. In the interim, harmful practices may even develop in other jurisdictions. Preventive policies do not offer the immediate relief that animal advocates are hoping for.
Another concern is that restricting a practice through legal means could give rise to covert practices that are even more harmful or make it more difficult to ensure animal welfare standards. The demand for octopus meat could lead to illegal activities, such as black market trade or trafficking.
It is also challenging to quantify the precise impact of any one policy on animal suffering. Animal protection is multifactorial. Policies are just one piece of the puzzle that includes advocacy efforts, campaigns, public awareness, and social pressure as well as shifts in cultural attitudes. While the OCTOPUS Act may prevent octopus farming in the United States, how much animal suffering will be reduced? We cannot assume that harm will be entirely eradicated without continued effort across multiple fronts.
How can we ensure that preventive policies make a difference?
We must endorse a holistic approach to ensure that policies like the OCTOPUS Act carry the weight we intend. Science and research should inform the drafting of legislation, ensuring that laws are grounded in deep understanding of animal cognition and welfare. Simultaneously, advocacy campaigns and public pressure help generate the social momentum to push these policies forward.
Creative expressions—whether through art, film, or photography—can also play a significant role in raising awareness, in fostering empathy for animals, and in driving change. My Octopus Teacher is a brilliant example of this. While the impact of these efforts is even harder to quantify, they are often the spark that leads to legislative change.
Preventive policies alone are not a silver bullet, but they are an essential tool in the fight for animal welfare. The OCTOPUS Act stands as a promising example of how we can protect animals before cruelty becomes entrenched.
May this bill pass in many other states, create change internationally, and set a precedent to safeguard the lives of billions of animals.
Keep ReadingShow Less
A Few Crazy Thoughts Regarding the Batshit Harris-Trump Debate
If you are on your toes, you note what we are witnessing is not about Trump at all. It is about us. What forces us, the raw mass of humanity born into the worst of all times, to give this vile, florid, and stupid monster a seat at the head of the table?
Sep 12, 2024
Pundits, a day later, ruminate about who won the September 10th "presidential debate," but that is the wrong question. The most important revelation from Tuesday night's clusterfuck of bad theater ought to be this: the patient won't survive. The bedridden train-wreck sprawled across the gurney in the hospice unit is the United States of America—and the debate wasn't destined to be revelatory. We already knew that the corpse, writhing and contorting in agony, will need life-support first and a skilled embalmer soon enough. The debate proved for the billionth time that the greatest country on earth has less hope than a popsicle on the surface of the sun.
The debate wasn't about Kamala Harris—she is the default mode, the automatic pilot, a celebration of generic items, a slinky on a long stair case, a golf course watering system in a terminal draught, a row of telephone poles on an endless train ride. Forget about her. She does not exist. AI created her.
This debate was about Donald Trump. If an alien spacecraft lands on your street and parks next to a Honda Fit, the make of the car becomes irrelevant. If you are waking in the morning with a blister on your little toe and notice a tumor growing out of your side as big as the bathroom sink, you no longer attend to the foot discomfort.
Trump is our measuring stick, our gauge of disease, our face of national distress. If Trump had a debate with Jesus himself you wouldn't see it as the bantering back and forth between good and evil—you'd look at Trump and ask, "What the fuck is that?" In any context, Trump does not belong. He is a walking double take. You look at Trump as if your arm falls off and blood streams from your empty shoulder. He is bad shit that should not be there—but there he is.
If Trump had a debate with Jesus himself you wouldn't see it as the bantering back and forth between good and evil—you'd look at Trump and ask, "What the fuck is that?"
For Trump is not the typical American occupant of our national throne—a guy who merely dispenses weapons to right-wing dictators in the name of freedom and the memory of the founding fathers. No, Trump's vileness resembles, but supersedes a bad mushroom trip. A close up screenshot of Trump's face makes you long for a hang gliding mishap and a seat in the waiting room adjacent to the furnaces of hell.
But, if you are on your toes, you note that it is not Trump at all. It is about us. What forces us, the raw mass of humanity born into the worst of all times, to give this vile, florid, and stupid monster a seat at the head of the table?
What terrible rot eats us alive and, in the process causes us to see Trump as an answer to life's most difficult question? In the final, and darkest hour in all human history, what must we do to redeem ourselves? Trump!
And what did Trump tell us in this thigh-smacking comedy called the "Sixth Extinction Slapstick Special"?
For starters Trump told us that all the murderers, rapists, drug dealers, and gangsters dispersed across the entirety of creation have been systematically funneled to the U.S. southern border. All the jails and mental institutions from the stellar nurseries of the Orion Nebula to the Barbary coast have been drained of their residents. The universe, thus, suddenly has no crime, save for "migrant crime" in the land of stars and stripes.
We have all the crime from everywhere and everywhere has no crime at all.
Can you imagine that maybe a couple billion years hence, a team of alien explorers lands on the burnt remnants of our planet and discovers the video of Tuesday's debate?
Trump also told us that these alien thugs have been eating our dogs and cats. For a man who almost chose canine executioner, Kristi Noem, to be his vice president, and who fathered two of the world's most cruel trophy hunters, this sudden passion for animal welfare caught many of us off guard.
He argued back and forth with Kamala Harris about which one fracked the hardest. Picture two arsonists bickering over which one owns the largest gas can, and you get the idea.
He informed us that Harris is a radical Marxist, coming for your guns, Hummers, and bacon.
He let us know that the "Democrat Party" executes babies after birth and that every legal scholar from D.C. to the Big Bang had been clamoring to send abortion back to the states. 100% of our legal minds from Clarence Thomas to Perry Mason had, according to Trump, opposed Rowe v Wade since the universe began as expanding hot plasma. Not a single legal scholar had even one kind word for Rowe, and everyone knows it.
He also said stuff like this:
We did a phenomenal job with the pandemic. We handed them over a country where the economy and where the stock market was higher than it was before the pandemic came in. Nobody's ever seen anything like it. We made ventilators for the entire world. We got gowns. We got masks. We did things that nobody thought possible. And people give me credit for rebuilding the military. They give me credit for a lot of things. But not enough credit for the great job we did with the pandemic. But the only jobs they got were bounce-back jobs. These were jobs, bounce back. And it bounced back and it went to their benefit. But I was the one that created them. They know it and so does everybody else.
And, if you crave more, here you go:
And look at what's happening to the towns all over the United States. And a lot of towns don't want to talk -- not going to be Aurora or Springfield. A lot of towns don't want to talk about it because they're so embarrassed by it. In Springfield, they're eating the dogs. The people that came in. They're eating the cats. They're eating -- they're eating the pets of the people that live there. And this is what's happening in our country. And it's a shame. As far as rallies are concerned, as far -- the reason they go is they like what I say. They want to bring our country back. They want to make America great again. It's a very simple phrase: Make America Great Again. She's destroying this country. And if she becomes president, this country doesn't have a chance of success. Not only success. We'll end up being Venezuela on steroids.
Can you imagine that maybe a couple billion years hence, a team of alien explorers lands on the burnt remnants of our planet and discovers the video of Tuesday's debate? What will our alien visitors say to one another? Perhaps they'll say, "Those dumb fucks where watching this and chewing on popcorn while their planet roasted."
Perhaps the cruelest aliens will talk shit about our long imploded civilization: “Thank the god, Aghjestymunbo, that these crazy motherfuckers killed themselves before they learned how easy intergalactic technology is!”
I am not certain that billions of years from now our aliens will know what popcorn is. I also have no idea if intergalactic wanderers will have the requisite sense of humor to appreciate Donald Trump. If they do, all will not be lost.
Keep ReadingShow Less
Most Popular