This story was originally published by Grist and is reproduced here as part of the Climate Desk collaboration.

On Monday, Senator Debbie Stabenow, a longtime champion of programs that support farmers and increase access to nutritious foods, introduced a new version of the farm bill, a key piece of legislation typically renewed every five years that governs much of how the agricultural industry in the US operates. 

Stabenow, who is retiring next month after representing Michigan in the Senate for 24 years, has staked her career on her vision for a robust, progressive farm bill, one that, among other things, paves the way for farmers to endure the worst impacts of the climate crisis.

The text of her bill comes almost two months after the 2018 farm bill, which initially expired last year and was revived thanks to a one-year extension, expired for a second time on September 30. And it comes mere weeks before the end of the year, when funding for several programs included in the farm bill will run out. 

But more importantly, the bill comes after many months of infighting between Democratic and Republican lawmakers over what matters most in the next farm bill—and just weeks before the current congressional term ends. In order to pass the bill, Stabenow would need to gain the support of Republicans in the Senate agriculture committee and the House of Representatives, where Democrats lack the votes necessary to pass their own version of the legislation. 

It’s likely, even expected, that that won’t happen. Sen. John Boozman, a Republican from Arkansas who is likely to chair the Senate agriculture committee after Stabenow’s retirement, criticized her bill on X, calling it an “insulting 11th hour partisan proposal.” Meanwhile, in the House, Republicans are reportedly hoping instead to pass another one-year extension of the farm bill, pushing negotiations over the new bill into next year, according to Politico.

There’s virtually no reason for Republicans not to prolong the process of hammering out the next farm bill, as starting in January they will have majority control over the legislative, judicial, and executive branches of the federal government.

By proposing legislation that’s all but doomed, Stabenow may be vying to secure her legacy as an environmental steward who understands how climate change is already impacting agricultural production, and why there should be more investment in climate initiatives that safeguard farmers now. 

In a speech presenting the details of her bill to the Senate on Monday, Stabenow said, “For more than two years I’ve been working with colleagues on both sides of the aisle to pass my sixth Farm Bill, the third one that I’ve either been chair or ranking member of…the Senate Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry.” 

She emphasized that farming is a risky business given its dependence on the weather. “But it’s getting even riskier now, because [of] what’s happening with the climate crisis, and we know that,” she said. “How many once-in-a-generation storms or droughts need to hit our farmers over the head before we take this crisis seriously?”

Certain advocacy groups have praised Stabenow’s farm bill. Rebecca Riley, the managing director for food and agriculture at the National Resources Defense Council, an environmental group, said the bill reflects Stabenow’s “decades of leadership and dedication to strengthening America’s farmers and rural communities.” But other groups were slower to respond. In a statement, the American Farm Bureau Federation, an agricultural industry group, said simply: “We’re reviewing Chairwoman Stabenow’s newly released 1,300 pages of farm bill text,” adding that it’s “unfortunate that only a few legislative working days remain for Congress to act.” (Stabenow’s office did not reply to Grist’s requests for comment.)

One of the key features of Stabenow’s farm bill is funding for so-called “climate-smart” agriculture practices, an umbrella term that broadly refers to techniques that help farmers sequester carbon in the soil rather than emit more of it into the atmosphere, where it contributes to global warming. The 2022 Inflation Reduction Act allocated nearly $20 billion in funding for these practices, such as crop rotation and no-till farming. And in the spring, Stabenow introduced a framework that rolled over the leftover money from the IRA for “climate-smart” practices into a new farm bill. (Shortly afterwards, Senate Republicans put forward another draft of the farm bill without this provision.)

Climate is hardly the only focus of the text Stabenow introduced earlier this week, which, like all farm bills, seeks to address a dizzying array of agricultural and nutritional priorities. Chief among the provisions in her bill, titled the Rural Prosperity and Food Security Act, are policies that aim to increase access to crop insurance and make coverage more affordable by boosting premium subsidies. The bill also seeks to invest $4.3 billion in rural communities, seeking to improve their access to health care, childcare, education, and broadband internet. 

But other provisions indicate that Stabenow has long been thinking of how to further protect farmers from climate impacts such as extreme weather—and also make the US food system more diversified and resilient. She proposes creating a permanent disaster program that would establish a consistent process for providing farmers with assistance after floods, wildfires, and other calamities. Stabenow also seeks to strengthen support for specialty crops—better known as fruits, nuts, vegetables, and herbs—and reminds the Senate during her press briefing that these crops “are almost half of what we grow.” 

hese details represent some of the divisions that run deep through congressional negotiations. Senator John Hoeven, the Republican congressman from North Dakota, was quick to dismiss Stabenow’s vision, writing on X, “Unfortunately, the Senate bill released today does not meet the needs of farm country and fails to keep farm in the Farm Bill.” Boozman has signaled he fully intends to ignore Stabenow’s last-minute bill, telling reporters that Congress must push for another extension of the 2018 farm bill and meeting with agriculture industry groups to discuss their priorities.

Boozman’s and other Republicans’ concerns with the new farm bill text likely stem, at least in part, from lobbying groups representing large-scale, industrial farmers who wish to see fewer restrictions placed on how they do business. The National Pork Producers Council, or NPPC, for example, issued an instant rejection of Stabenow’s farm bill text, calling it “simply not a viable bill” for “fail[ing] to provide a solution to California Prop. 12.”

That proposition prohibits the sale of veal, pork, and egg products by farm owners and operators who knowingly house animals “in a cruel manner.” The NPPC has followed this issue closely, arguing that forcing pork producers to comply with “arbitrary” animal housing specifications would wildly increase their costs (and prices for consumers). The group successfully lobbied for a provision in the House farm bill that essentially takes away California’s power to enforce such a law—by blocking state and local government from imposing conditions on the production of livestock sold in their jurisdiction (unless the livestock is actually produced within the state or local community).  

Stabenow seems highly aware of the zero-sum framework with which many different actors view the farm bill. When addressing the Senate, she mentioned that the version of the Farm Bill released by the House in May would have put “immense” resources into a small number of commodity farmers in the South. “I’m not saying that these farmers don’t need support. They do,” she said. “But it can’t be at the expense of millions of other farmers and ranchers in this country,” including those who run smaller, diversified operations or who grow fruits and vegetables. 

In her speech, Stabenow repeatedly framed the text of her bill as a bipartisan project, and projected an urgency to secure wider resources for more farmers now. Her vision, she says, “can pass and should pass.” But whether that’s true or not will depend an awful lot on her colleagues, who currently have no incentive to negotiate with her and other Democrats and could simply wait to push forward their own agenda. How long they wait remains to be seen. 

This story was originally published by Grist and is reproduced here as part of the Climate Desk collaboration.

On Monday, Senator Debbie Stabenow, a longtime champion of programs that support farmers and increase access to nutritious foods, introduced a new version of the farm bill, a key piece of legislation typically renewed every five years that governs much of how the agricultural industry in the US operates. 

Stabenow, who is retiring next month after representing Michigan in the Senate for 24 years, has staked her career on her vision for a robust, progressive farm bill, one that, among other things, paves the way for farmers to endure the worst impacts of the climate crisis.

The text of her bill comes almost two months after the 2018 farm bill, which initially expired last year and was revived thanks to a one-year extension, expired for a second time on September 30. And it comes mere weeks before the end of the year, when funding for several programs included in the farm bill will run out. 

But more importantly, the bill comes after many months of infighting between Democratic and Republican lawmakers over what matters most in the next farm bill—and just weeks before the current congressional term ends. In order to pass the bill, Stabenow would need to gain the support of Republicans in the Senate agriculture committee and the House of Representatives, where Democrats lack the votes necessary to pass their own version of the legislation. 

It’s likely, even expected, that that won’t happen. Sen. John Boozman, a Republican from Arkansas who is likely to chair the Senate agriculture committee after Stabenow’s retirement, criticized her bill on X, calling it an “insulting 11th hour partisan proposal.” Meanwhile, in the House, Republicans are reportedly hoping instead to pass another one-year extension of the farm bill, pushing negotiations over the new bill into next year, according to Politico.

There’s virtually no reason for Republicans not to prolong the process of hammering out the next farm bill, as starting in January they will have majority control over the legislative, judicial, and executive branches of the federal government.

By proposing legislation that’s all but doomed, Stabenow may be vying to secure her legacy as an environmental steward who understands how climate change is already impacting agricultural production, and why there should be more investment in climate initiatives that safeguard farmers now. 

In a speech presenting the details of her bill to the Senate on Monday, Stabenow said, “For more than two years I’ve been working with colleagues on both sides of the aisle to pass my sixth Farm Bill, the third one that I’ve either been chair or ranking member of…the Senate Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry.” 

She emphasized that farming is a risky business given its dependence on the weather. “But it’s getting even riskier now, because [of] what’s happening with the climate crisis, and we know that,” she said. “How many once-in-a-generation storms or droughts need to hit our farmers over the head before we take this crisis seriously?”

Certain advocacy groups have praised Stabenow’s farm bill. Rebecca Riley, the managing director for food and agriculture at the National Resources Defense Council, an environmental group, said the bill reflects Stabenow’s “decades of leadership and dedication to strengthening America’s farmers and rural communities.” But other groups were slower to respond. In a statement, the American Farm Bureau Federation, an agricultural industry group, said simply: “We’re reviewing Chairwoman Stabenow’s newly released 1,300 pages of farm bill text,” adding that it’s “unfortunate that only a few legislative working days remain for Congress to act.” (Stabenow’s office did not reply to Grist’s requests for comment.)

One of the key features of Stabenow’s farm bill is funding for so-called “climate-smart” agriculture practices, an umbrella term that broadly refers to techniques that help farmers sequester carbon in the soil rather than emit more of it into the atmosphere, where it contributes to global warming. The 2022 Inflation Reduction Act allocated nearly $20 billion in funding for these practices, such as crop rotation and no-till farming. And in the spring, Stabenow introduced a framework that rolled over the leftover money from the IRA for “climate-smart” practices into a new farm bill. (Shortly afterwards, Senate Republicans put forward another draft of the farm bill without this provision.)

Climate is hardly the only focus of the text Stabenow introduced earlier this week, which, like all farm bills, seeks to address a dizzying array of agricultural and nutritional priorities. Chief among the provisions in her bill, titled the Rural Prosperity and Food Security Act, are policies that aim to increase access to crop insurance and make coverage more affordable by boosting premium subsidies. The bill also seeks to invest $4.3 billion in rural communities, seeking to improve their access to health care, childcare, education, and broadband internet. 

But other provisions indicate that Stabenow has long been thinking of how to further protect farmers from climate impacts such as extreme weather—and also make the US food system more diversified and resilient. She proposes creating a permanent disaster program that would establish a consistent process for providing farmers with assistance after floods, wildfires, and other calamities. Stabenow also seeks to strengthen support for specialty crops—better known as fruits, nuts, vegetables, and herbs—and reminds the Senate during her press briefing that these crops “are almost half of what we grow.” 

hese details represent some of the divisions that run deep through congressional negotiations. Senator John Hoeven, the Republican congressman from North Dakota, was quick to dismiss Stabenow’s vision, writing on X, “Unfortunately, the Senate bill released today does not meet the needs of farm country and fails to keep farm in the Farm Bill.” Boozman has signaled he fully intends to ignore Stabenow’s last-minute bill, telling reporters that Congress must push for another extension of the 2018 farm bill and meeting with agriculture industry groups to discuss their priorities.

Boozman’s and other Republicans’ concerns with the new farm bill text likely stem, at least in part, from lobbying groups representing large-scale, industrial farmers who wish to see fewer restrictions placed on how they do business. The National Pork Producers Council, or NPPC, for example, issued an instant rejection of Stabenow’s farm bill text, calling it “simply not a viable bill” for “fail[ing] to provide a solution to California Prop. 12.”

That proposition prohibits the sale of veal, pork, and egg products by farm owners and operators who knowingly house animals “in a cruel manner.” The NPPC has followed this issue closely, arguing that forcing pork producers to comply with “arbitrary” animal housing specifications would wildly increase their costs (and prices for consumers). The group successfully lobbied for a provision in the House farm bill that essentially takes away California’s power to enforce such a law—by blocking state and local government from imposing conditions on the production of livestock sold in their jurisdiction (unless the livestock is actually produced within the state or local community).  

Stabenow seems highly aware of the zero-sum framework with which many different actors view the farm bill. When addressing the Senate, she mentioned that the version of the Farm Bill released by the House in May would have put “immense” resources into a small number of commodity farmers in the South. “I’m not saying that these farmers don’t need support. They do,” she said. “But it can’t be at the expense of millions of other farmers and ranchers in this country,” including those who run smaller, diversified operations or who grow fruits and vegetables. 

In her speech, Stabenow repeatedly framed the text of her bill as a bipartisan project, and projected an urgency to secure wider resources for more farmers now. Her vision, she says, “can pass and should pass.” But whether that’s true or not will depend an awful lot on her colleagues, who currently have no incentive to negotiate with her and other Democrats and could simply wait to push forward their own agenda. How long they wait remains to be seen. 

This story was originally published by Grist and is reproduced here as part of the Climate Desk collaboration.

As Republican presidential nominee Donald Trump campaigns for a second term in the White House, the former president has repeatedly promised to enact the largest deportation of undocumented immigrants in US history. It’s a bold threat that legal experts say should be taken seriously, despite the significant technical and logistical challenges posed by deporting 11 million people from the United States. 

Even if only somewhat successful, Trump’s hard-line approach to immigration—with its laser focus on removing immigrants who live in the US without permanent legal status—has the potential to uproot countless communities and families by conducting sweeping raids and placing people in detention centers.

Mass deportation would also, according to economists, labor groups, and immigration advocates, threaten the economy and disrupt the food supply chain, which is reliant on many forms of migrant labor.

The ramifications of a mass deportation operation would be “huge” given “immigrant participation in our labor force,” said Amy Liebman, chief program officer of workers, environment, and climate at the Migrant Clinicians Network, a nonprofit that advocates for health justice. Immigration is one of the reasons behind growth in the labor force, said Liebman. “And then you look at food, and farms.” 

“Button your seatbelts, people, because who’s washing dishes in the restaurant, who’s freaking processing that chicken? Like, hello?”

The possibility of deportation-related disruption comes at a time when the US food system is already being battered by climate change. Extreme weather and climate disasters are disrupting supply chains, while longer-term warming trends are affecting agricultural productivity. Although inflation is currently cooling, higher food costs remain an issue for consumers across the country—and economists have found that even a forecast of extreme weather can cause grocery store prices to rise. 

Mass deportation could create more chaos, because the role of immigrants in the American food system is difficult to overstate. Every year, hundreds of thousands of people, the vast majority of them coming from Mexico, legally obtain H-2A visas that allow them to enter the US as seasonal agricultural workers and then return home when the harvest is done. But people living in the US without legal status also play a crucial role in the economy: During the pandemic, it was estimated that 5 million essential workers were undocumented. And the Center for American Progress found that nearly 1.7 million undocumented workers labor in some part of the US food supply chain.

A stunning half of those immigrants work in restaurants, where during the height of the COVID-19 pandemic, they labored in enclosed, often cramped environments at a time when poor ventilation could be deadly. Hundreds of thousands also work in farming and agriculture—where they might work in the field or sorting produce—as well as food production, in jobs like machine operation and butchery.

The agricultural sector is just one of several industries in recent years that has experienced a labor shortage, which the US Chamber of Commerce has classified a “crisis.” This ongoing shortage makes the Trump campaign’s proposal to force a mass exodus of people without legal status an inherently bad policy, said Liebman. “Part of me is like, ‘Oh, button your seatbelts, people, because who’s washing dishes in the restaurant, who’s freaking processing that chicken?’ Like, hello?”

“With fewer and fewer Americans growing up on the farm, it’s increasingly difficult to find American workers attracted to these kinds of jobs.”

The health and safety risks undocumented immigrants have undertaken to keep Americans fed—both in times of crises and during all other times—have been met with few legal and workplace protections. A bill to give undocumented essential workers a legal pathway to citizenship, introduced by Senator Alex Padilla, a Democrat from California, died in committee in 2023. Padilla told Grist he will continue working to “expand protections for these essential workers, including fighting for a legal pathway to citizenship.”

“Agricultural workers endure long hours of physically demanding work, showing up through extreme weather and even a global pandemic to keep our country fed,” he added. “They deserve to live with dignity.” 

If this workforce were to be unceremoniously deported, without regard for their economic contributions to U.S. society or consideration of whether they actually pose a threat to their communities, it would be disastrous, according to Padilla. 

“Donald Trump’s plans to carry out mass deportations as a part of Project 2025 are not only cruel but would also decimate our nation’s food supply and economy,” said Padilla, referring to the Heritage Foundation’s roadmap for a Trump presidency. (The Trump campaign did not respond to a request for comment.)

US farmers, who rely on many forms of migrant labor (including undocumented workers and H-2A temporary visa holders), have said that a crackdown on undocumented immigrants would essentially bring business to a grinding halt. In response to federal and state proposals to require employers to verify the legal status of their workers, the American Farm Bureau Federation has said, “Enforcement-only immigration reform would cripple agricultural production in America.”

The Farm Bureau, an advocacy group for farmers, declined to comment on Trump’s mass deportation proposal, but a questionnaire the group gave to both presidential candidates states, “Farm work is challenging, often seasonal and transitory, and with fewer and fewer Americans growing up on the farm, it’s increasingly difficult to find American workers attracted to these kinds of jobs.”

Small farmers agree. A first generation Mexican-American immigrant who works in Illinois as an urban farmer, David Toledo says that the consequences of mass deportation for the country’s food system would be hard to imagine, especially since he believes that “many Americans don’t want to take the jobs” that many undocumented workers currently fill for very low pay.

“We need people who want to work in fields and in farmlands. [Farmworkers] are waking up way before the sun because of rising temperatures, and living in horrible conditions,” said Toledo. He added that the US should remember “that we are a welcoming community and society. We have to be, because we are going to see a lot more people shifting [here] from countries all over the world because of climate change.” 

Stephen Miller, the advisor who shaped Trump’s hard-line immigration policy, has touted mass deportations as a labor market intervention that will boost wages for American-born workers. But analysts point out that previous programs aimed at restricting the flow of immigrant workers have failed to raise wages for native-born citizens.

For example, when the US in 1965 ended the Bracero Program, which allowed half a million Mexican-American seasonal workers to labor in the US, wages for domestic farmworkers did not increase, according to analysis from the Centre for Economic Policy Research.

Additionally, a recent analysis found that a Bush- and Obama-era deportation program known as Secure Communities—which removed nearly half a million undocumented immigrants from the US—resulted in both fewer jobs and lower wages from domestic workers. One reason is that when undocumented immigrants were deported, many middle managers who worked with them also lost their jobs.

Such a shock to the agricultural labor force could result in higher food prices, too. If farmers lose a large portion of their workforce due to mass deportation, they may not have enough people to harvest, grade, and sort crops before they spoil. That sort of reduction in the supply of food could drive up prices at the grocery store. 

Many experts note that even attempting to deport millions of immigrants would disrupt the nation’s economy as a whole. “It will not benefit our economy to lose millions of workers,” said Debu Gandhi, senior director of immigration policy at the Center for American Progress, a liberal think tank. “There is no economic rationale for it.”

For instance, mass deportation would deprive governments of essential tax revenue. A report from the American Immigration Council found that a majority of undocumented immigrants—or three-fourths—participated in the workforce in 2022. This tracks with other analysts’ understandings of the undocumented workforce. “Undocumented immigrants, when they get to the United States of America, they have an intention to work, to make money and contribute not only to their families, but also to the federal, state, and local government,” said Marco Guzman, a senior policy analyst at the Institute on Taxation and Economic Policy. A recent report co-authored by Guzman found that undocumented immigrants paid a whopping $96.7 billion in federal, state, and local taxes in 2022.

Moreover, advocacy groups worry about the impact mass deportation would have on families. “What does this look like on the ground?” said Liebman, who wondered who would be tasked with enforcing mass deportation, and whether it would require local law enforcement agencies to carry out raids in their own neighborhoods and communities. She noted that the bulk of migrant families across the country are “mixed status”—meaning that some members of a household have documentation while others don’t. “Are we going to go into people’s houses and rip families apart?”  

“My sense is that it would be impractical and then impossible to implement [mass deportations] a way that doesn’t inevitably violate the Constitution.”

Immigration is the purview of the federal government, and for decades, elected leaders across the political spectrum have failed to pass policies to fix America’s strained immigration system. “It has been very hard to find solutions on immigration reform,” said Gandhi. “And we do have bipartisan solutions on the table. But we just have not been able to get them through.”

In the absence of other policy solutions—such as addressing the root causes of migration to the US from other countries, including climate change—all-or-nothing imperatives to “close the border” have become popular among conservatives. In fact, a Scripps News/Ipsos poll released last month found that a majority of American voters surveyed support mass deporting immigrants without legal status. 

Experts have debated the feasibility of Trump’s promise to enact mass deportations—pointing out that deportations during Trump’s first term were lower than under his predecessor, Barack Obama. (The Biden administration has also enacted considerably more enforcement actions against immigrants than were carried out during the Trump administration.) Although the specific details on how the proposal would be carried out and enforced have yet to be clarified by Trump’s campaign, Paul Chavez, litigation program director at Americans for Immigrant Justice, a nonprofit law firm, is highly skeptical about the likelihood of such a move holding up in federal court. 

“I can’t imagine any sort of mass deportation program that doesn’t result in racial profiling of both immigrants and those perceived to be immigrants,” said Chavez. Any form of racial profiling that came out of such an enforcement process would be in violation of the equal protection clause of the 14th Amendment, which effectively prohibits a state from adopting policies that target any person in its jurisdiction based on race, color, or national origin. A mass deportation operation would lead to people being profiled across the country and treated in “a discriminatory fashion based on national origin,” said Chavez—triggering all sorts of lawsuits. 

“My sense is that it would be impractical and then impossible to implement in a way that doesn’t inevitably violate the Constitution,” said Chavez. 

But whether or not courts upheld mass deportation, the threat of raids would send a strong message to workers, according to Antonio De Loera-Brust, an organizer with United Farm Workers, a labor union for farmworkers that represents laborers regardless of their immigration status. He posited that Trump’s anti-immigrant rhetoric is purposefully designed to have a chilling effect on US residents without legal status. “The point is not to remove millions, it’s to scare them,” said De Loera-Brust.