farmer

WASHINGTON — President Trump on Friday accused foreign-owned meat-packers of driving up the price of beef in the U.S. and asked the Department of Justice to open an investigation.

The Republican president announced the move on social media days after his party suffered losses in key elections in which the winning Democratic candidates focused relentlessly on the public’s concerns about the cost of living.

“I have asked the DOJ to immediately begin an investigation into the Meat Packing Companies who are driving up the price of Beef through Illicit Collusion, Price Fixing, and Price Manipulation,” Trump wrote in the social media post.

“We will always protect our American Ranchers, and they are being blamed for what is being done by Majority Foreign Owned Meat Packers, who artificially inflate prices, and jeopardize the security of our Nation’s food supply,” he continued.

Trump offered no proof to support his allegations.

Beef prices have soared to record levels in part after drought and years of low prices led to the smallest U.S. herd size in decades. Trump’s tariffs on Brazil, a major beef exporter, have also curbed imports.

Concentration in the meat-packing business has long been a concern for farmers and politicians on both sides of the aisle. There are four major meat-packing companies in the United States, and the largest beef company, JBS, is headquartered in Brazil. JBS USA did not immediately respond to a request for comment on Friday.

“Action must be taken immediately to protect Consumers, combat Illegal Monopolies, and ensure these Corporations are not criminally profiting at the expense of the American People,” Trump said.

Last month, Trump suggested the U.S. would buy Argentine beef to bring down stubbornly high prices for American consumers, angering U.S. cattle ranchers.

Trump’s accusations have renewed a bipartisan presidential fight against rising food prices.

Then-President Biden talked with independent farmers and ranchers about initiatives to reduce food prices by increasing competition within the meat industry. And then-Vice President Kamala Harris, whom Trump defeated last year, used her campaign to vow to crack down on food producers and major supermarkets “ price gouging.”

Superville and Karnowski write for the Associated Press. Karnowski reported from Minneapolis.

MAGNOLIA, Ky. — The leafy soybean plants reach Caleb Ragland’s thighs and are ripe for harvest, but the Kentucky farmer is deeply worried. He doesn’t know where he and others like him will sell their crop because China has stopped buying.

Beijing, which traditionally has snapped up at least a quarter of all soybeans grown in the U.S., is in effect boycotting them in retaliation for the high tariffs President Trump has imposed on Chinese goods and to strengthen its hand in negotiations over a new overall trade deal.

It has left American soybean farmers fretting over not only this year’s crop but the long-term viability of their businesses, built in part on China’s once-insatiable appetite for U.S. beans.

“This is a five-alarm fire for our industry,” said Ragland, who leads the American Soybean Assn. trade group.

The situation might even be enough to test farmers’ loyalty to Trump, although the president still enjoys strong support throughout rural America. If no deal is reached soon, farmers hope the government will come through with aid as it did during Trump’s first term, but they see that as only a temporary solution. Trump said Thursday he was considering an aid package.

U.S. and Chinese officials have held four rounds of trade talks between May and September, with another likely in the coming weeks. No progress on soybeans has been reported.

Getting closer to harvest, “I’m honestly getting worried that the time is running out,” said Jim Sutter, chief executive of the U.S. Soybean Export Council.

Political pressure is growing

After Trump imposed tariffs on Chinese goods, China responded with tariffs of its own, which now total up to 34% on U.S. soybeans. That makes soybeans from other countries cheaper.

China’s retaliatory tariffs also hit U.S. growers of sorghum, corn and cotton; and even geoduck divers have been affected. But soybeans stand out because of the crop’s outsize importance to U.S. agricultural exports. Soybeans are the top U.S. food export, accounting for about 14% of all farm goods sent overseas.

And China has been by far the largest foreign buyer. Last year, the U.S. exported nearly $24.5 billion worth of soybeans, and China accounted for more than $12.5 billion. That compared with $2.45 billion by the European Union, the second-largest buyer. This year, China hasn’t bought beans since May.

With U.S. farmers hurting, the Trump administration is under growing pressure to reach a deal with China. As talks drag on, Trump appears ready to help.

“We’re going to take some of the tariff money — relatively small amount, but a lot for the farmers — and we’re going to help the farmers out a little bit,” Trump said, during what he called a transition period.

The only way most farmers survived Trump’s trade war in his first term was with tens of billions of dollars in government payments. But that’s not what most farmers want.

What farmers expect from Trump

“The American farmer, especially myself included, we don’t want aid payments,” said Brian Warpup, 52, a fourth-generation farmer from Warren, Ind. “We want to work. We work the land, we harvest the land, the crop off the land. And the worst thing that we could ever want is a handout.”

Farmers are looking to Trump for a long-term solution.

“Overwhelmingly, farmers have been in President Trump’s corner,” said Ragland, the president of the soybean association. “And I think the message that our soybean farmers as a whole want to deliver is: ‘President Trump, we’ve had your back. We need you to have ours now.’”

He said farmers appreciate the willingness to provide some short-term relief, but what they ultimately need are strong, reliable markets. “Our priority remains seeing the United States secure lasting trade agreements — particularly with China — that allow farmers to sell their crops and build a sustainable future with long-term customers,” he said.

Ragland, 39, hopes his three sons will become the 10th generation to till his 4,500 acres in Magnolia, Ky. Unless something changes soon, he worries that thousands of farmers may not survive.

Coming into this year, many farmers were just hoping to break even because crop prices were weak while their costs had only increased. Trump’s tariffs, which helped make their crops uncompetitive around the world, drove prices down further. And tariffs on steel and fertilizer sent costs up even more.

Darin Johnson, president of the Minnesota Soybean Growers Assn., said he still has faith in the Trump administration to reach a good trade deal with China.

“I think where the patience is probably wearing thin is the time,” said Johnson, a fourth-generation farmer. “I don’t think anybody thought that we were going to take this much time, because we were told 90 deals — 90 deals in 90 days.”

China’s negotiating strategy

The U.S. soybean industry grew in response to Chinese demand starting back in the 1990s, when China began its rapid economic rise and turned to foreign producers to help feed its people. Protein-rich soybeans are an essential part of the diet.

While China relies on domestic crops for steamed beans and tofu, it needs far more soybeans for oil extraction and animal feed. In 2024, China produced 20 million metric tons of soybeans, while importing more than 105 million metric tons.

American farmers have come to count on China as their biggest customer, and this has “given the Chinese a point of leverage,” Sutter said. By holding off on buying U.S. soybeans, China is seen as trying to leverage that purchasing power in the trade talks.

“I think that’s the strategy,” said Sutter of the U.S. Soybean Export Council. “I think that’s why China is targeting soybeans and other agricultural products, because they know that farmers have a strong lobby and farmers are important to the U.S. government.”

Liu Pengyu, spokesperson for the Chinese Embassy in Washington, didn’t answer specific questions on soybean purchases but urged the U.S. to work with Beijing.

“The essence of China-U.S. economic and trade cooperation is mutual benefit and win-win,” Liu said.

China turned to Brazil when Trump launched his first trade war in 2018. Last year, Brazilian beans accounted for more than 70% of China’s imports, while the U.S. share was down to 21%, World Bank data show. Argentina and other South American countries also are selling more to China, which has diversified to boost food security.

What American farmers are doing in response

U.S. farmers also are broadening their customer base, said Sutter, who recently traveled to Japan and Indonesia in search of new markets. Taiwan pledged to purchase $10 billion worth of soybeans, corn, wheat and beef in the next four years.

“There’s strong diversification efforts underway,” Sutter said. But “China is so big, it’s hard to replace them overnight.”

Farmers are working to boost consumption at home, too. Growth in biodiesel production has taken in some of the soybeans that were once exported. Other beans are crushed to produce soybean oil and soybean meal. The United Soybean Board is investing in research into the benefits of using soybeans to feed dairy cows and hogs.

But Iowa farmer Robb Ewoldt, a director with the Soybean Board, knows that such domestic uses are growing only gradually.

“We cannot replace a China in one shot,” Ewoldt said. “It’s not going to happen. We need to be realistic in that.”

Tang and Funk write for the Associated Press. Tang reported from Washington and Funk from Omaha. AP journalists Dylan Lovan in Magnolia, Obed Lamy in Warren and Steve Karnowski in Minneapolis contributed to this report.

Antiques Roadshow expert Will Farmer was left stunned by one guest’s knowledge of his two chairs

Antiques Roadshow expert Will Farmer was left gobsmacked by a guest’s knowledge about his two chairs, leading him to jokingly walk away in awe.

During a repeat episode of the BBC series, the expert started off by saying: “Well, here we are before a bold and striking architectural building, and we’ve got two bold and striking architectural chairs.

“I’ve got to ask the question, are we cut from the same cloth? Are you a bit of a design nut?”

“I think I am, yeah,” the guest responded, adding, “I love the fact that chairs have a fairly simple function. They just have to hold up someone’s weight, but the different materials and different designs they can be made of are just fantastic.”

Will then shared the backstory of who made the chairs, saying, “And what we’ve got here are two amazing examples, but by one designer, that designer is the great Verner Panton, and Verner Panton, for people who’ve not heard of him, is a Danish architect and designer,” reports the Express.

“When we look at his catalog of designs, the one nearest to you is considered an icon of 20th-century design. This chair is featured in collections and museums all over the world. This is strictly called the Panton chair, known as the S-Chair.

“And it’s so clever because it was a single moulded piece. It took him 10 years to actually get to a production-ready design. It didn’t get shown until 1967 in Geneva.”

However, Will went on to highlight a “problem” with the earlier designs of the chair as the guest revealed: “They snapped.”

The BBC expert added, “I’m a fairly sturdy chap, I’m not going to plonk myself on that, and actually, they enhanced the design by inserting strengthening supports under the back. This chair woke the world up.”

Shifting his focus to the second chair, Will explained they were created for IKEA. He revealed: “This is where they became really clever. They actually employed a number of key designers.”

Will soon turned his attention to the chairs’ value, but before revealing their value, he asked, “So come on, you know your stuff. You tell me which is the rarest.”

Gesturing to one chair, the guest responded: “I think that one is because I think IKEA didn’t sell very many of them.”

Will concurred: “I think it didn’t sell well, so they didn’t make many more. It’s believed around 4,000 were made. So, throwing the ball back at you again, what are they worth?”

The guest didn’t hesitate as he estimated one chair was worth £500 and the other between £800 and £1,000. However, Will was stunned as he joked, “I’m done” before pretending to walk away from the guest.

“You take the table. It has been really nice meeting you,” he said before promptly returning to the guest. He grinned: “You are spot on!”

Antiques Roadshow is available to watch on BBC iPlayer.

You can find it on Spotify in playlists for insomniacs, but on a Friday afternoon on Exmoor, we are happily listening to the real thing: the gorgeous ambient sound made by grasshoppers, birds and the buzzing insects that momentarily fly in and out of earshot.

The view is just as serene: the deep-blue Bristol Channel in the middle distance, golden fields just in front of us and, in our immediate surroundings, huge expanses of grasses and wildflowers. Our tent is pitched between two strips of woodland, which provide just enough shade. To complete the sense of calm wonderment: for 24 hours, we have this piece of land completely to ourselves.

Essentially, we are wild camping, but in a reassuringly managed way. Our spot has been arranged by CampWild, an adventure outfit that started in 2023 and has about 200 approved locations on its books.

As the crucial summer harvest season gets underway in California’s vast agricultural regions, farmers and their workers say they feel whiplashed by a series of contradictory signals about how the Trump administration’s crackdown on illegal immigration might affect them.

California grows more than one-third of the country’s vegetables and more than three-quarters of the nation’s fruits and nuts in the fertile expanses of the Central Valley, Central Coast and other farming regions. The industry produced nearly $60 billion in goods in 2023, according to state figures — an output that depends heavily on the skilled labor of a workforce that is at least 50% undocumented, according to University of California studies.

Without workers, the juicy beefsteak tomatoes that are ripening and must be hand-harvested will rot on the vines. The yellow peaches just reaching that delicate blend of sweet and tart will fall to the ground, unpicked. Same with the melons, grapes and cherries.

That’s why, when federal immigration agents rolled into the berry fields of Oxnard last week and detained 40 farmworkers, growers up and down the state grew worried along with their workers.

Farm laborers, many of whom have lived and worked in their communities for decades, were terrified of being rounded up and deported, separated from their families and livelihoods. Farmers worried that their workforce would vanish — either locked up in detention centers or forced into the shadows for fear of arrest — just as their labor was needed most. Everyone wanted to know whether the raids in Oxnard were the beginning of a broader statewide crackdown that would radically disrupt the harvest season — which is also the period when most farmworkers earn the most money — or just a one-off enforcement action.

In the ensuing days, the answers have become no clearer, according to farmers, worker advocates and elected officials.

“We, as the California agricultural community, are trying to figure out what’s going on,” said Ryan Jacobsen, chief executive of the Fresno County Farm Bureau and a farmer of almonds and grapes. He added that “time is of the essence,” because farms and orchards are “coming right into our busiest time.”

After the raids in Ventura County last week, growers across the country began urgently lobbying the Trump administration, arguing that enforcement action on farm operations could hamper food production. They pointed to the fields around Oxnard post-raid, where, according to the Ventura County Farm Bureau, as many as 45% of the workers stayed home in subsequent days.

President Trump appeared to get the message. On Thursday, he posted on Truth Social that “our great farmers,” along with leaders in the hospitality industry, had complained that his immigration policies were “taking very good, long time workers away from them, with those jobs being almost impossible to replace.”

He added that it was “not good” and “changes are coming!”

The same day, according to a New York Times report, a senior official with U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement wrote regional ICE directors telling them to lay off farms, along with restaurants and hotels.

“Effective today, please hold on all work site enforcement investigations/operations on agriculture (including aquaculture and meat packing plants), restaurants and operating hotels,” the official wrote.

Many in California agriculture took heart.

Then on Monday came news that the directive to stay off farms, hotels and restaurants had been reversed.

“There will be no safe spaces for industries who harbor violent criminals or purposely try to undermine ICE’s efforts,” Tricia McLaughlin, an assistant secretary for the Department of Homeland Security, said, according to the Washington Post. “Worksite enforcement remains a cornerstone of our efforts to safeguard public safety, national security and economic stability.”

In California’s heartland, Jacobsen of the Fresno County Farm Bureau spoke for many farmers when he said: “We don’t have a clue right now.”

Asked Tuesday to clarify the administration’s policy on immigration raids in farmland, White House spokeswoman Abigail Jackson said the Trump administration is committed to “enforcing federal immigration law.”

“While the President is focused on immediately removing dangerous criminal illegal aliens from the country,” Jackson said, “anyone who is here illegally is liable to be deported.”

Still, Jacobsen and others noted, aside from the upheaval in Ventura County last week, agricultural operations in other parts of the state have largely been spared from mass immigration sweeps.

Workers, meanwhile, have continued to show up for work, and most have even returned to the fields in Ventura County.

There has been one notable outcome of last week’s raids, according to several people interviewed: Employers are reaching out to workers’ rights organizations, seeking guidance on how to keep their workers safe.

“Some employers are trying to take steps to protect their employees, as best they can,” said Armando Elenes, secretary treasurer of the United Farm Workers.

He said his organization and others have been training employers on how to respond if immigration agents show up at their farms or packinghouses. A core message, he said: Don’t allow agents on the property if they don’t have a signed warrant.

Indeed, many of the growers whose properties were raided in Ventura County appear to have understood that; advocates reported that federal agents were turned away from a number of farms because they did not have a warrant.

In Ventura County, Lucas Zucker, co-executive director of the Central Coast Alliance United for a Sustainable Economy, a group that has often been at odds with growers over issues such as worker pay and protections, underscored the unusual alliance that has forged between farmers and worker advocates.

Two days after the raids, Zucker read a statement condemning the immigration sweeps on behalf of Maureen McGuire, chief executive of the Ventura County Farm Bureau, an organization that represents growers.

“Farmers care deeply about their workers, not as abstract labor, but as human beings and valued community members who deserve dignity, safety and respect,” McGuire said in the statement. “Ventura County agriculture depends on them. California’s economy depends on them. America’s food system depends on them.”

Before reading the statement, Zucker evoked light laughter when he told the crowd: “For those of you familiar [with] Ventura County, you might be surprised to see CAUSE reading a statement from the farm bureau. We clash on many issues, but this is something where we’re united and where we’re literally speaking with one voice.”

“The agriculture industry and farmworkers are both under attack, with federal agencies showing up at the door,” Zucker said later. “Nothing brings people together like a common enemy.”

This article is part of The Times’ equity reporting initiative, funded by the James Irvine Foundation, exploring the challenges facing low-income workers and the efforts being made to address California’s economic divide.

MADISON, Wis. — A Wisconsin dairy farmer alleged in a federal lawsuit filed Monday that the Trump administration is illegally denying financial assistance to white farmers by continuing programs that favor minorities.

The conservative Wisconsin Institute for Law and Liberty filed the lawsuit against the U.S. Department of Agriculture in federal court in Wisconsin on behalf of a white dairy farmer, Adam Faust.

Faust was among several farmers who successfully sued the Biden administration in 2021 for race discrimination in the USDA’s Farmer Loan Forgiveness Plan.

The new lawsuit alleges the government has continued to implement diversity, equity and inclusion programs that were instituted under former President Biden. The Wisconsin Institute wrote to the USDA in April warning of legal action, and six Republican Wisconsin congressmen called on the USDA to investigate and end the programs.

“The USDA should honor the President’s promise to the American people to end racial discrimination in the federal government,” Faust said in a written statement. “After being ignored by a federal agency that’s meant to support agriculture, I hope my lawsuit brings answers, accountability, and results from USDA.”

Trump administration spokesperson Anna Kelly did not immediately respond to an email Monday seeking comment.

The lawsuit contends that Faust is one of 2 million white male American farmers who are subject to discriminatory race-based policies at the USDA.

The lawsuit names three USDA programs and policies it says put white men at a disadvantage and violate the Constitution’s guarantee of equal treatment by discriminating based on race and sex.

Faust participates in one program designed to offset the gap between milk prices and the cost of feed, but the lawsuit alleges he is charged a $100 administrative fee that minority and female farmers do not have to pay.

Faust also participates in a USDA program that guarantees 90% of the value of loans to white farmers, but 95% to women and racial minorities. That puts Faust at a disadvantage, the lawsuit alleges.

Faust has also begun work on a new manure storage system that could qualify for reimbursement under a USDA environmental conservation program, but 75% of his costs are eligible while 90% of the costs of minority farmers qualify, the lawsuit contends.

A federal court judge ruled in a similar 2021 case that granting loan forgiveness only to “socially disadvantaged farmers” amounts to unconstitutional race discrimination. The Biden administration suspended the program and Congress repealed it in 2022.

The Wisconsin Institute has filed dozens of such lawsuits in 25 states attacking DEI programs in government. In its April letter to the USDA, the law firm that has a long history of representing Republicans said it didn’t want to sue “but there is no excuse for this continued discrimination.”

Trump has been aggressive in trying to end the government’s DEI efforts to fulfill a campaign promise and bring about a profound cultural shift across the U.S. from promoting diversity to an exclusive focus on merit.

Bauer writes for the Associated Press.