[link removed]
Good evening,

In 2018, American farmers found themselves in the middle of a trade war they didn’t start.

When President Trump imposed sweeping tariffs on Chinese imports, steel, and aluminum in 2018, China retaliated by slashing soybean imports, devastating one of America's biggest agricultural exports.

Now, Trump is again ([link removed]) wielding tariffs as a blunt force instrument, and farmers are paying the price, as soy and pork exports drop dramatically.

Is this 2018 all over again?

During the last trade war, the drop in agricultural exports hit North Carolina farmers hard due to the integrated supply chain of soy-fed pork and poultry. Processors, truckers, and feed suppliers all felt the blow, and the federal government responded with a massive bailout of $28 billion (which wasn’t even enough).

The new tariffs are even higher than 2018’s, and are already raising ([link removed]) prices on everything from tractors to food cans. In response, China has canceled almost all U.S. soybean purchases. Orders are vanishing. Margins are shrinking. The same communities hurt in 2018 are bracing for another round of pain.

While the Agriculture Secretary announced $10 billion in direct payments to affected farmers, these bailouts are not relief - they’re compensation for self-inflicted wounds.

Without these tariffs, farmers wouldn’t need emergency cash infusions. And these payments often come too late, and tend ([link removed]) to go to the massive agribusinesses.

North Carolina farmers don’t need tariffs. They need access to markets.

They also need immigration and labor reforms, reliable supply chains, and stable trade relationships. Congress and the White House should move to revive bilateral and multilateral agreements and reduce retaliatory incentives with key trade agreements.

You can read more about tariffs and agriculture here ([link removed]) , here ([link removed]) , and here ([link removed]) .

Esse quam videri,

Donald Bryson
CEO
John Locke Foundation

See our latest video on free trade!
[link removed]
More from Locke
1) 😯😯😯 Misconceptions of the NCSBE’s history ([link removed])
* For nearly a decade, there has been a political struggle in North Carolina over who controls the State Board of Elections (NCSBE)
+ The latest iteration is a bill passed by the Republican-led General Assembly that transferred the power to appoint NCSBE members and its administrative authority from the Governor to the State Auditor
+ There's a widely accepted "historical fact" that the NCSBE was created in 1901, and that the Governor has always held the appointment power
+ But, it turns out, the NCSBE was actually established in 1899, and its members were initially appointed by the legislature
* Before the NCSBE, elections were primarily held at the local level
+ The Governor's role was minimal, and the legislature oversaw contested elections
+ The creation of the NCSBE in 1899 reestablished indirect control of elections under the legislature over local level administration, comprised of seven members elected by the General Assembly
o The same 1899 election law also included the "suffrage act,” introducing poll taxes, literacy tests, and the grandfather clause to disenfranchise black voters
+ In 1901, the control of the Board shifted to the Governor
* The two-year difference in the NCSBE's creation date is crucial because the historical context of North Carolina's election battles mirrors current debates
+ Overlooking the additional two years of the board's existence means missing critical context about its origins and the lessons to be learned
+ The Board of Elections seems to have been created with the intention of a political party gaining control over election administration
+ While the legislature can establish election oversight, the board's composition has been contested since its inception
+ While there are always flaws with any system, the administration of elections should not favor one party over the other

You can get the full picture here ([link removed]) .

2) 🛑🛑🛑 When should legislators recuse themselves? ([link removed])
* The North Carolina General Assembly deals with a cornucopia of issues affecting people’s pocketbooks, which sometimes affect the finances of legislators themselves
* One recent case is Rep. John Bell, chairman of the House Rules Committee, who is working on hemp regulations. He is also the head of Asterra Labs, which manufactures and distributes hemp products
+ North Carolina law establishes that legislators should recuse themselves from "legislative action" (e.g., voting, debating) if they estimate a "reasonably foreseeable financial benefit" that would impair their independent judgment
+ But recusal is not required if the legislator's special knowledge of the subject matter (e.g., a hemp industry professional on a hemp bill) provides a benefit to the legislature's effective functioning
+ Legislators can act on bills that financially benefit or harm them if the impact is "no greater than that which could reasonably be foreseen to accrue to all members of that profession, occupation, or general class."
+ Bell's involvement is likely legal as long as the bills don't affect him more than other hemp businesses
* However, there is a "gray zone" where a bill might disproportionately benefit a legislator and a few others in an industry while harming others, for instance, by increasing regulations to create barriers to entry for new competitors
* While Rep. Bell does not appear to have crossed into this "gray zone," legislators should be mindful that recusal rules apply not only when a bill exclusively benefits them, but also when it affects competition within an industry, potentially disadvantaging some over others

You can read more here ([link removed]) .

3) 📈📈📈 The more Opportunity Scholarships, the better ([link removed])
* The growth of the OSP highlights the inequities and inefficiencies in how North Carolina funds public schools
+ A new report from the State Board of Education (SBE) indicates that only 8.4% of OSP recipients were enrolled in a North Carolina public school the previous year
+ It also found the OSP saved North Carolina taxpayers approximately $10 million in education costs, just for that cohort
o Any savings from the OSP are supposed to be reinvested into public schools, though it's not yet determined if this will happen
* This demonstrates the flaws in the argument that the OSP takes money away from public schools
+ NCSEAA data for 2025–26 applicants shows that 58% of OSP recipients are from the lowest two income tiers (earning larger scholarships), while only 42% are from higher income tiers (receiving smaller awards)
o The highest income tier (Tier IV) also includes applicants who did not report income, so there could be even more lower-income students receiving scholarships than anticipated
+ Middle and higher-income families are often more aware of government programs initially, but the number of lower-income applicants is expected to grow as awareness of the OSP spreads
* The growth of OSP highlights the many problems with the current system for funding public schools in North Carolina
+ North Carolina is one of only a few states that still uses a complex “Resource Allocation Model,” instead of a student-based funding model
+ School choice programs like the OSP are a response to a public education system that often fails to achieve its goals of equality and access, particularly for students stuck in inequitable, unaccountable, failing public schools
+ After all, shouldn’t all children have access to a quality school that best meets their needs?

You can read the full report here ([link removed]) .

Donate ([link removed])

============================================================
** Facebook ([link removed])
** Twitter ([link removed])
** Link ([link removed])
** LinkedIn ([link removed])
Want to change how you receive these emails?
You can ** update your preferences ([link removed])
or ** unsubscribe from this list ([link removed])
.