|
Good afternoon,
President Donald Trump might finally be in the hot seat! According to a new POLITICO poll, Americans are beginning to blame him for the high costs they are feeling in all aspects of their lives. Approximately half say the cost of living in the country is the worst they can remember it being and that Trump's economy and his administration are responsible for it. POLITICO reports that "some of the very groups that powered Trump's victory last year are showing signs of breaking from that coalition, and it's the high cost of living that's driving them away." As we have covered in our ongoing social listening series, Americans no longer have the patience for this administration gambling away on their efforts to lower costs.
Here are a few important updates...
BACK TO THE FUTURE
This week, Secretary of Agriculture Brooke Rollins rolled out a $12 billion bailout to help farmers, a key group of Trump's supporters who have been negatively affected by his trade policies. For those of you following the ongoing farm bailouts closely, you would be forgiven for thinking this update is a rerun from 2018, when Trump also sent $12 billion to farmers.
The administration's tariffs have backfired on the agriculture industry as China has retaliated by stopping purchases of American farm products. The New York Times reports that "the total payout to farmers could be far less than their recent losses." Farmers continually say they don't want bailouts but have overwhelmingly voted for Trump and his destructive trade policies in three consecutive presidential elections. Perhaps this latest loss of markets and potential collapse of the farm economy will give them time to reevaluate who actually represents their interests, or if farmers will continue voting on culture war issues to the detriment of their ag operations.
It will be telling to see whether this latest bandaid solution rectifies the situation. Most likely, we will see farmers back next year seeking more relief from the policies Trump promised to deliver when he ran for president.
SUPREME COURT CONSIDERS EXPANDING PRESIDENTIAL POWERS
Yesterday, the Supreme Court heard a case regarding President Trump's attempt to fire Rebecca Kelly Slaughter, a member of the Federal Trade Commission. Slaughter was appointed during President Trump's first term, and she was appointed to a second term under President Biden which was supposed to end in 2029. In March, she received an official email from the White House Office of Presidential Personnel. When she didn't receive a specific reason for her dismissal, she sued. A lower court ruled Slaughter's removal from the FTC was unlawful and ordered her reinstated, but the Trump administration appealed. In September, the Supreme Court, by an ideological split, issued an emergency order upholding her removal pending further review.
In a 1933 court case involving President Franklin D. Roosevelt, called Humphrey's Executor, the court unanimously held that while the president has the power to expel executive officers for any reason, this unlimited power does not extend to agencies like the FTC. As reported by NPR, "In Slaughter's case and others, the Trump administration argues that the Supreme Court's decision in Humphrey's Executor was flawed, due to a misunderstanding of the FTC's functions at the time. The administration maintains that the FTC did in fact exercise executive power then and says those powers have only grown in the decades since." This latest court case raises important questions about the extent of presidential powers and how far is too far? During this second Trump administration, we have witnessed the president exercising powers in ways no other leader in our nation's history has attempted. The Slaughter ruling will provide further insight into what direction our country is going in – potentially a very dangerous one.
| |
Each week, this newsletter highlights what's going on in rural states, counties, and communities, and what One Country Project is up to around the country. If you value this content, please consider donating to One Country Project. Your contribution supports our efforts to connect with rural voters and to promote greater opportunities for rural communities.
|
|
| |
Donate Now
|
|
|
TRUMP'S RURAL HEALTHCARE FUND IS REALLY A LOYALTY TEST
The state's proposal for the $50 billion "One Big Beautiful Bill" has raised new concerns about political favoritism in federal grantmaking. The package includes a $3.75 billion fund to improve rural healthcare, which will be administered discreetly by the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services. This lack of transparency further complicates the current distribution framework that guarantees each state an equal share of a separate $25 billion pool, regardless of its population or specific needs.
Recent November updates to the Rural Health Transformation Program clarify these issues. Funding decisions are based on a scoring rubric. States accumulate points for adopting policies favored by the White House, such as initiatives to reduce "junk food" purchases among low-income residents or integrating federally approved nutrition education standards into medical school curricula. Of the 40 states that applied, 23 committed to partnering with the Trump administration on these initiatives, and this information is made publicly available in their applications.
While this is not the first time in American history that federal funding has been used as leverage to influence state policy, the current approach raises significant ethical concerns. By conditioning access to rural healthcare funding on political conformity, the administration has created a system in which policy commitments serve more as tokens of federal support than as genuine public health strategies. As a result, the outcomes depend not on actual need or readiness, but rather on a state's willingness to demonstrate loyalty to the administration.
TRUMP VACCINATION POLICIES CONFUSE AND HURT THE PUBLIC
The childhood vaccination schedule has repeatedly come under attack by the Trump Administration. Despite claiming during his congressional confirmation process that he had no agenda regarding vaccines and would trust science, Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. has done the opposite.
After summarily clearing the decks of the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP) and replacing the board with vaccine doubters, ACIP voted last week to overturn long-standing guidance on the hepatitis B vaccine for infants. For context, about 25 percent of children who develop hepatitis B, which has no cure, die of the infection.
This adds to the ongoing chaos and confusion not only for parents, but also providers, on how to advise their patients. Months ago, this committee also issued confusing guidance on the need for flu shots in children and the standard measles, mumps, and rubella (MMR) vaccine – while hinting at the myth of vaccine ties to autism. With over 1,300 new cases this year of a preventable disease, measles is now a rising threat to families' health and even more pernicious in children. As of today, three individuals have died from the disease (two children and one adult – all unvaccinated) – the highest rate in the 21st Century.
These incremental decisions regarding childhood vaccines continue to add up to a dismantling of a cornerstone of our public health and sow doubt in the value of vaccines. Leading health and patient advocacy groups, including the American Academy of Pediatrics, the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, the American Medical Association, the Infections Diseases Society of America, and the March of Dimes, registered their concern about ACIP's actions and how will they harm the future of our country and our health.
All parents deserve access to the most current, scientifically-backed information and resources when it comes to childhood vaccines. They should certainly make informed decisions for their families, but shouldn't be misled by unqualified individuals pushing an agenda that contradicts established science and threatens public health.
CORPORATE CONSOLIDATION LIMITS RURAL NEWS DELIVERY
The chokehold on rural media is poised to grow ever tighter with a slate of announced mergers and hostile takeovers.
First up, the nation's biggest TV station conglomerate, Nexstar Media, is planning to merge with one of its biggest rivals, TEGNA. These "local" TV giants are massive corporate operations and the newly combined companies would control 265 TV stations nationwide, reaching 80% of US households. That is more than twice the limit currently allowed under federal law.
Next, fellow TV station giants Sinclair and Gray have announced plans for their own major merger. This would bring us a media landscape with only two massive station groups in control of local news nationwide. This immense scale would eliminate newsroom jobs, reduce local coverage, raise prices for consumers – particularly on streaming and cable – and leave companies with extremely conservative political views in charge of editorial decisions.
Finally, the drama surrounding the proposed sale of Warner Bros. Media heated up with the announced hostile takeover bid from the Larry Ellison owned Paramount Skydance attempting to block the announced acquisition of Warner Bros. by Netflix. Regardless of the outcome in the ownership sweepstakes, the outcome for consumers will be less competition, higher prices, and another conservative takeover of a newsroom. Warner Bros. is the parent company of CNN. If Paramount Skydance wins this hostile takeover, CNN would be rolled into CBS, currently under the leadership of rightwing media darling and billionaire apologist Bari Weiss. If Netflix prevails, the CNN newsroom would find itself under the ownership of a company with no news operations and no apparent interest in maintaining any branch of the acquired company that can't be rolled into its existing streaming platform. The leadership of both Netflix and Paramount Skydance have curried favor with the Trump Administration, and with Trump personally, so it is only a question of when, not if, one of these proposed mega-mergers is approved.
Taken as a whole, this spree of media mergers will only hurt consumers by limiting choices, raising prices, and devastating impartial news services. As the saying goes, stay tuned.
NUMBER OF THE WEEK
$11M: This is the amount of one-time federal payments to crop farmers in the $12 million bailout for those affected by the tariff trade war.
While farmers have eagerly accepted this latest bailout, they describe it as a temporary "Band-Aid" for the struggles facing the American farm economy.
WHAT WE'RE READING
Be sure to follow the One Country Project on Bluesky, Twitter, Facebook and Substack, and listen to The Hot Dish podcast.
|
