Day: August 22, 2025

The Trump administration’s mass deportation campaign has not spared the U.S. agricultural industry, with agents from Immigration and Customs Enforcement frequently raiding farms across the country in search of undocumented workers.

Now, farmers are facing a crisis the administration has helped create: not enough people to pick crops.

On a recent call to CNBC, President Donald Trump said, “We can’t let our farmers not have anybody.” To assure farmers that he had their back despite the immigration raids, he sought to distinguish immigrants he called “criminals” and “murderers” from nonthreatening farm laborers who have been picking crops for years.

To do so, Trump used an old stereotype for farmworkers: “These people do it naturally, naturally.” Trump recounted asking a farmer: “What happens if they get a bad back? He said, ‘They don’t get a bad back, sir, because if they get a bad back, they die.’”

“In many ways, they’re very, very special people,” said Trump, referring to undocumented farmworkers.

Trump is labeling some of the people his administration has targeted for deportation as naturals.

As a historian of American agriculture and labor, I think the Trump administration’s contradictions on farmworkers are part of a long history of idealizing farming in America. It’s a history in which race, nature, exploitation and the very identity of America itself have all been involved.

From Jefferson to Sunkist

Thomas Jefferson, most famous for writing the Declaration of Independence, also declared, “Those who labour in the earth are the chosen people of God.”

Jefferson thought America’s true calling was to be an agrarian nation, for virtuous and independent farmers would also be perfect citizens. But Jefferson didn’t actually get his own hands dirty. He told John Quincy Adams that he “knew nothing” about farming.

The Founding Father Alexander Hamilton, in the musical “Hamilton,” crystallized the critiques against what came to be called “Jeffersonian agrarianism,” which praises agricultural life and the virtues of farmers, but fails to acknowledge it was not the planters who did the backbreaking work: “‘We plant seeds in the South. We create.’ Yeah, keep ranting: We know who’s really doing the planting.”

The image of America built up by white farmers contrasted with a reality that “those who labour in the earth” were often enslaved people. As the cotton empire expanded, so did slavery.

Apologists for this system of inequality argued that the “natural station” of Black people was to be enslaved. Black people were portrayed as natural manual laborers – and by extension, the institution of slavery itself was defended as natural, rather than an abrogation of the “natural rights” promised to all men in the Declaration of Independence.

American agricultural leaders in the early 20th century, as I document in my book “Orange Empire,” adapted these forms of “naturalization” – the process, as developed by cultural theorists, through which man-made things such as racial hierarchies are made to appear natural.

In this naturalizing mode, the Los Angeles Chamber of Commerce argued in 1929 that “much of California’s agricultural labor requirements consist of those tasks to which the oriental and Mexican due to their crouching and bending habits are fully adapted, while the white is physically unable to adapt himself to them.”

As I describe in my book, the president of the citrus growers cooperative Sunkist insisted in 1944 that Mexicans “are naturally adapted to agricultural work, particularly in the handling of fruits and vegetables.”

Through this naturalization, racism appeared to be made in nature. Everything in farming – all of the food grown in what author Carey McWilliams called “factories in the field” in his 1939 exposé – was carefully constructed by farmers, their lobbyists and their advertisers to appear natural. That includes the racism and labor exploitation at the heart of it.

While naturalizing workers as evolutionarily adapted to stoop labor, this system all but denied undocumented farmworkers legal access to the other kind of naturalization: becoming full citizens.

So when anti-immigrant ideology sparks ICE raids and deportations, the nation’s farms end up losing the labor they have long relied on.

Whose homeland?

On X, the U.S. Department of Homeland Security has been presenting itself as if it’s on a mission to secure a white homeland. It has posted videos of white people enjoying America’s natural wonders to the tune of Woody Guthrie’s “This Land is Your Land” and paintings that propagandize manifest destiny, the idea that the U.S. is destined to extend its dominion across North America.

Homeland Security recently posted John Gast’s 1872 painting “American Progress” as a “Heritage to be proud of.” It depicts a luminous white goddess flying west over the American landscape, with white farmers plowing the soil beneath, while petrified Native Americans, shrouded in darkness, are being chased from their homelands.

As I and others have pointed out, Homeland Security is using coded messages to affirm white supremacists’ vision of turning America into a white homeland.

On the ground in America today, nonwhite immigrants are fleeing from immigration agents, as if the Gast painting is coming to life. The United Farm Workers union, referring to “videos of agents chasing farm workers thru the field,” says that “workers are terrorized.” One worker said they are “being hunted like animals.”

‘Grounds for dreaming’

Trump told CNBC that he does not believe that “inner city” people can come to the rescue of farmers, whose source of labor has been decimated.

As Politico reports, Trump is now floating the idea of expanding an existing visa program for temporary agricultural workers and creating a new program that requires them to leave the U.S. before reentering legally. If so, he would essentially be reinventing the Bracero Program – the U.S. guest worker program with Mexico created at the behest of California growers during World War II that lasted until the 1960s.

Ian Chandler is an Oregon farmer whose cherries are rotting on the trees because he’s lost the farmworkers who normally pick them. He recently told CNN that these people “are part of our community, just like my arm is connected to my body, they are part of us. So it’s not just a matter of like cutting them off … if we lose them we lose part of who we are as well.”

The Spanish word bracero roughly translates to someone who works with their arms, but the earlier guest worker program didn’t have the same inclusive meaning Chandler intends. Instead, it racialized Mexicans as natural farmworkers, as mere brawn extracted from human beings who were otherwise excluded from the community.

As historian S. Deborah Kang notes, “Sumner Welles, former under secretary of state to President Franklin Delano Roosevelt, excoriated the ‘poisoning discriminations’ faced by bracero workers and equated their experiences with the ‘Juan Crow’ racism.”

Over the course of its history, many Americans have held out hope that the U.S. would create a farming nation that lives up to the original promise of an organic democracy – the democracy Jefferson mythologized and one where all Americans are included – built from the ground up.

As historians Camille Guerin-Gonzales and Lori Flores have shown, farmworkers, whatever their official status, have worked hard to find “grounds for dreaming” in America.

Making that American dream a reality involves seeing farmworkers for who they are, I believe: vital members of the body politic who reconnect all Americans to nature through the foods they eat.

Doug Sackman does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organization that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.

​Politics + Society – The Conversation

Congressional redistricting – the process of drawing electoral districts to account for population changes – was conceived by the Founding Fathers as a once-per-decade redrawing of district lines following the decennial U.S. census. Today it has devolved into a near-constant feature of American politics – often in response to litigation, and frequently with the intent of maintaining or gaining partisan advantage.

Polls show widespread public disapproval of manipulating political boundaries to favor certain groups, a process known as gerrymandering. However, we currently see little hope of preventing a race to the bottom, where numerous states redraw their maps to benefit one party in response to other states drawing their maps to benefit another party.

The most recent round of tit-for-tat gerrymandering began in Texas. After drawing their post-census congressional maps in 2021, Republicans in the Texas Legislature, at President Donald Trump’s behest, are advancing a new set of maps designed to increase the number of Republican congressional seats in their state. The goal is to help Republicans retain control of the U.S. House of Representatives in the 2026 midterm elections by converting five Democratic seats to ones that will likely result in a Republican victory.

In response, California Democratic Gov. Gavin Newsom is pushing to redraw his state’s map. Under Newsom’s plan, Democrats could gain five House seats in California, offsetting Republican gains in Texas. The California Legislature approved the new maps on Aug. 21 and Gov. Newsom signed the bills that day. Next, the maps will be presented to California voters on the November 2025 ballot for approval.

Newsom vows that he isn’t trying to disband the independent redistricting process that California enacted in 2021. Rather, he proposes to shift to these partisan gerrymandered maps temporarily, then return to independent, nonpartisan redistricting in 2031.

Democrats in Illinois and New York, and Republicans in Indiana, Missouri and South Carolina, have signaled that they may follow Texas and California’s leads. Based on our research on politics and elections, we don’t expect that the wave will stop there.

Rules for mapmakers

Redistricting has always been an inherently political process. But the advent of widespread, easily accessible computer technology, increasingly predictable voting patterns and tight partisan margins in Congress have turbocharged the process.

There are ways to tweak this gerrymandering run amok and perhaps block a bad map or two. But none of these approaches are likely to stop partisan actors entirely from drawing maps to benefit themselves and their parties.

The most obvious strategy would be to create guardrails for the legislators and commissions who draw the maps. Such guidelines often specify the types of data that could be used to draw the maps – for example, limiting partisan data.

Anti-gerrymandering rules could also limit the number of political boundaries, such as city or county lines, that would be split by new districts. And they could prioritize compactness, rather than allowing bizarrely-shaped districts that link far-flung communities.

These proposals certainly won’t do any harm, and might even move the process in a more positive direction, but they are unlikely to end gerrymandering.

For example, North Carolina had an explicit limitation on using partisan data in its 2021 mapmaking process, as well as a requirement that lawmakers could only draw maps in the North Carolina State Legislative Building. It was later revealed that a legislator had used “concept maps” drawn by an aide outside of the normal mapmaking process.

In a world where anyone with an internet connection can log onto free websites like Dave’s Redistricting to draw maps using partisan data, it’s hard to prevent states from incorporating nonofficial proposals into their maps.

Courts and commissions

A second way to police gerrymandering is to use the courts aggressively to combat unfair or discriminatory maps. Some courts, particularly at the state level, have reined in egregious gerrymanders like Pennsylvania’s 2011 map, which was overturned in 2018.

At the national level, however, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in Rucho v. Common Cause in 2019 that partisan gerrymandering claims presented “political questions beyond the reach of the federal courts” and ultimately were better suited to state courts. There are still likely to be claims in federal courts about racial dilution and other Voting Rights Act violations in gerrymanders, but the door to the federal courthouse for partisanship claims appears to be closed for the time being.

A third option is for states to hand map-drawing power to an independent body. Recent studies show that independent redistricting commissions produce maps that are more competitive and fairer. For example, a nonpartisan scholarly review of the 2021-2022 congressional and state legislative maps found that commissions “generally produce less biased and more competitive plans than when one party controls the process.”

Commissions are popular with the public. In a 2024 study with political scientists Seth McKee and Scott Huffmon, we found that both Democrats and Republicans in South Carolina preferred to assign redistricting to an independent commission rather than the state Legislature, which has been in Republican control since 2000.

Studies using national polling data have also found evidence that redistricting commissions are popular, and that people who live in states that use commissions view the redistricting process more positively than residents of states where legislators draw congressional lines.

A national solution or bust

While redistricting commissions are popular and effective in states that have adopted them, current actions in California show that this strategy can fail if it is embraced by some states but not others.

Unfortunately, there is no simple solution for tit-for-tat gerrymandering. Litigation can help at the margins, and independent redistricting can make a difference, but even the best intentions can fail under political pressure.

The only wholesale solution is national reform. But even here, we are not optimistic.

A proportional representation system, in which seats are divided by the portion of the vote that goes to each party, could solve the problem. However, removing single-member districts and successfully implementing proportional representation in the United States is about as likely as finding a hockey puck on Mars.

A national ban on gerrymandering might be more politically palatable. Even here, though, the odds of success are fairly low. After all, the people who benefit from the current system would have to vote to change it, and the filibuster rule in the Senate requires not just majority but supermajority support.

So, brace for what’s about to come. As James Madison famously observed, forming factions – groups of people united by a common interest that threatens the rights of others – is “sown in the nature of man.”

Gerrymandering helps factions acquire and retain power. If U.S. leaders aren’t willing to consider a national solution, it won’t disappear anytime soon.

The authors do not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organization that would benefit from this article, and have disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.

​Politics + Society – The Conversation

NEW YORK — The former top aide to New York City Mayor Eric Adams ran audacious bribery schemes out of City Hall — selling off her help as a public official four different times to people willing to shower her with money or gifts, according to a series of indictments unsealed Thursday.

Ingrid Lewis-Martin, the former chief adviser to the mayor, is accused by a grand jury of helping friends secure lucrative city contracts and expediting their regulatory issues with city government in exchange for cash payments to her son, free home renovations, nearly $10,000 worth of seafood for city events and even a guest appearance on the TV show “Godfather of Harlem.”

Lewis-Martin used her influence as Adams’ longest-serving aide and “overrode other City officials’ expertise and decision making to ensure that certain required actions were accomplished for the benefit of her co-conspirators,” prosecutors with the Manhattan District Attorney’s office wrote in a sweeping and detail-rich summary of the indictments.

Adams, who is facing long odds as he runs for reelection as an independent, is not accused of wrongdoing in any of the cases. But they are just the latest allegations of corruption to cloud Adams’ time in City Hall — an issue that seems destined to define his tenure in office.

That includes the mayor’s own federal corruption charges alleging a bribery conspiracy by the Turkish government — a case that was dismissed following the intervention of President Donald Trump’s administration. But the allegations also include state corruption charges against Adams’ former buildings commissioner, a series of guilty pleas involving straw donor schemes to the mayor’s campaign and other federal criminal investigations leading to the resignation of several high ranking administration officials.

Lewis-Martin was arraigned in criminal court in Manhattan Thursday morning and pleaded not guilty to four counts of conspiracy in the fourth degree, and four counts of bribe receiving in the second degree. Her lawyer downplayed the charges and specifically denied the accusation she received a $2,500 cash payment in exchange for fighting against a street safety redesign.

“Her only so-called ‘offense’ was fulfilling her duty—helping fellow citizens navigate the City’s outdated and often overwhelming bureaucracy. At no point did she receive a single dollar or any personal benefit for her assistance,” Arthur L. Aidala said in a statement.

“Yet, the District Attorney seeks to portray a dedicated and honest public servant as a criminal. This is not justice — it is a distortion of the truth and a troubling example of politically motivated ‘lawfare,’” Aidala added, saying Lewis-Martin will “vigorously fight these charges.”

Adams defended Lewis-Martin in a statement, and said he wouldn’t let the indictments distract him.

“I have not been accused of any wrongdoing, and my focus remains on serving the 8.5 million New Yorkers by making our city safer and more affordable every day,” Adams said. “While Ingrid Lewis-Martin no longer works for this administration, she has been a friend and colleague for over 40 years, and I know her as a devoted public servant; she has declared her innocence, and my prayers are with her and her family.”

Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg’s office alleges four different schemes.

Another longtime Adams ally Jesse Hamilton, a deputy commissioner at the Department of Citywide Administrative Services, is charged alongside Lewis-Martin in one case where the pair is accused of promoting real estate developer Yehiel Landau’s projects in exchange for more than $5,000 worth of renovations on homes owned by both city officials.

Hamilton resigned Thursday, DCAS Commissioner Louis Molina said in a statement, and noted that Hamilton never had independent authority to execute leases and he was subject to increased oversight.

In another case, Lewis-Martin is accused of steering city contracts providing housing for asylum seekers to a friend who owned a karaoke club. In return, prosecutors allege Tian Ji Li paid Martin’s son Glenn Martin II $50,000 and provided karaoke parties for Lewis-Martin.

“Whatever site TJ wants, I need him to get them,” Lewis-Martin texted Hamilton about Li, according to the indictment, “Because that’s our fucking people.”

In a third case, Lewis-Martin is accused of advocating against the city’s plans for a street redesign to help Gina and Tony Argento, leaders of a film production company who opposed the project. Gina Argento paid Lewis-Martin $2,500 for her help, prosecutors claim, provided free catering services to the city and helped Lewis-Martin secure a speaking role on the TV show “Godfather of Harlem.”

From her perch in City Hall, Lewis-Martin eagerly fought the redesign plan that had been chosen by the Department of Transportation. Prosecutors say she texted Gina Argento a flyer promoting the plan. “We do not care what they say,” Lewis-Martin wrote. “We are ignoring them and continuing with our plan. They can kiss my ass.”

And finally, Lewis-Martin is accused of helping expedite issues with the Department of Buildings for an unnamed friend in exchange for “free seafood … valued at almost $10,000” for various events at City Hall and the mayor’s residence in the spring and summer of 2024.

Along with Lewis-Martin, her son and Hamilton, the four business people were charged with conspiracy and bribery Thursday. All pleaded not guilty.

Judge Daniel Conviser expressed frustration trying to schedule the first appearance for the defendants across four cases. “I’m sorry, there’s like ten people, and I’ve got to have everybody here at one time and everybody’s got different schedules,” he said, predicting there would be “a massive amount of discovery.”

Lewis-Martin resigned from City Hall in December before being indicted on separate corruption charges to which she pleaded not guilty. She continued to volunteer for Adams’ reelection campaign despite that, playing the role of political adviser in which she served Adams for two decades.

Married to one of Adams’ friends from his time in the NYPD, Lewis-Martin helped Adams get elected to the state Senate in 2006, and the two of them masterminded a long-term plan to make him mayor — culminating in his 2021 election.

The indictments were unsealed just a day after another longtime Adams aide, Winnie Greco, gave a reporter from THE CITY cash stuffed in a potato chip bag in an apparent bribery attempt, the nonprofit news outlet reported. Greco has been mentored by Lewis-Martin and worked with her in City Hall until she resigned under pressure last October.

​Politics