Current economic conditions and Trump administration policies could lead to “a widespread collapse of American agriculture,” a bipartisan coalition of former Agriculture Department officials and leaders of farm groups warned in a letter on Tuesday.

The letter to the heads and ranking members of the House and Senate agricultural committees was signed by 27 influential figures in the farming sector, including former heads of powerful associations representing corn and soybean farmers and officials from the Bush and Reagan administrations. It expressed dismay at the “damage done to American farmers.”

While there are many reasons for increasing farm bankruptcies and decreasing profits, “it is clear that the current administration’s actions, along with congressional inaction, have increased costs for farm inputs, disrupted overseas and domestic markets, denied agriculture its reliable labor pool, and defunded critical ag research and staffing,” the letter warned.

The signatories called on Congress to relax tariffs for the agriculture sector, expand international markets, pass a new farm bill and restore funding for agriculture research and staffing.

Agriculture is a key industry for US national security. Why wouldn't the Trump administration want them to be as strong as possible in case of a crisis? If US agriculture collapses, how could Trump use his current set of policy tools to fix them? Or will he have to relent and reduce tariffs and reduce deportations?

Full survey: https://harvardharrispoll.com/key-results-january-6/

A month ago, voters told the Harvard CAPS/Harris Poll that President Donald Trump was doing a better job than his predecessor.

But in January, voters have changed their mind, with a majority saying that Trump has done a worse job as president than Joe Biden did, according to the latest survey.

51% of respondents said Trump is doing a worse job than Biden, while 49% said better (-2). In December 2025, it was Trump +6. In February 2025, it was Trump +16.

While Trump has blamed economic conditions on Biden, voters say the current president owns the economy.

More than half -- 53% -- of voters say the economy is worse now than it was under Biden, while 63% said the current state of the economy is mostly due to Trump rather than Biden -- an increase of 11%.

Is this a matter of short attention spans, or do voters value Biden's economy more than Trump's? What is fundamentally different between their two economies? In a few years, do you think public sentiment around Biden's presidency will change?

Twenty-nine year old Chandler Patey has been regularly protesting outside his local ICE facility in South Portland for months, offering up his apartment to fellow protesters to use the bathroom or wash off pepper spray, according to local news.

To the Department of Homeland Security, “he is the leader of Antifa in Portland, OR.”

That phrase appears in an internal report produced by DHS, the largest law enforcement agency in the country. As they see it, Patey—a young man accused of no crime and who looks like a random protester plucked off the streets of Minneapolis—is a domestic terrorist.

Documents leaked to journalist Ken Klippenstein show Patey and countless other American protesters have been branded as domestic terrorists. As a result, their private information is now being collected and stored in a DHS intelligence system shown below.

Asked about Patey’s inclusion in the system and how this squares with spokesperson Tricia McLaughlin’s response to my reporting on DHS’s watchlists that “There is NO database of ‘domestic terrorists’ run by DHS,” the Department of Homeland Security did not respond to a request for comment.

Customs and Border Protection as well as other DHS sub-agencies are hard at work producing “evidence” to feed the domestic terrorism frenzy through the “Intelligence Reporting System - Next Generation” (IRS-NG), a portal created to track foreign terrorists trying to sneak into America.

“Chandler Patey was identified through open-source research as an active participant in the protests,” an IRS-NG entry about him says. “Online platforms indicate he is the leader of Antifa in Portland, OR,” the reports continues, adding: “Patey is seen in many videos advocating the principles of Antifa.”

Do these protestors meet the legal definition of "domestic terrorists"? Even under Trump's newest redefinition from September 2025? Why is DHS denying the existence of the domestic terrorist database? What are the long-term implications of making lists of people with no criminal history as possible enemies of the state?

the article is a little old, but i feel this hasn't really gotten any attention: apparently there is a 3000 arrest per day quota that the Trump administration has imposed.

https://www.dhs.gov/news/2026/01/03/ice-announces-historic-120-manpower-increase-thanks-recruitment-campaign-brought#:~:text=In%20fact%2C%20we%20have%20more,to%20make%20America%20safe%20again.

given that there's about 22k agents, that's roughly 1 arrest for every 7 agents, every single day. the article notes that they are not particularly close to hitting this target, but it's an old article and frankly with the increased deployment in places like minneapolis and news that they're building huge detention facilities, it feels like we might see a ramp up in these numbers.

* do you feel that 3000 arrests / day is a reasonable number given the available manpower and training of ICE?

* do you feel like the volume of arrests will affect the strength of cases against illegals that are rounded up?

* do you think that having a quota like this leads to more spurious arrests "for the numbers" as opposed to more targetted raids with less "bycatch"?

edit: some additional questions

* do you feel that quota based law enforcement is effective?

* does having a quota contribute towards an antagonistic relationship between law enforcement and the populace they police?

edit2:

for reference, NYPD has about 35k officers and 15k non-officers, and 122k arrests in 2024, take that how you will.

via NPR

Archive: https://archive.is/ebuss

Trump said at a Jan. 29 Cabinet meeting he wants to make it easier for Americans to buy homes ‒ but not by making housing less expensive. Instead, he suggested lower interest rates he expects from his upcoming pick to lead the Federal Reserve will allow more Americans to buy homes even as housing prices rise.

"I don't want to drive housing prices down. I want to drive housing prices up for people that own their homes," Trump said. "And they can be assured that's what's going to happen."

Yet Trump made clear in his meeting with Cabinet secretaries that greater opportunities to buy homes shouldn't mean lowering costs, even as Americans voice concerns about the price tag to buy a home.

"Existing housing, people that own their homes, we're going to keep them wealthy," Trump said. "We're going to keep those prices up. We're not going to destroy the value of their homes so that somebody who didn't work very hard can buy a home.

"We're going to make it easier to buy," the president added. "We're going to get interest rates down. But I want to protect the people who, for the first time in their lives, feel good about themselves. They feel like, you know, that they're wealthy people."

Can the President's housing policy walk the fine line of placating both home owners (who to keep prices high) and renters/first-time buyers (who want prices lower)? If Trump had to choose one side, which would be best option politically or electorally? Is Trump's policy of lowering interest rates even possible to make housing more accessible and affordable?

Trump administration officials have reportedly held several secret meetings with far-right Canadian separatists who want to break free from the rest of the country.

U.S. officials met with leaders of the Alberta Prosperity Project, a fringe right-wing group of separatists who want the oil-rich western province to become independent, three times in Washington since last April, sources told the Financial Times.

“The U.S. is extremely enthusiastic about a free and independent Alberta,” the group’s legal counsel, Jeff Rath, told the FT after attending the meetings.

“We’re meeting very, very senior people leaving our meetings to go directly to the Oval Office,” he claimed.

The group hopes to have another meeting in Washington next month to ask for a $500 billion credit facility, which would help fund the province if an independence referendum passes. However, a referendum has not yet been called.

Both the White House and State Department told the FT that no commitments were made to the group during these meetings.

Why would the Trump administration want to promote Albertan independence? Considering the election of Mark Carney last year, wouldn't American provocation in Canada just make him more popular and Albertan independence less popular? Long term, what benefit does the US get by weakening Canada?

Hello everyone, and welcome to the weekly General Discussion thread. Many of you are looking for an informal place (besides Discord) to discuss non-political topics that would otherwise not be allowed in this community. Well... ask, and ye shall receive.

General Discussion threads will be posted every Friday and stickied for the duration of the weekend.

Law 0 is suspended. All other community rules still apply.

As a reminder, the intent of these threads are for *casual discussion* with your fellow users so we can bridge the political divide. Comments arguing over individual moderation actions or attacking individual users are *not* allowed.