Showing posts sorted by date for query MEATPACKING. Sort by relevance Show all posts
Showing posts sorted by date for query MEATPACKING. Sort by relevance Show all posts

Thursday, July 09, 2026

95% of Americans Say Country Faces Cost-of-Living Crisis as Half Struggle to Afford Essentials

“Meanwhile, Trump wants to hike military spending to $1.5 trillion a year,” said one observer.


Consumers shop for meat on May 22, 2026 in Chicago, Illinois.
(Photo by Scott Olson/Getty Images)

Julia Conley
Jul 07, 2026
COMMON DREAMS


Days after President Donald Trump made his latest dismissive remark about the cost of living and Americans’ struggles to afford housing, new polling released Tuesday finds that nearly the entire voting public views the US as facing an affordability crisis and are increasingly pessimistic that the economy—and working people—will recover.

The Harris Poll, conducted on behalf of The Guardian newspaper, found that 57% of respondents believe the economy is still getting worse for Americans even after the US and Iran signed a peace deal last month to end the conflict started in February by the Trump administration and Israel—a war that sent oil prices soaring.

The average price of gas in the US is still $3.79 per gallon, despite the fact that Brent crude prices have fallen sharply.

Across party lines, about half of respondents said they are struggling to afford basic items like gas and groceries, and two-thirds of Americans, including nearly half of Republican voters, said they do not believe the Trump administration will improve the affordability crisis.

The poll was taken nearly a week after Trump, who ran on lowering costs for Americans, refused to sign affordable housing legislation, calling the bipartisan bill “a big yawn.”

In May, as the administration was negotiating an end to the Iran War, Trump said that he did not “think about Americans’ financial situation,” even as the Middle East conflict he and Israel started hit family budgets hard.

A month earlier, he said the federal government “can’t take care of daycare” and healthcare programs for Americans, because it was focused on one thing and one thing only: “military protection.”




According to the new survey, gas is at the top of the list of expenses that Americans are struggling to afford, with 52% saying they are having trouble keeping up with the cost. More than half of respondents also reported having trouble affording groceries, and 46% said they are struggling to make their loan payments and pay for utilities.

Trump ended the Biden administration’s Saving on a Valuable Education (SAVE) program, terminating the income-based student loan repayment plan for millions of borrowers. A report by Democrats on the Joint Economic Committee in March also found that the average utility bill was up by $110, or 6.4%, over last year, following the Republican Party’s elimination of tax credits for solar and wind power and as Trump pushed for the unregulated expansion of energy-sucking artificial intelligence data centers, despite warnings that they would drive up household utility bills.

The president’s tariffs and his refusal to take on corporate consolidation in the meatpacking industry have also contributed to high grocery prices, recent analyses have found.

The Harris Poll found that 57% of Americans believe the economy is steadily getting worse, compared with 46% who said so in February. Just 16% said the economy is getting stronger, and only 27% of Republicans said the same. In February, 49% of Republican voters reported a positive outlook on the economy.

The survey also found that 54% of respondents said neither the Republican Party nor the Democratic Party has a solution to the growing affordability crisis.

However, the poll was taken on the heels of several electoral victories by progressive and democratic socialist candidates who have centered the needs of working families, demanded that billionaires pay their fair share in taxes, and called for Medicare for All and universal childcare—programs that would be similar to ones that are commonplace in other wealthy countries.

In New York City, Mayor Zohran Mamdani, a democratic socialist, has made strides toward a universal childcare program, a wealth tax, and a rent freeze for rent-stabilized housing units to address the economic inequality and cost-of-living crises.

On Monday, Trump claimed that “a social Democrat is a communist,” in an apparent reference to democratic socialists like Mamdani and US House candidates Melat Kiros in Colorado’s 1st District, Claire Valdez in New York’s 7th District, and Darializa Avila Chevalier in New York’s 13th District.

“If you look at the people that are running, it’s crazy what they’re doing,” said Trump. “But we’ll never let that happen to this country... There’s no appetite for it.”

But in The New York Times on Tuesday, Lindsay Owens of the progressive think tank Groundwork Collaborative suggested the recent elections prove there is, in fact, an “appetite” for candidates who recognize the affordability crisis, and prioritize solutions.

“The economic populist moment is here,” she said.

Tuesday, July 07, 2026

‘A Slap in the Face’: Trump Moves to Gut Biden-Era Rules Reining In Meatpackers

“We need robust enforcement of antitrust and fair trade practice laws to finally protect producers from meatpackers’ fundamentally unfair and illegal practices,” said one campaigner.



Workers process meat at a Triumph Foods plant in St. Joseph, Missouri in this 
 United States Department of Agriculture photo.
(Photo by USDA)



Brett Wilkins
Jul 06, 2026
COMMON DREAMS

A leading government accountability watchdog group on Monday ripped the Trump administration’s move to rescind Biden-era rules enacted to protect ranchers and farmers from abuse by meatpacking corporations and boost competition in the key industry.

The US Department of Agriculture (USDA) has announced the reversal of three Biden administration rules under the Packers and Stockyards Act of 1921. One of the rules prohibits meatpackers, swine contractors, and poultry companies from retaliating against producers for actions like joining associations, speaking with regulators, or seeking other buyers.

Another rule mandated improved transparency in poultry grower contracts. The third rule‚ which was set to take effect this month, would have limited how poultry companies use the tournament payment system.

USDA said it plans to start the revocation process with proposed rulemakings scheduled for later this month and October.

Farm groups and antitrust advocates argue the move removes protections against monopolistic, deceptive, and retaliatory practices by dominant meatpacking and poultry companies.

“For years, meat corporations have abused hardworking farmers and ranchers. Now, the Trump administration is proposing to undo long-overdue progress made to level the playing field,” Emily Miller, staff attorney at Food & Water Watch, said Monday in a statement. “This move is a slap in the face to all those who have long fought for fair treatment in livestock and poultry markets.”

The USDA’s move comes amid increased meat sector consolidation, which studies by Food & Water Watch, More Perfect Union, and others have found results in higher consumer prices and lower farmer profits.

Over the course of his two terms in office, Trump has boosted the meatpacking industry at the expense of worker rights, competition, and public health. His administration refused to issue binding rules requiring businesses to institute safety measures amid the Covid-19 pandemic, and he invoked the Defense Production Act to classify meatpacking plants as critical infrastructure and force them to stay open even as the coronavirus ravaged industry workers.

Trump has also supported corporate monopolization in meatpacking, and his administration has shut down a Department of Justice antitrust probe of alleged industry collusion. Just four meatpackers control approximately 80% of the market. Meanwhile, cattle producers who in 1980 received 63 cents for every dollar paid by consumers for beef were receiving just 37 cents four decades later.

“We need robust enforcement of antitrust and fair trade practice laws to finally protect producers from meatpackers’ fundamentally unfair and illegal practices,” Miller said on Monday. “These rollbacks will do the opposite. We won’t rest until USDA does its job by putting producers above corporations.”

Friday, May 29, 2026

Trump Official Tells Millions Kicked Off Food Aid That They’re ‘Moving Into the American Dream’

“Unless the Trump administration has redefined ‘the American dream’ to mean ‘losing the help your family needs to afford groceries because of federal cuts,’ I have some bad news for Secretary Rollins,” said one expert.


US Agriculture Secretary Brooke Rollins speaks at a news conference on Capitol Hill on October 31, 2025 in Washington, DC.
(Photo by Anna Moneymaker/Getty Images)

Jake Johnson
May 29, 2026
COMMON DREAMS

The head of the US Agriculture Department on Thursday celebrated that millions of people have lost federal nutrition assistance under the second Trump administration, declaring that families who have seen their modest aid disappear are closer to realizing “the American dream.”

Speaking at an event in Arizona, USDA Secretary Brooke Rollins—who has an estimated net worth of around $15 million—said that the Trump administration has “moved about 4 million off of SNAP,” referring to the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program. Rollins suggested, without evidence, that some of those who have lost SNAP benefits were receiving them fraudulently.

But others, claimed Rollins, are “moving into the American dream and off of welfare.”

Katie Bergh, a senior policy analyst at the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities (CBPP), wrote in response that “unless the Trump administration has redefined ‘the American dream’ to mean ‘losing the help your family needs to afford groceries because of federal cuts,’ I have some bad news for Secretary Rollins.”

Watch Rollins’ remarks:



Trump administration officials, including President Donald Trump himself, have repeatedly used euphemistic language to describe the large-scale loss of food aid following passage of the Republican budget reconciliation package last summer. That measure contains $186 billion in SNAP cuts over the next decade—the largest in the program’s history.

During his State of the Union address in February, Trump boasted that his administration has “lifted” millions of Americans off SNAP, falsely suggesting that the mass loss of benefits was attributable to stronger economic conditions rather than deliberate policy changes designed to boot people from the program.

“Economic conditions haven’t been improving as the number of people receiving SNAP has plummeted in recent months, representing the sharpest decline in decades,” CBPP noted in a recent analysis. “The last time there was such a steep decrease in participation in such a short period of time (other than temporary spikes following natural disasters) was nearly three decades ago, after Congress enacted very deep cuts to SNAP (then the Food Stamp Program) in 1996.”

“SNAP participation has fallen in every state,” the think tank added, “and in some, the drop is particularly alarming.”

“The government hasn’t ‘lifted’ Americans facing food insecurity; it’s simply decided to kick them down the elevator shaft.”

Arizona, the state Rollins visited on Thursday, saw a roughly 50% decline in the number of people receiving SNAP benefits between January 2025 and February of this year, with hundreds of thousands of people losing benefits.

“We certainly are not seeing a drop in the number of folks that are participating because we’ve solved hunger,” Adrienne Udarbe, executive director of the nonprofit group Pinnacle Prevention, told AZFamily earlier this week.

One Tucson, Arizona resident, a single mother of three, told the Unrig Our Economy coalition on Friday that “even working full-time, I’ve been unable to access SNAP benefits since March thanks to Republicans’ cuts.”

“Costs are already rising everywhere because of Republicans’ tariffs and their war in Iran, and cutting food assistance is pushing families like mine over the edge,” said the mother, identified as Angelica G. “It’s difficult to work so hard to make ends meet just to watch Republicans in Congress give even more tax breaks to billionaires while cutting food services that families like mine rely on.”

In Kansas, more than 21,000 people have lost SNAP benefits since July. Haley Kottler, senior campaign director at the advocacy group Kansas Appleseed, said in a statement Thursday that “these are not just abstract numbers.”

“These are Kansas kids losing access to food,” said Kottler. “This has real implications for Kansas children to access the nutrition they need to learn, grow, and thrive.”

Rollins’ comments Thursday came amid a flurry of data showing the weakness of the US economy and the struggles of working-class families under Trump’s leadership, from rising inflation to falling personal savings rates.

Earlier this week, as Common Dreams reported, the Federal Reserve Bank of New York released an analysis showing that the US has seen “a remarkable increase in food insecurity” in recent months, “particularly among lower-educated and lower-income households and households with young children.”

Political analyst Steve Benen wrote in a column for MS NOW on Tuesday that “Republicans seem to think this is worth bragging about.”

“Trump’s routine use of the word ‘lift’ makes it sound as if struggling families were put onto an elevator that carried them to a stronger and more secure position,” wrote Benen. “That turns reality on its head: Thanks to the inaptly named One Big Beautiful Bill Act, the government hasn’t ‘lifted’ Americans facing food insecurity; it’s simply decided to kick them down the elevator shaft, depriving much of the public of food aid.”



Report Finds ‘Remarkable Increase in Food Insecurity’ Across US Under Trump

“More people are going hungry now than at the height of the pandemic. Families are skipping meals, relying on food banks, and turning to SNAP to get by.”


A young girl holds a box of food on her head during a food giveaway on November 24, 2025 in Oakland, California.
(Photo by Justin Sullivan/Getty Images)

Jake Johnson
May 29, 2026
COMMON DREAMS

An analysis released this week by the Federal Reserve Bank of New York shows that food insecurity in the US has reached levels not seen since the height of the coronavirus pandemic, underscoring the devastating impact of Republican cuts to federal nutrition assistance and President Donald Trump’s inflationary economic and foreign policy decisions.


In a blog post, New York Fed researchers detailed their findings of “a remarkable increase in food insecurity, particularly among lower-educated and lower-income households and households with young children,” as well as “a contemporaneous increase in pessimism among the same groups, along with a sharp decline in job-finding expectations.”

The researchers cited new data showing increases in the percentage of Americans who reported receiving food donations and skipping meals in recent months, as prices for basic necessities rose. Cuts to the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) that Trump and congressional Republicans enacted last summer are also having an impact, stripping food aid from hundreds of thousands of low-income children and millions of people overall.

Among those who reported skipping meals and relying on food banks, “there is a lower, and more rapidly declining, net share of respondents expecting to be better versus worse off financially a year from now,” despite some topline figures indicating a relatively strong economy (such as a low unemployment rate), the researchers observed.

“This means that an increase in the incidence of food insecurity is associated with a deterioration in consumer sentiment,” they added.

More people are going hungry now than at the height of the pandemic. Families are skipping meals, relying on food banks, and turning to SNAP to get by. Hunger is rising and Congress cannot look away. https://t.co/ImAFSuTJSg
— Food Research & Action Center (@fractweets) May 28, 2026

The New York Fed’s analysis came amid a flurry of new data showing that rising inflation—now at a three-year high—is eroding Americans’ paychecks and causing personal savings rates to plummet as households are forced to spend more on gas, food, and other basics.

Following the release of new federal data on Thursday, the nonprofit research group Equitable Growth pointed to “an important milestone: Household incomes are now down year-over-year. American households had more money to spend in April of 2025.”

“Although income is down for all households this month, it is falling faster for the bottom 50% households, who have seen their income fall by 1.6% compared to April of last year,” noted Equitable Growth visiting fellow Austin Clemens. “This group’s income has fallen in five of the last six months.”


Over 700,000 Poor Kids Across 12 States Have Lost Food Aid Under Trump-GOP Budget Law

A new analysis warns that large-scale loss of food assistance is “jeopardizing the short- and long-term health, education, and economic benefits of nutrition programs for our children and society.”


People receive groceries from a food bank on October 30, 2025 in Miami, Florida.
(Photo by Joe Raedle/Getty Images)

Jake Johnson
May 27, 2026
COMMON DREAMS


The budget package that US President Donald Trump and congressional Republicans rammed through last summer has already spurred large-scale loss of nutrition assistance among low-income children, with an analysis released Wednesday estimating that more than 700,000 kids across a dozen states have lost federal food aid since the GOP law took effect.

The Center on Budget and Policy Priorities (CBPP), a liberal think tank, found that the “sharp participation declines” among children likely stem from provisions of the Republican law that—for the first time in the program’s history—shift large Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) benefit costs onto states. The law also expands punitive SNAP work requirements.

The new analysis notes that children account for “nearly half of the 1.6-million-person decline” in SNAP enrollment since last July among people of all ages in the 12 states with data available.

“The new law’s cost shift has led states to take steps that are making it harder for eligible people to receive SNAP, including families with children,” CBPP explained. “Losing SNAP also makes it harder for low-income children to qualify for other food assistance, such as WIC and free school meals—jeopardizing the short- and long-term health, education, and economic benefits of nutrition programs for our children and society.”



Republican lawmakers repeatedly denied that their legislation would strip food aid from needy children, with House Speaker Mike Johnson (R-La.) saying the package was laser-focused on “fraud, waste, and abuse.”

“We are not cutting SNAP,” Johnson falsely claimed in May 2025, just over a month before Trump signed the Republican legislation into law. The package will cut $186 billion from SNAP over the next decade and strip food aid from millions of low-income people, according to the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office.

Katie Bergh, a senior policy analyst at CBPP, emphasized that the SNAP cuts triggered by the Republican law have not “fully taken effect,” meaning recent benefit losses among families across the country are just the start unless Congress moves quickly to avert disaster.

“Congress must act before even more eligible low-income families—including families with children—lose the food assistance they need to afford groceries, starting by delaying this SNAP cost shift for all states,” Bergh wrote on social media.

The Trump-GOP cuts to SNAP, combined with rising grocery costs stemming in large part from the president’s tariffs and war of choice against Iran, have resulted in surging food bank demand across the country.

“We’ve been going to food banks every week,” a single mom in Arizona whose SNAP benefits were recently cut off told NBC News. “We’re eating less, we’re eating more frozen stuff.”

Far from reversing course on their assault on federal nutrition assistance, Republicans and the Trump administration are doubling down, pursuing massive cuts to fruit and vegetable benefits for low-income mothers. CBPP has projected that roughly 5.4 million people would lose fruit and vegetable aid if Republicans’ newly proposed cuts become law.



The Farm Bill Feeds Corporations, Not Communities

America prides itself on supporting small and local businesses, yet decades of agricultural policy decisions signal nothing but disdain for our small and local farms.



Calves drinking milk in a factory farm.
(Photo by Andia/Universal Images Group via Getty Images)
Chris Muse
May 29, 2026
Common Dreams

Three years behind schedule, the US House of Representatives passed a Farm Bill last month. Despite thousands of independent, humane farmers sounding the alarm that American livestock production is hurtling toward a breaking point, Congress chose to ignore those voices in favor of propping up corporate profits with more handouts to industrial agriculture.

America prides itself on supporting small and local businesses, yet decades of agricultural policy decisions signal nothing but disdain for our small and local farms. The overwhelming majority of taxpayer dollars in the House Farm Bill will funnel directly into the hands of the largest farms and agricultural corporations, while neglecting the needs of the small, independent producers who make up over 85% of all farms in our country. As a result, since the most recent Farm Bill in 2018, over 158,000 farms have had to close their gates, while shareholder value has skyrocketed for the few meatpacking monopolies that maintain a vertically-integrated vice grip on our nation’s meat supply.

Here’s the real kicker—even with access to the endless handouts industrial agriculture has received for decades, we have an increasingly fragile food system. Far from the safe, abundant, and affordable food supply their taglines promise, the factory farming of animals in confinement systems is responsible for major public health threats, the degradation of our soil and waterways, and the hollowing out of our rural communities. Cancer rates in industrial ag-heavy states are rising at alarming rates, and once-thriving small towns are falling victim to corporate capture.

The House Farm Bill includes a provision that independent farmers have made clear drives meat-packer consolidation and robs us of markets that voters in several states demanded: the “Save Our Bacon” (SOB) Act, which, far from saving any bacon, would further entrench a fragile system that profits from cruel confinement and extreme overcrowding of pigs. When our current food system faces extreme stressors like the pandemic or bird flu, these supply chains break down and supermarket shelves quickly empty of meat, eggs, and dairy products. Meanwhile smaller independent farmers like us who use more humane, resilient practices that prioritize the welfare of animals, people, and the environment are able to continue feeding our communities without disruptions.

The Senate now has the opportunity to right the House’s Farm Bill wrongs, restoring and expanding funding for local and regional food systems, and removing favors to industry lobby groups like the Save Our Bacon Act.

What we know is that consumers are fed up, and no longer buy the tired argument that more humane and healthy farming methods are unrealistic, or that smaller farms can’t feed America. Consumers know that pasture-raised animals are healthier for both themselves and the environment, and that resilient local farms are critical for their communities.

Government policy chooses what food gets to be accessible and which types of farms survive, and we must start making better choices. Expanding investment into independent, local meat processing; ensuring the regulation of dubious and misleading label claims; and increasing fair funding opportunities and access to capital for pasture-based farms are just a handful of commonsense reforms that would help level the playing field. The Senate now has the opportunity to right the House’s Farm Bill wrongs, restoring and expanding funding for local and regional food systems, and removing favors to industry lobby groups like the Save Our Bacon Act.

We already know how to raise healthy animals in more humane, pasture-based systems. That these farms are better for all involved than factory farms is clear to anyone on the ground in farming communities across America. And we believe it would be obvious to legislators in Congress if they took the time to come see them, which is why we have joined with other pasture-based farmers across the country to form the FACE Ag Network (Farmers for Animals, Communities, and the Environment).

We may not have the deep pockets of industrial agriculture interests, but we have power in the real stories of how our farms in Delaware County, Iowa, and St. Helena Parish, Louisiana are feeding our communities and revitalizing our local economies. In a recent letter to House and Senate leadership, we outlined a Farm Bill policy platform that would help uplift thousands of farmers, inviting lawmakers to visit our farms and witness firsthand how pasture-based farming systems are building a more resilient food system. And we have a message for the lawmakers about to decide our future in the Farm Bill:

Agribusiness interests have had their chance to design farm policy, and it isn’t working. It’s time to listen to independent farmers who know what their communities, animals, and land need. It’s time to rethink the way we invest federal dollars, and finally support farms producing the kind of food Americans want and deserve, rather than subsidizing products that actively harm our communities.

We invite you to come stand in our pastures and learn first-hand why backing the farms that produce the most humane, healthy, and high-quality food is the soundest investment you could make in our nation’s food system.

Monday, May 18, 2026

Inflation, Tariffs and War


 May 15, 2026

Grain silos in California’s Central Valley. Photo: Jeffrey St. Clair.

Inflation, a general rise in prices, increased in April due to higher costs for energy primarily (40 percent), food and shelter. “The Consumer Price Index for All Urban Consumers (CPI-U) increased 0.6 percent on a seasonally adjusted basis in April, after rising 0.9 percent in March, the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics reported. Over the last 12 months, the all items index increased 3.8 percent before seasonal adjustment.”

Energy prices are up in no small way due to the unprovoked U.S.-Israel war against Iran begun on February 28, 2026. That violation of international law has caused 3,468 deaths and over 26,500 injuries in Iran, according to Iranian authorities, and closed the Strait of Hormuz.

An estimated 20 percent of the world’s petroleum passes through this route, which was open for business before the war began. Moreover, that closure is evidence of a U.S. defeat, writes Robert Kagan, a leading neoconservative and Iraq War hawk who co-founded the Project for the New American Century, in the Atlantic magazine recently.

There’s another factor driving inflation, according to Dan Anthony, head of We Pay The Tariffs, a grassroots coalition of nearly 1,200 small U.S. businesses that advocates against tariffs. “Tariffs raise prices,” he said in a statement. Basically, the tariffs are part of a trade war spurring inflation.

Recall that President Trump imposed tariffs, or taxes on imports from U.S. global trading partners, on March 4, 2025. The tariff rates have increased and decreased since then. To say the impacts of the Trump tariffs on aluminum, steel and other commodities from abroad has been chaotic understates the case.

Recent research at the Federal Reserve Bank of Dallas agrees with Anthony’s assessment of tariffs and inflation. The Fed researchers found that import-dependent businesses passing along the cost of tariffs on imports have added a full percentage point to the inflation of consumer prices. What can be done?

“There aren’t many levers the government can pull to lower prices,” according to Anthony, “but permanently eliminating tariffs is one of them.” That is accurate and also unlikely at least in the short term. Further, a brief look back reveals another presidential lever available, and a precedent for it, one that coincides with a past U.S. military defeat and its role in triggering inflation.

On August 15, 1971, President Richard Nixon, the Republican born a Quaker who later became an anti-communist crusader, subsequently dubbed “Tricky Dick” in the White House, imposed wage and price controls for 90 days. That lever froze wages and prices to fight inflation, an outcome of U.S. deficit spending to wage war in Vietnam. The point that I am making is that presidents have battled inflation in more than one way.

In the meantime and on a related note, President Donald J. Trump might have delayed the signing of executive orders to temporarily reduce tariffs on beef imports, and back policies to increase the domestic cattle herd. The two policy aims of these proposed executive orders seem contradictory. Are they at odds with each other? What’s really going on here?

Sarah Carden is the research and policy director at Food Action. “The administration appears to be presenting this move as a way to lower beef prices for consumers while supporting domestic cattle ranchers,” she said in a statement, “but we’ve already seen this approach fail. Previous import expansions from Argentina did not meaningfully reduce beef prices because the real problem is a highly consolidated meatpacking sector controlled by just a handful of dominant corporations.”

Consider this. Four major meatpackers control roughly 85 percent of the U.S. beef industry, according to Farm Action. This is the definition of market consolidation.

Such consolidation can and does spur higher prices. Fewer producers in the marketplace means that they can and do avoid price competition. Why should monopoly companies with consolidated market power reduce prices if competitors do not offer lower-priced products to consumers? Why cut prices except to counter competitors’ threats to grab market share and profits?

In a for-profit economic system, such a move to decrease prices absent competitive pressures to do so makes no business sense. Meanwhile, at the end of the day, domestic cattle producers, some of whom make up the base of MAGA, are feeling the pain, along with U.S. consumers and import-dependent businesses generally, coping with the impacts of inflation, tariffs and war.

Seth Sandronsky is a Sacramento journalist and member of the freelancers unit of the Pacific Media Workers Guild. Email sethsandronsky@gmail.com

Friday, May 08, 2026

Criminalizing Childhood: When The Justice System Fails America’s Youth – Analysis


May 9, 2026
By Colin Greer and Reynard Loki


From child labor to incarceration, U.S. laws often treat youth as disposable rather than nurturing their potential.

Does your community care about children? This deceptively simple question carries profound moral, social, and civic weight. Across the United States, children are too often treated not as developing citizens deserving care and opportunity, but as problems to be managed. Systems meant to safeguard youth—juvenile justice, labor laws, immigration enforcement, and foster care—can instead respond with punishment, neglect, or harm. Children bear the consequences of policies and practices they did not create, producing predictable cycles of disadvantage.

Poverty is the underlying condition shaping these outcomes. It is more than a statistic or isolated hardship—it is the framework under which children experience multiple forms of structural deprivation. Children growing up in economically marginalized neighborhoods face limited access to healthcare, gaps in educational opportunities, hazardous work conditions, and heightened interaction with punitive systems. Extreme poverty, in particular, dictates the parameters of possibility from the earliest years. While Black, Brown, and Indigenous children are disproportionately affected, poverty touches children of all races, showing that structural inequity—not race alone—drives risk.

Communities frequently fail children across five sectors of their lived experience: ages of criminal responsibility, juvenile detention, child labor, immigration enforcement, and foster care. Policies in each area combine with economic and social conditions to limit opportunity and perpetuate harm. Examining these systems side by side reveals a pattern: children most at risk are those whose families, schools, and communities cannot buffer against structural deprivation. International comparisons demonstrate that the U.S. approach is a policy choice, not an inevitability. Countries like Norway and Sweden prioritize education, family, and social services rather than criminalization, showing that alternative paths are possible, practical, and effective.

Caring for children requires coordinated action. Families, institutions, and communities must recognize that attention, guidance, and structured opportunity are among the most effective forms of protection. Adults—whether educators, mentors, neighbors, or civic leaders—can prevent childhood from being criminalized, exploited, or neglected.

Criminalization and Detention of Youth

Across much of the U.S., children are criminalized at shockingly young ages. In North Carolina, children as young as sixcan technically be held responsible for criminal behavior. In Rutherford County, Tennessee, elementary‑aged children—some as young as seven—were taken into custody after watching or being near a minor scuffle, with authorities charging them under a ‘criminal responsibility’ theory that did not reflect an actual crime, underscoring how early criminalization can reach children based on proximity rather than conduct. Arrests of young children signal a community that views youth not as developing citizens but as problems to control.

Racial and disability disparities exacerbate these effects. In 2017–18, Native Hawaiian/Pacific Islander, Black, and American Indian/Alaska Native students were arrested at rates two to three times higher than white students. In 2020, law enforcement agencies made an estimated 424,300 arrests of persons under 18. Children from impoverished neighborhoods are disproportionately caught in these systems, where families and schools often lack resources to intervene effectively.


By contrast, Finland sets the minimum age of criminal responsibility at 15, with younger children handled through social welfare. These international comparisons make clear that early criminalization is a policy choice rather than an inevitability. Communities that respond with punitive measures risk creating cycles of trauma and neglect.

When children make mistakes, communities can choose to provide guidance or impose confinement. U.S. juvenile detention leans toward punishment: children may be placed in secure facilities for minor offenses such as truancy, shoplifting, or skipping school. Solitary confinement, still legal in some states, inflicts lasting psychological harm. About 70 percent of youth in detention have mental health diagnoses, including trauma, anxiety, and depression.

The school-to-prison pipeline illustrates how disciplinary actions often funnel children into the criminal justice system. Once in the juvenile system, they may face detention and adult incarceration, compounding disadvantage—especially for youth from impoverished communities. Children with disabilitiesand Black, Indigenous, and Latinx youth are disproportionately represented.

Many youths arrested for minor offenses like truancy experience long hours of isolation, minimal educational programming, and insufficient counseling, which research links to anxiety, trauma responses, and reluctance to return to school. Research shows that extended juvenile detention disrupts education, limits access to meaningful schooling, and is associated with higher rates of anxiety, depression, and other mental health challenges. After release, many youths are more likely to disengage from school and struggle with psychological harms that can make returning feel daunting and traumatic.

Evidence-based interventions can improve outcomes dramatically. Programs such as Multisystemic Therapy and Functional Family Therapy provide family-centered approaches to reduce recidivism. Youth Advocate Programs and credible messenger mentoring pair at-risk youth with adult mentors, fostering guidance, trust, and accountability. Restorative justice interventions focus on repairing harm rather than imposing punishment and have been shown to reduce repeat offenses. Wraparound services provide individualized plans for education, mental health, and employment.


International examples show alternatives. Norway, the Netherlands, and Finland prioritize rehabilitation: secure facilities are rare, stays are short, and youth have access to robust social, educational, and psychological services. Children are treated as developing individuals, not criminals. Communities also intervene informally. Adults who mentor or provide structured work opportunities—restoring the legendary neighborhood “stoop”—offer protective oversight, preventing trajectories toward confinement. Early engagement, attention, and investment reduce reliance on punitive systems.
Exploitation and Neglect Across Work, Migration, and Foster Care

Despite federal laws, child labor persists in the U.S. In fiscal year 2024, the U.S. Department of Labor documented 736 cases of child labor violations, involving thousands of minors in hazardous work ranging from agriculture and meatpacking to domestic labor and industrial settings. In 2024, for example, the Department of Labor reported on federal investigations that found minors—including teens as young as 13—working overnight shifts cleaning meatpacking machinery, such as brisket saws and head splitters, exposing them to hazardous conditions and chemicals while compromising schooling and safety. These situations illustrate the tangible risks behind child labor violations uncovered by the Department of Labor.

Migrant children, often from economically marginalized households, are especially vulnerable. Families facing extreme poverty may rely on child earnings, perpetuating cycles where labor substitutes for education. Unsafe conditions, intimidation, and limited legal protections exacerbate risk.

International comparisons show alternatives. Germany and the Netherlands strictly regulate youth work: setting minimum ages, limiting tasks, establishing hours, and requiring supervision. These frameworks protect health, education, and development, demonstrating labor exploitation is a policy choice rather than an inevitability.

Communities can intervene through structured, education-compatible work programs offering safe employment, mentorship, and skill-building. These programs provide income, purpose, and guidance without exposure to hazards, thus fostering civic engagement and resilience.

Federal immigration enforcement often treats youth as security risks rather than children in need of protection. Border Patrol detention, harsh asylum procedures, and family separations expose minors to trauma.

In 2018, a joint ACLU–University of Chicago report found approximately 25 percent of unaccompanied children in Customs and Border Protection custody experienced physical abuse, including sexual assault, stress positions, and beatings. Thousands more were separated from parents, with minimal oversight or access to legal and emotional support.

Many migrant children come from economically marginalized communities, where families lack resources to buffer migration stress. Poverty, legal precarity, and institutional neglect increase exposure to exploitation, including trafficking.

Internationally, New Zealand and Canada prioritize family reunification and community-based support, providing supervised housing, education, and social integration. Local communities can provide legal aid, mentorship, and trauma-informed education, offering stability and opportunity even when federal systems fail.

Foster care often fails to provide stability. Youth average three to four placements, undermining attachment and emotional development. Trafficking within foster care illustrates systemic failure: about 40 percent of youth with trafficking experiences reported incidents before the age of 18, and nearly 80 percent occurred while in foster care.

Vulnerable children—including Black, Native American, and Latinx youth, children with disabilities, and low-income youth—are disproportionately affected. Many who age out at 18 or 21 face homelessness, unemployment, and limited resources.

Internationally, Sweden and Denmark maintain robust foster care systems with stable placements, trained caregivers, and wraparound services, reducing risk and promoting stability. Communities can supplement formal systems through mentorship, nonprofits, and structured guidance, reinforcing protections and improving youth outcomes.
From Punishment to Justice: Patterns and Solutions

Across juvenile justice, child labor, immigration enforcement, and foster care, children’s vulnerabilities are too often met with punishment rather than support. Austerity, underfunded schools, racial disparities, privatization, and political neglect converge to normalize punitive approaches. International models show that early intervention, family support, and rehabilitation prevent harm, underscoring that criminalization is a choice.

Community attention—the “stoop”—is critical. Volunteer programs, mentorship, civic engagement, and safe work opportunities provide oversight, guidance, and resilience where formal systems fail. For example, credible messenger and mentoring programs connect justice‑involved youth with adult mentors and career pathways—including structured employment, apprenticeships, and reentry support. These programs have been shown to improve engagement, reduce recidivism, and help young people build skills and confidence as they reintegrate into their communities.

State-supported youth employment programs, like New York’s Summer Youth Employment Program, place thousands of teens from low‑income families in paid, supervised jobs. Participants gain workplace skills and income without exposure to hazardous conditions, helping build confidence, job readiness, and connections to future opportunities.

Justice for children should mean support, opportunity, and rehabilitation. Evidence-based interventions—including restorative conferencing, family therapy, and mentorship programs—reduce recidivism and improve outcomes. In Alameda County, California, youth in restorative conferencing programs were 19.6 percent less likely to be adjudicated delinquent within 18 months—a 47 percent relative reduction. Oakland, California, schools using restorative practices saw African American suspensions drop approximately 40 percent, while New York City schools reported a 43 percent decline in suspensions alongside stronger student-staff relationships.

Community-based foster care programs, mentorship, and structured work opportunities provide continuity, guidance, and stability. Civic structures like local commissions can monitor policies, advocate, and provide systemic oversight, reinforcing protections and reducing systemic neglect. International lessons show that early, coordinated intervention, paired with social support, nurtures children rather than punishing them.
A Moral Test for Every Community

The question “Does your community care about children?” is neither rhetorical nor abstract. Across the United States, children face overlapping crises: they are criminalized at alarmingly young ages, exploited through labor, left vulnerable in foster care, and exposed to trauma in immigration enforcement. Poverty, systemic neglect, and under-resourced institutions create these outcomes, but communities are not powerless.

Active engagement—through mentorship, safe employment, trauma-informed services, and civic oversight—signals that children are valued, protected, and supported. Programs that pair youth with mentors, offer structured work, and implement restorative practices in schools show that guidance and support can replace punishment and neglect. Communities that invest in these strategies help prevent cycles of trauma and build pathways to education, employment, and civic participation.

Caring communities take responsibility not only for immediate safety but also for the long-term well-being of children. By acting collectively through volunteer initiatives, policy advocacy, and inclusive oversight, communities can ensure that every child has a chance to thrive. The question of whether children matter is a moral test for every neighborhood, city, and state; the answer lies in whether communities are willing to act, to protect, and to nurture their young and to protect them.




About the authors:
Dr. Colin Greer has served as president of the New World Foundation since 1985. A former Brooklyn College professor, he directed studies on U.S. immigration and urban schooling at Columbia University and CUNY. He has advised national leaders, including First Lady Hillary Clinton and Senator Paul Wellstone. His books include A Call to Character and Choosing Equality, winner of the ALA’s Eli M. Oboler Award. A poet and playwright, his work has appeared in Transfer, Hanging Loose, Tikkun, and Kosmos. His plays, including Imagining Heschel and Spinoza’s Solitude, are collected in Religious Differences Between Artichokes, with a preface by Cornel West. His long poem, “Treaty Between Self and Earth,” was performed at Rattlestick Theatre in 2022.

Reynard Loki is a co-founder of the Observatory. He is a writing fellow and the editor and chief correspondent for Earth | Food | Life at the Independent Media Institute. His work has appeared in Salon, Truthout, EcoWatch, BillMoyers.com, and Yes! Magazine. A former environmental editor at AlterNet, he writes on the intersections of justice, ecology, and human rights. He serves on the board of the Stuyvesant Park Neighborhood Association, where he supports education programming for local children and families. He regularly speaks with high school students about environmental awareness and community advocacy.


Credit Line: This is the second article in the four-part series “Does Your Community Care About Children?” It was produced by the Independent Media Institute for the Observatory. It is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International License (CC BY-NC-SA 4.0)