This May Be the Real Reason Trump Is Throwing a Bone to Meatpackers

NurPhoto/ZUMA Press

The coronavirus is a rapidly developing news story, so some of the content in this article might be out of date. Check out our most recent coverage of the coronavirus crisis, and subscribe to the Mother Jones Daily newsletter.

Update (4/29/2020): On Tuesday night, President Trump issued an executive order declaring that the US Department of Agriculture “shall take all appropriate action” under the Defense Production Act “to ensure that meat and poultry processors continue operations.”

On April 11, South Dakota Gov. Kristi Noem formally requested that pork giant Smithfield Foods suspend operations at its massive pork-processing plant in Sioux Falls after more than 200 workers came down with COVID-19. Smithfield ultimately complied with the plea.

But such a closure is about to become illegal: The Trump administration plans to invoke the Defense Production Act (DPA) to force meat companies to remain open during such outbreaks, Bloomberg’s Jennifer Jacobs reported on April 27, citing “a person familiar with the matter.”

The news comes amid a state of increasing chaos in the industry. At least 15 meatpacking plants nationwide are currently shuttered due to spikes in COVID-19 cases among employees, idling about a quarter of US pork output and 10 percent of beef.

“The food supply chain is breaking,” John Tyson, chairman of the board of meat giant Tyson Foods, recently stated in a full-page ad published in the New York Times, the Washington Post, and several other newspapers. Warning of impending meat shortages, Tyson called on on “government bodies at the national, state, county and city levels” to ensure that meatpacking plants “remain operational so that we can supply food to our families in America.” 

Magaly Licolli, executive director of Venceremos, an Arkansas workers’ rights group that focuses on the poultry industry, said invoking the DPA to keep plants humming during an outbreak constitutes a “direct attack to our workers and their communities, knowing that the majority of them are immigrants, refugees, people of color—the most vulnerable people in society.”

When I spoke to workers at poultry plants in Arkansas and Texas for a recent piece, they reported going to their job in fear of coming down with the virus and bringing it home to their families. For many workers, social distancing is virtually impossible in a high-production modern plant, and they told me that for the first several weeks of the crisis, protective masks were scarce. 

Hours before publishing her Bloomberg story, Jacobs asked Trump what steps he would take to bolster the food supply under strain from COVID-19. His answer focused on the meat industry—and in particular Tyson Foods. “He told us he will do an EO [executive order] to help Tyson Foods with a “liability” problem,” Jacobs reported on Twitter.

It’s unclear what Trump meant by “liability.” The White House did not immediately return a request for clarification. 

But here’s a theory. Already, 20 meatpacking and food-processing workers have died from COVID-19, and more than 5,000 have contracted the disease, according to the United Food and Commercial Workers International Union. What if workers and their families start suing, claiming that the companies’ practices made them sick? Already, one worker—at a Smithfield plant in Milan, Mo.—filed a lawsuit claiming management was not sufficiently protecting workers from the risk of COID-19, and demanding that it follow Centers for Disease Control and Prevention guidelines.

A president invoking the Defense Production Act to require meatpacking firms to keep their plants running during outbreaks would provide a “solid basis” for shielding the firms from suits like this, said Jennifer Zwagerman, director of Drake University’s Agricultural Law Center. She noted that Walmart was recently sued for wrongful death by the family of a worker who died from COVID-19 complications.

Especially during a national emergency, Zwagerman said, “presidents have broad authority to limit liability.”

WE'LL BE BLUNT

It is astonishingly hard keeping a newsroom afloat these days, and we need to raise $253,000 in online donations quickly, by October 7.

The short of it: Last year, we had to cut $1 million from our budget so we could have any chance of breaking even by the time our fiscal year ended in June. And despite a huge rally from so many of you leading up to the deadline, we still came up a bit short on the whole. We can’t let that happen again. We have no wiggle room to begin with, and now we have a hole to dig out of.

Readers also told us to just give it to you straight when we need to ask for your support, and seeing how matter-of-factly explaining our inner workings, our challenges and finances, can bring more of you in has been a real silver lining. So our online membership lead, Brian, lays it all out for you in his personal, insider account (that literally puts his skin in the game!) of how urgent things are right now.

The upshot: Being able to rally $253,000 in donations over these next few weeks is vitally important simply because it is the number that keeps us right on track, helping make sure we don't end up with a bigger gap than can be filled again, helping us avoid any significant (and knowable) cash-flow crunches for now. We used to be more nonchalant about coming up short this time of year, thinking we can make it by the time June rolls around. Not anymore.

Because the in-depth journalism on underreported beats and unique perspectives on the daily news you turn to Mother Jones for is only possible because readers fund us. Corporations and powerful people with deep pockets will never sustain the type of journalism we exist to do. The only investors who won’t let independent, investigative journalism down are the people who actually care about its future—you.

And we need readers to show up for us big time—again.

Getting just 10 percent of the people who care enough about our work to be reading this blurb to part with a few bucks would be utterly transformative for us, and that's very much what we need to keep charging hard in this financially uncertain, high-stakes year.

If you can right now, please support the journalism you get from Mother Jones with a donation at whatever amount works for you. And please do it now, before you move on to whatever you're about to do next and think maybe you'll get to it later, because every gift matters and we really need to see a strong response if we're going to raise the $253,000 we need in less than three weeks.

payment methods

WE'LL BE BLUNT

It is astonishingly hard keeping a newsroom afloat these days, and we need to raise $253,000 in online donations quickly, by October 7.

The short of it: Last year, we had to cut $1 million from our budget so we could have any chance of breaking even by the time our fiscal year ended in June. And despite a huge rally from so many of you leading up to the deadline, we still came up a bit short on the whole. We can’t let that happen again. We have no wiggle room to begin with, and now we have a hole to dig out of.

Readers also told us to just give it to you straight when we need to ask for your support, and seeing how matter-of-factly explaining our inner workings, our challenges and finances, can bring more of you in has been a real silver lining. So our online membership lead, Brian, lays it all out for you in his personal, insider account (that literally puts his skin in the game!) of how urgent things are right now.

The upshot: Being able to rally $253,000 in donations over these next few weeks is vitally important simply because it is the number that keeps us right on track, helping make sure we don't end up with a bigger gap than can be filled again, helping us avoid any significant (and knowable) cash-flow crunches for now. We used to be more nonchalant about coming up short this time of year, thinking we can make it by the time June rolls around. Not anymore.

Because the in-depth journalism on underreported beats and unique perspectives on the daily news you turn to Mother Jones for is only possible because readers fund us. Corporations and powerful people with deep pockets will never sustain the type of journalism we exist to do. The only investors who won’t let independent, investigative journalism down are the people who actually care about its future—you.

And we need readers to show up for us big time—again.

Getting just 10 percent of the people who care enough about our work to be reading this blurb to part with a few bucks would be utterly transformative for us, and that's very much what we need to keep charging hard in this financially uncertain, high-stakes year.

If you can right now, please support the journalism you get from Mother Jones with a donation at whatever amount works for you. And please do it now, before you move on to whatever you're about to do next and think maybe you'll get to it later, because every gift matters and we really need to see a strong response if we're going to raise the $253,000 we need in less than three weeks.

payment methods

We Recommend

Latest

Sign up for our free newsletter

Subscribe to the Mother Jones Daily to have our top stories delivered directly to your inbox.

Get our award-winning magazine

Save big on a full year of investigations, ideas, and insights.

Subscribe

Support our journalism

Help Mother Jones' reporters dig deep with a tax-deductible donation.

Donate