‘That’s evil!’: Jillian Michaels shocks Glenn Beck with latest Big Food betrayal



For many, many years, most of us blindly trusted the pharmaceutical industry to develop drugs that were safe and effective. We didn’t question the food at the grocery store either. We just naively assumed that if it was approved for sale, it must be safe to consume.

But the ruse is up.

Now we know that Big Pharma and Big Food are in bed together – plotting how to ensure Americans stay sick and addicted.

On a recent episode of “The Glenn Beck Podcast,” Glenn interviewed fitness expert and “The Biggest Loser” trainer Jillian Michaels on the insidious ties between the “catastrophic quartet of Big Food, Big Ag, Big Pharma, and Big Insurance” that’s keeping us in chains.

Michaels isn’t convinced that all people who work in medicine or food are devilishly conspiring to harm Americans. The puppet masters at the top may be, but most individual workers had no intention of being pawns in a game.

“The machine has a bottom line, and the machine reports to Wall Street. And so they need profit. People are just cogs in that machine. And I don’t think these individuals are ill-intentioned, but they definitely get caught up in these industries,” she says, acknowledging that many of these individuals pursue careers in food and medicine because they want to help “save the world” and “feed the world.”

Unfortunately, what ends up happening is these well-intentioned people need to “pay [their] bills,” and the only way to do that is to “incentivize people to drink more soda and to eat more chips.”

Glenn agrees, noting that America “fed the world” because of developments in genetically modified organisms, which altered the DNA of various plants and animals so they could grow faster and be more pest resistance, drought tolerant, or nutritionally dense.

“At the beginning, it was a really good thing ... but somewhere along the line, that changed,” he says.

“I’m actually writing a book about this right now,” Michaels says, “and it looks at the ways in which our food policy, our policy around Big Ag, Pharma, Big insurance ... captured well-intentioned legislation and inverted them.”

“It is absolutely nefarious because everything that was passed with the best of intentions ended up getting in the wrong hands and subsequently manipulated to be weaponized against the American people,” she adds.

Now the food that was meant to nourish us is actually poisoning us, and the medicine that was meant to heal us is actually making us sicker.

Michaels gives the example of Howard Moskowitz, an American market researcher and psychophysicist specializing in food science, who coined the term “bliss point” in the 1970s.

The bliss point is “the perfect ratio of fat and sugar and salt” that makes our brains crave more. In other words, Moskowitz was a specialist in food addiction, which is responsible for America’s astronomical obesity rates and subsequent diseases.

“That is probably the least nefarious thing that has happened,” Michaels says.

Moskowitz’s research has since developed into a “multidisciplinary team of scientists and behavioralists and marketing experts that work around the clock trying to figure out how to make you not eat just one.”

“That’s not a slogan — you can’t eat just one. That’s a business model. Period,” Michaels says.

This creates a prime opportunity for the pharmaceutical companies to create expensive weight loss drugs, like Ozempic, which boost the body’s GLP-1 hormones that tell it to stop eating.

However, because these weight loss medicines are helping people break food additions, now “the food companies are trying to find a way to make these ultra-processed foods now bypass your GLP-1 hormone pathways,” Michaels says.

“That’s evil!” Glenn reacts.

“That is the kind of stuff that is happening and has been happening for decades,” Michaels says.

To hear more of the conversation, watch the full interview above.

Want more from Glenn Beck?

To enjoy more of Glenn’s masterful storytelling, thought-provoking analysis, and uncanny ability to make sense of the chaos, subscribe to BlazeTV — the largest multi-platform network of voices who love America, defend the Constitution, and live the American dream.

Jillian Michaels Exposes the REAL Biggest Losers | The Glenn Beck Podcast | Ep 271
play icon

Jillian Michaels Exposes the REAL Biggest Losers | The Glenn Beck Podcast | Ep 271

No more handouts for high-fructose hustlers



Political courage is rare, and common sense now gets dismissed as a conspiracy theory. This week, however, Department of Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. took a step that should have been taken decades ago. He told Big Soda: “Not on the taxpayer’s dime.”

“If you want to buy a sugary soda, the U.S. taxpayer should not pay for it,” Kennedy said, in remarks that rattled the food-industrial complex. “The U.S. taxpayer should not be paying to feed kids, the poorest kids in the country, that will give them diabetes.”

Banning soda and candy from SNAP removes the government’s role as the sugar daddy of the sugar industry.

The sugar lobby, soda executives, and professional grievance-mongers will no doubt howl, accusing Kennedy of “food policing” or “waging war on the poor.” But defending Pepsi purchases with food stamps as a civil rights cause doesn’t just miss the point — it reveals how far detached these elites are from reality.

State-subsidized sickness

“We are spending $405 million a day on” the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, Kennedy said. “About 10% is going to sugary drinks. If you add candies to that, it's about 13% to 17%.” That’s roughly $60 million a day funneled into sugar water and junk food — paid for by you, the taxpayer.

This is state-subsidized sickness. America’s diabetes epidemic didn’t happen by chance — it’s the inevitable result of a system that promotes poor nutrition, rewards ultra-processed junk, and ignores the long-term damage.

More than 11% of Americans now live with diabetes. It’s not just a blood sugar problem — it’s a direct path to amputations, blindness, kidney failure, and premature death.

The American Diabetes Association puts the total economic cost of diagnosed diabetes at $412 billion annually. That’s a national crisis, not a mere lifestyle choice. And the bitter irony? The same government programs paying for treatment are also funding the sugar that drives the disease.

Stop footing the bill

Kennedy’s move isn’t cruel. It’s compassionate. It’s “making America healthy again.”

The opposition is already lining up. The usual suspects will cry “nanny state,” as if forcing taxpayers to underwrite Mountain Dew is some sacred constitutional principle.

Others will insist people have the right to choose what they eat — and they do. But choosing to guzzle liquid diabetes is not the same as expecting everyone else to pick up the tab.

No one’s banning soda. Buy it. Swim in it, if you like. Just don’t expect SNAP funds — meant to keep vulnerable families from going hungry — to cover your 64-ounce daily dose of high-fructose heartbreak.

Kennedy’s proposal isn’t radical. The Women, Infants, and Children program already limits purchases to nutritionally approved foods, prioritizing health over indulgence. SNAP should follow the same logic.

Our national health model is failing. As Tim Keller, founder of U.S. Diabetes Care and a fierce critic of reactive medicine, puts it: “Western medicine is broken. Doctors treat a symptom, not a patient.”

A broken health paradigm

Keller is right. We’ve built an entire health care system on the back of symptom suppression — pills for blood pressure, injections for insulin, meds for cholesterol — while ignoring the root causes.

Instead of handing patients more prescriptions, approaches like Keller's emphasize science-backed lifestyle changes that reverse diabetes altogether. These tools don’t just manage symptoms; they seek to reverse diabetes altogether using modern tools like diabetes management apps, empowering patients with real-time data, meal tracking, and coaching.

The result is a digital frontline in the war against chronic disease. “Diabetes is not a life sentence — we’re here to prove it,” says Keller.

But all the apps, education, and healthy lifestyle coaching in the world mean nothing if we keep dumping sugar down the throats of the nation’s poorest citizens with federal blessing. You can’t cure diabetes while simultaneously funding it.

Drawing a red line

MAHA needs to draw a firm line. It can’t posture as the party of platitudes while taxpayer billions bankroll chronic disease.

The United States spends more on health care than any nation on Earth, yet it trails most developed countries on nearly every health measure. That’s no accident. It’s the inevitable result of subsidizing failure and calling it “freedom.”

RELATED: RFK’s highly anticipated MAHA report paints dark picture of America’s health crisis

Photo by DNY59 via Getty Images

Removing soda and candy from SNAP is a simple, necessary first step to reversing this decline. It preserves personal choice while ending the federal government’s role as sugar daddy to the sugar industry.

MAHA’s moment

Conservatives should seize this moment. If we’re serious about cutting waste, improving public health, and restoring dignity to our social safety net, we should champion reforms like this — not shy away from them.

Nothing is “pro poor” about enabling chronic disease. Nothing is “compassionate” about funding metabolic illness. And nothing is “American” about trapping people in a system that feeds them into the health care meat grinder.

Let’s Make America Healthy Again. Let’s end the era of federally funded junk food. And let’s prove that health, like liberty, starts with responsibility.

Trump can’t let Reagan’s greatest mistake become his legacy



Charlie Kirk reported this week that President Trump faces growing pressure from GOP donors to cut a bipartisan deal offering amnesty to illegal aliens working in agriculture and hospitality. The donor class has long hated Trump and especially his supporters’ demand for real border security and immigration enforcement.

Big business pushing for cheap labor isn’t surprising. What’s alarming is Trump echoing their rhetoric.

What was effectively Ronald Reagan’s 1986 amnesty doomed California. It transformed a red stronghold into the Democrats’ electoral anchor. Trump can’t afford to make the same mistake.

Donald Trump says a lot of things. Anyone who gets emotionally exasperated at any single statement will start to look like a hysterical journalist. Salena Zito’s sage advice — “Take Trump seriously, not literally” — still applies. He might joke about annexing Canada, but those lines rarely lead to action.

At the same time, Trump takes public opinion seriously. He gauges crowd response and often walks back proposals that don't land. That makes it important to push back on bad ideas without losing perspective.

Trust the plan — but verify the plan regularly.

Kirk understands this. That’s why he’s mobilized opposition now to any amnesty deal, real or imagined. He wouldn’t act unless he sensed real movement inside the swamp. Corporate America has tolerated immigration enforcement as long as it targeted gang members and drug dealers. But when Immigration and Customs Enforcement started raiding farms and hotels, the donor class panicked.

Suddenly, Trump began repeating talking points from Secretary of Agriculture Brooke Rollins about farmers and hotel owners losing their “best workers.” He promised to help them get the labor they need. His administration quietly issued guidance exempting farms and hotels from immigration raids.

The online backlash came fast — and fierce. The administration reversed course and rescinded the exemptions.

But Trump didn’t quite drop the issue. He kept talking about farmers’ need for labor. In the wake of the One Big Beautiful Bill Act, which delivered major funding for border security, Beltway insiders started floating a pivot: tack back to the center and strike a deal.

That whisper campaign likely prompted Kirk to sound the alarm.

Special carve-outs for illegal labor would betray MAGA’s core promise. Maybe 10 years ago, building a wall and deporting the worst offenders would have been enough. But after eight million illegal aliens surged across the border under Biden’s illegitimate regime, the situation changed. Democrats intentionally flooded the country to shift its demographics and tilt elections. If we don’t reverse that flood, they win.

RELATED: Where the left gets its rage against borders

Photo by Adam J. Dewey/Anadolu via Getty Images

After Kirk’s warning, Rollins re-emerged to promise that mass deportations would continue. The base cheered. But she added that future enforcement would be more “strategic” — a telling hedge. Trump followed up by insisting he opposed amnesty, then immediately floated a new “worker program” to help farmers. That language did not reassure.

The United States already has legal guest worker programs. Farms that ignore them and hire illegal aliens are breaking the law. They don’t deserve special treatment. They deserve prosecution.

The truth is, letting illegal aliens stay and rewarding them with American jobs is amnesty. Redefining the term won’t change that.

Conservatives have heard this pitch before. At this point, it’s almost comical. Every “immigration reform” ends the same way: Illegal aliens stay, and the floodgates reopen. It starts with the workers, then families follow. Chain migration becomes mass migration.

Trump was elected because he promised to break this cycle. He built his legacy on tough immigration policies — mass deportations, the wall, an America First agenda. To flirt with a Reagan-style amnesty now would be an incredible betrayal.

What was effectively Ronald Reagan’s 1986 amnesty doomed California. It transformed a red stronghold into the Democrats’ electoral anchor. Trump can’t afford to make the same mistake.

He must shut down this talk — shut down Rollins especially — and remember why voters chose him over the establishment in the first place. The donor class got Trump wrong in 2016. If he listens to its members now, they’ll take him — and the country — down with them.

USDA exploring possibility of mass vaccinations for American poultry despite RFK Jr.'s warnings



Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. warned earlier this year that vaccinating poultry against highly pathogenic avian influenza A (H5) viruses might transform farms into incubators for mutant viruses — viruses that could potentially leap to humans.

"All of my agencies have advised against the vaccination of birds," Kennedy told Fox News' Sean Hannity, "because if you vaccinate with a leaky vaccine — in other words, a vaccine that does not provide sterilizing immunity, that does not absolutely protect against the disease — you turn those flocks into mutation factories."

"They're teaching the organism how to mutate," continued Kennedy. "And it's much more likely to jump to animals if you do that."

Despite Kennedy's concern — which is apparently shared by the National Institutes of Health, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, and the Food and Drug Administration — the U.S. Department of Agriculture is looking seriously at mass vaccinations for American poultry.

A USDA spokesperson told Blaze News that the USDA "is exploring the viability of vaccinating poultry for HPAI" but noted that the "use of any vaccine has not been authorized at this time."

This vaccine exploration appears to have taken on greater energy in February when egg prices were reaching record highs.

After flying south of $3 between 1994 and 2022, the price for a dozen eggs began to rise dramatically during the second half of the Biden era, then even higher earlier this year, reaching an all-time average high of $6.22 in March.

RELATED: The 'cage-free' myth: Why everything you think you know about ethical eggs is wrong

Allen J. Schaben/Getty Images

Although there were multiple factors at play — including the shift in various states to cage-free hens and record consumer demand — the price spikes were largely driven by the mass exterminations of commercial and backyard bird populations ordered by the USDA in response to HPAI viruses.

Blaze News previously noted that between Feb. 8, 2022 — when the USDA's Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service first confirmed bird flu belonging to the clade 2.3.4.4b in an American commercial flock — and March 2025, the USDA directed the extermination of over 166.41 million birds. Fewer egg-laying birds naturally means diminished supply and higher prices.

'Vaccination in any poultry sector — egg layers, turkeys, broilers, or ducks — will jeopardize the entire export market for all U.S. poultry products.'

In a Feb. 26 op-ed, Agriculture Secretary Brooke Rollins outlined "five steps to tackle avian flu and bring down costs for American families."

In addition to dedicating up to $500 million to help American poultry producers implement "gold-standard" biosecurity measures, increasing financial relief to farms whose flocks are affected by avian flu, removing "unnecessary regulatory burdens on egg producers where possible," and considering temporary import options, Rollins said her agency would "provide up to $100 million in research and development of vaccines and therapeutics, to improve their efficacy and efficiency."

Although egg prices have returned to relatively normal levels, a USDA spokesperson told Blaze News that the agency continues "to evaluate the potential use of vaccines."

"Before making a determination, USDA, in consultation with federal partners, will solicit feedback from state officials, veterinarians, farmers, the public health system, and the American public," said the spokesperson. "USDA is working with federal and state officials and industry stakeholders to develop a potential plan for vaccine use in the United States."

Reuters indicated that industry members anticipate that the agency will complete its plan in July.

RELATED: Cleaning up Biden’s bird flu mess falls to Trump

Health Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. (left) and Agriculture Secretary Brooke Rollins (right). Photo by Andrew Harnik/Getty Images

There is some controversy over the potential mass vaccination of poultry on the business side of the equation.

Dr. John Clifford, a former USDA chief veterinary officer who advises the USA Poultry & Egg Export Council, told Reuters that chicken meat producers would be dealt a crushing blow if importers stopped importing U.S. poultry over concerns that vaccines were masking the presence of HPAI in flocks.

Some industry groups are, however, warming up to the idea.

Although the National Chicken Council previously suggested that "vaccination in any poultry sector — egg layers, turkeys, broilers, or ducks — will jeopardize the entire export market for all U.S. poultry products," they have since suggested they are on board with the program if exports go unaffected.

The United Egg Producers are apparently even more gung-ho, having helped hatch a plan suggesting an initial vaccination for baby chicks, a subsequent booster shot, then routine testing.

Nicolas Hulscher, an epidemiologist and administrator at the McCullough Foundation, has suggested mass poultry vaccinations are unwise, telling Blaze News that Kennedy's "worries about mass animal H5N1 bird flu vaccination are fully grounded in robust science."

'Biosecurity remains the best and most prudent approach to mitigate the impact of the disease today.'

When asked about the possibility that the USDA might nevertheless proceed with the mass vaccination agenda, Hulscher said that "the USDA is ignoring the glaring risks of creating dangerous mutant strains with their plans to mass vaccinate poultry against bird flu amidst a bird flu animal pandemic."

Blaze News senior editor Daniel Horowitz drove home the point in a recent op-ed, noting that "leaky, waning vaccines that rely on suboptimal antibodies against rapidly mutating viruses can lead to immune tolerance and imprinting. This can cause the immune system to misfire, resulting in negative efficacy. Any short-term protection against severe disease often comes at a long-term cost as the viruses adapt and grow stronger."

Hulscher suggested that the best way forward when tackling HPAI in domestic flocks is better biosecurity: "Installing surface-air purification systems into farms, combined with iodine-based nasal/oral prophylaxis for farm workers, is a much less risky option than mass vaccination."

On this, it appears the USDA agrees.

The agency spokesperson told Blaze News that in the meantime, "because biosecurity remains the best and most prudent approach to mitigate the impact of the disease today, USDA also continues pursuing collaborative efforts with poultry farmers and companies on education, training, and implementation of comprehensive biosecurity measures."

Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors, sign up for our newsletters, and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!

Illegal labor isn’t farming’s future. It’s Big Ag’s crutch.



I’m a strong supporter of President Trump. I respect his drive to secure our borders, restore national sovereignty, and bring real vitality back to the American economy.

But the Department of Homeland Security’s latest move — limiting workplace enforcement and putting a stop to Immigration and Customs Enforcement raids on agricultural employers — cuts against the very heart of the America First agenda. It protects the same corporate giants that are bleeding rural communities dry.

If DHS and USDA want to fix agriculture, they need to stop hiding behind the word ‘farmer’ when they’re really talking about corporate middlemen.

Let’s not kid ourselves: This policy isn’t about helping “farmers.” It’s a gift to foreign-owned industrial agriculture giants like JBS and other multinationals that built their business models on cheap labor, government handouts, and total control over every link in the supply chain.

These are the corporations responsible for wiping out independent family farms across the country.

The Biden administration let Big Ag off the hook. Is Trump really about to follow suit?

Hiring legally and thriving

You don’t need to hire illegal workers to run a successful farm or ranch. In fact, some of the best in the business don’t.

Look at White Oak Pastures in Bluffton, Georgia. Or Polyface Farm in Swoope, Virginia. Or Meriwether Farms out in Wyoming. These aren’t fantasy models. They’re real, thriving operations built on legal labor, strong local roots, and, when needed, carefully managed visa programs.

They don’t rely on mass illegal labor. They don’t need to.

What they do is create real jobs. They pay honest wages. They bring life back to rural towns.

Will Harris is the biggest employer in Bluffton — not because he cuts corners on labor, but because he heals the land, strengthens his community, and delivers food independence.

This is what Trump’s golden age of American farming should look like: self-reliance, real prosperity, and pride in a job well done.

A free pass for Big Ag

With this new policy, DHS basically gave corporate amnesty to the likes of Tyson, Smithfield, JBS, Cargill — you name it. These are companies that depend on cheap, illegal labor to keep their bloated, centralized model afloat.

We’ve been down this road before. Remember Ronald Reagan’s 1986 amnesty? Legalization now, enforcement later — except “later” never came.

And now, we’re repeating the same mistake.

This policy protects a broken system built on:

  • Top-down corporate control
  • Massive consolidation
  • Debt traps and labor abuse
  • De facto open borders
  • Slave-wage labor
  • Legal loopholes for billion-dollar companies

What we’re left with is what journalist Christopher Leonard called “chickenization” — a corporate takeover of the food system that treats farmers like serfs and workers like machines.

The U.S. Department of Agriculture’s loyalty to these monopolies has already hollowed out towns, forced families off their land, and turned our food supply into a global pipeline where cartel-linked produce replaces homegrown independence.

This doesn’t serve America. It serves the bottom lines of a few mega-firms that like open borders and look the other way on enforcement.

And whether it admits it or not, this is how the United Nations’ Sustainable Development Goals get implemented — quietly, through broken farms, outsourced jobs, and illegal hires.

RELATED: Trump orders ICE to ramp up deportations in Dem-controlled cities following MAGA backlash over selective pause on raids


Photo by Tasos Katopodis/Getty Images

This isn’t just about agriculture. It’s about national security.

A nation that can’t feed itself without breaking its own laws isn’t sovereign. And one that lets multinationals run roughshod over the heartland while outsourcing production to places run by cartels is heading for trouble.

We can do better

If DHS and USDA want to fix agriculture, they need to stop hiding behind the word “farmer” when they’re really talking about corporate middlemen.

Trump has a chance to change course — one that truly puts Americans first. That means backing the producers who follow the law, hiring citizens or legal workers, and building food systems that support independence, not dependence.

Independent farmers and ranchers are ready to help. They’ve already shown what works: strong property rights, legal labor, fair water access, and a commitment to community.

This isn’t some policy wish list. It’s already happening.

And it’s winning.

Let’s not give our food, our land, or our future back to the monopolies that wrecked the past.

White House moves to correct apparent errors in landmark MAHA report



The White House moved to correct errors in the highly anticipated MAHA report Thursday after inconsistencies and inaccuracies were found in the citations.

The errors in the MAHA report were first reported by NOTUS on Thursday. They included broken links and studies that apparently did not exist. The White House later uploaded the corrected version of the report, and the administration maintained that the errors do not refute the substance of the report.

"I understand there were some formatting issues with the MAHA report that are being addressed, and the report will be updated," press secretary Karoline Leavitt said Thursday. "But it does not negate the substance of the report, which, as you know, is one of the most transformative health reports that has ever been released by the federal government."

'It’s time for the media to also focus on what matters.'

RELATED: Who is bankrolling the anti-MAHA movement?

Photo by Kevin Dietsch/Getty Images

The Department of Health and Human Services similarly stated that they were simply formatting errors and that they don't change the historic findings in the report.

"Minor citation and formatting errors have been corrected, but the substance of the MAHA report remains the same — a historic and transformative assessment by the federal government to understand the chronic disease epidemic afflicting our nation’s children," an HHS spokesperson said. "Under President Trump and Secretary Kennedy, our federal government is no longer ignoring this crisis, and it’s time for the media to also focus on what matters."

However, these errors seem to go beyond formatting as the administration is suggesting. The citations included broken links and even pointed to numerous studies that reportedly do not appear in the issues of the journals cited and may not even exist at all.

"The paper cited is not a real paper that I or my colleagues were involved with," Katherine Keyes, an epidemiologist listed as an author, told NOTUS. "We’ve certainly done research on this topic, but did not publish a paper in JAMA Pediatrics on this topic with that co-author group, or with that title."

RELATED: Elon Musk formally departs from DOGE following a tumultuous tenure

Photo by Chip Somodevilla/Getty Images

The report itself, which was spearheaded by HHS Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr., focused on identifying root causes for various health epidemics affecting American children, including chronic diseases, obesity, autoimmune conditions, and behavioral disorders. Some of these root causes include ultra-processed foods, pesticides, and exposure to chemicals, as well as "overmedicalization."

Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors, sign up for our newsletters, and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!

‘We can eat happiness, or we can eat stress and violence’: Regenerative farmer explains intersection of food, soil, and joy



If you’ve been hearing the term “regenerative farming” a lot lately, it’s because the method has soared in popularity in recent years, especially in the United States. From Big Food giants, including Walmart, Pepsi, and General Mills, to individuals seeking to produce their own food, the nation is steadily moving toward this sustainable system that addresses some of the biggest threats to both agriculture and people. By adopting this holistic approach, farmers can address soil degradation and biodiversity loss that harm their farms, while also reducing reliance on chemical fertilizers, animal hormones, and food additives that pose threats to people and animals.

On a recent episode of “Back to the People,” Nicole Shanahan interviewed author, farmer, and regenerative farming advocate Joel Salatin to get a better understanding of how this holistic system benefits everyone involved.

Salatin spent his early years on his parents’ farm in Venezuela. However, when their chickens, which were vastly healthier and more hygienic than the local farmers’ stock, began dominating the market, the community accused their family of “witchcraft and voodoo” and drove them out.

“So we fled the back door, and machine guns came in the front door,” he tells Nicole.

Their family came back to the United States and began Polyface Farms, a diversified, multispecies regenerative farm in Virginia, which Salatin still operates today.

Unfortunately, the persecution followed them home. Instead of superstitious locals, today Salatin faces threats from the “industrial agriculture system that views life from a mechanical standpoint.”

“I've been called a bioterrorist and a Typhoid Mary and a starvation advocate” because “we don't vaccinate; we don't medicate; we're using compost instead of chemical fertilizers; we're moving the animals around on the pasture instead of just leaving them in one field all the time; the chickens are outside where they can get fresh air and sunshine and exercise,” he explains.

He tells Nicole he’s embraced the moniker “the lunatic farmer.” If being a lunatic means you’re stewarding God’s creation well, the insult is actually a badge of honor.

“We are stewards of a niche of God's creation that is unbelievably beautiful, complex, relationally oriented, and symbiotic,” he says. “One of the problems in mainline industrial agriculture today, I think, is a general kind of underlying, almost unspoken philosophy that nature's against us and nature is a reluctant partner that I have to beat into submission and dominate.”

This “wrestling, contested kind of relationship” with nature, however, is unnecessary, and that’s what regenerative farming understands that Big Food and Big Ag don’t. When we try to control nature with chemicals, we’re causing problems not only in the environment but also in our own bodies.

“We are routinely ingesting things that are foreign to our microbiome,” says Salatin.

The billions of microbes in our stomachs and digestive tract, he explains, are essentially “first cousins” to the “biome in the soil, to the biata in the soil.”

“If you look at human skin and you look at soil and you do a cutaway side profile ... they almost look identical,” he explains. “What we're feeding our internal village of microbiomes needs to be something that they are familiar with, that they understand, and they don't understand Coca-Cola and Velveeta cheese.”

But it’s not just soil and humans who benefit from regenerative farming. Livestock fairs remarkably better, too. Emphasis on rotational grazing that mimics natural herd movements and using natural alternatives to antibiotics, hormones, and chemical dewormers results in healthier, happier animals.

“We've learned over the many years, especially from our gourmet chefs, that all of our meats cook about 15% to 20% faster than regular conventional factory-farm stuff,” says Salatin.

The disparity is likely due to differences in adrenaline levels.

“Most of the livestock in the U.S. live in very stressful environments, where their whole life they're drip, drip, drip, dripping adrenaline, which tightens everything up. Our animals are happy; they never secrete adrenaline,” Salatin explains.

“We can eat happiness, or we can eat stress and violence.”

To hear more about Salatin’s story and regenerative farming, watch the episode above.

Want more from Nicole Shanahan?

To enjoy more of Nicole's compelling blend of empathy, curiosity, and enlightenment, subscribe to BlazeTV — the largest multi-platform network of voices who love America, defend the Constitution, and live the American dream.

Who is bankrolling the anti-MAHA movement?



Several agricultural agencies came out and criticized President Donald Trump's highly anticipated MAHA report that was released on Thursday. After thoroughly reviewing the records, Blaze News uncovered who is behind many of these anti-MAHA groups.

The MAHA report's findings suggested that exposure to agricultural chemicals like pesticides and insecticides are one of the many root causes that have contributed to chronic diseases and health epidemics afflicting American children. Several studies found that these "crop protection tools" have "raised concerns about possible links between some of these products and adverse health outcomes," according to the report.

The through line in this thorough report is that pesticides may be harmful, and the industry players may not have been transparent about it.

RELATED: RFK's highly anticipated MAHA report paints dark picture of America's health crisis

Photo by Tasos Katopodis/Getty Images

For example, one of the most common herbicides, known as glyphosate, has been found to have a number of health effects "ranging from reproductive and developmental disorders as well as cancers, liver inflammation, and metabolic disturbances," according to the report.

The MAHA report also noted that there are great disparities in research conducted by pesticide manufacturers compared to non-industry research, which may be a result of bias. One of the many analyses cited in the report found that 50% of non-industry research deemed a common pesticide harmful compared to just 18% of industry-funded studies.

The through line in this thorough report is that pesticides may be harmful, and the industry players may not have been transparent about it.

Various agricultural groups categorized the MAHA report, specifically the concerns about pesticides, as "baseless" and a source of "misinformation." At the same time, many of these groups have been direct beneficiaries of companies and corporations that manufacture or promote the very same chemicals.

RELATED: 100 days of MAHA: What has Robert F. Kennedy Jr. done so far to make America healthy again?

Photo by NICHOLAS KAMM/AFP via Getty Images

American Farm Bureau Federation President Zippy Duvall said the MAHA report "sows seeds of doubt and fear" and called the White House's endorsement of the report "deeply troubling." Notably, Blaze News found that multiple local chapters of the Farm Bureau have collectively received hundreds of thousands of dollars in grants from Monsanto, a subsidiary of Bayer Global, which manufactures agricultural chemicals and GMO technologies.

Some of this money has been allocated for various disaster relief programs, while some has gone toward political action committees. For instance, the Oregon Farm Bureau PAC has received over $130,000 from Monsanto from 2007 to 2017, much of which was "raised during an annual golf tournament" hosted by the Oregon Farm Bureau to "raise money for its political activities."

The American Farm Bureau did not respond to a request for comment from Blaze News.

RELATED: HHS scrapping COVID jab recommendations for pregnant moms and kids: Report

Photo by Chip Somodevilla/Getty Images

Similarly, Elizabeth Burns-Thomson, the executive director of Modern Ag Alliance, said the report would be guided by "misinformation" rather than science. Modern Ag Alliance, which was founded by Bayer Global, represents over 100 agricultural agencies that advocate for "crop protection tools." Some of the members of the Modern Ag Alliance also include the American Soybean Association, the National Corn Growers Association, and the National Association of Wheat Growers.

The ASA, NCGA, and NAWG, along with the International Fresh Produce Association, issued a statement saying the MAHA report "baselessly attacks" the American food industry and caters to the "opinions and preferences of social influencers and single-issue activists."

Since 2010, the ASA, NCGA, and NAWG have all individually received multiple donations totaling over $120,000 from CropLife, according to publicly available tax filings. CropLife is an organization that calls itself the "national trade association that represents the manufacturers, formulators, and distributors of pesticides." The IFPA has also been sponsored by Bayer multiple times in recent years.

The ASA, NAWG, and Modern Ag Alliance did not respond to a request for comment from Blaze News. NCGA and IFPA redirected Blaze News back to its original statement on the report.

Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors, sign up for our newsletters, and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!

Is Trump’s USAID freeze hurting American farms? Here’s the TRUTH.



In the wake of President Trump’s USAID freeze, the left is up in arms about all the alleged suffering taking place abroad as a result of cut funding. There are even complaints about the impact on U.S. farms that send food overseas.

“I've seen on left-wing Twitter and Instagram and other places increasing noise about how Trump's moves against USAID actually hit small farms, hit mid-range farms and American businesses,” says Blaze News senior politics editor and Washington correspondent Christopher Bedford.

Is it true that American farms and the recipients of the food they produce are suffering as a result of Trump’s USAID freeze?

To answer this question, Christopher speaks with his wife, Sarah Bedford — an expert on the history of USAID.

According to Sarah, on paper, these food programs, such as Food for Peace, appear to be “[addressing] food insecurity in impoverished nations.” This stated mission fuels the left’s narrative that “Trump's moves on USAID are hurting starving people who really need this help.”

However, the reality is that “if the intention is to deliver food aid in the most efficient manner possible to the people who need it the most, then no, these programs don’t work,” she says.

“They actually end up costing a lot more money than they would otherwise if USAID went into these local economies and bought the food assistance locally from local producers, stimulating the economies they're trying to help,” she explains. This localized aid would also spare the United States a fortune in “shipping costs” and “expensive American crops.”

Sarah points to the 2010 earthquake in Haiti as an example of how USAID “[suppresses] local markets.”

Because USAID “dumped surplus American crops” into the nation, “the economic recovery for Haiti was a lot more difficult,” she says.

However, this isn’t just the case when it comes to natural disasters. Many USAID programs actually hinder economic development in general because the goal is to get rid of surplus American crops, not to help stimulate and grow the economies of impoverished nations.

In fact, “food insecurity in some parts of the world has gotten worse since the U.S. started dumping surplus agricultural products abroad,” says Sarah, giving the example of a rice farmer who can’t “sell his wares at the local market” because he’s “being completely undercut by free American rice.”

Further, instead of just donating surplus crops, the U.S. government is now purchasing them “at prices that are arbitrary and that help special interests in the agricultural sector.”

The fact of the matter is that “economic development in some of these heavily agricultural economies is just not the goal of these [USAID] programs,” says Sarah.

As for the claim that Trump’s USAID freeze is hurting American Big Agriculture, Sarah says, it’s true.

“The USAID programs are great price supports for these companies, a lot of which are already enjoying USDA subsidies as well. So if the intention is for this USAID program to act as an agricultural subsidy, then it's doing great, but it's not supposed to be that. It's supposed to be efficiently delivered food aid,” she says.

On top of that, USAID is also how “the U.S. pedals soft power to increase U.S. influences in places where, if the U.S. were to withdraw its presence, Russia or China or another adversarial nation could come in and grow their influence in these developing nations,” adds Sarah, noting that “whether that's a good use of American taxpayer dollars” is up for debate.

“Donald Trump ran on and won on a promise to stop spending taxpayer money to chase these sort of nebulous foreign policy goals, so in a lot of ways what he's doing [with USAID] is consistent with that promise, as well as the promise to cut government spending,” she says.

To learn more, watch the clip above.

Want more from 'Blaze News Tonight'?

To enjoy more provocative opinions, expert analysis, and breaking stories you won’t see anywhere else, subscribe to BlazeTV — the largest multi-platform network of voices who love America, defend the Constitution, and live the American dream.