Business

Mass Federal Firings May Imperil Pets, Cattle and Crops

Published

1 year ago

February 26, 2025

Mass Federal Firings May Imperil Pets, Cattle and Crops

Shortly after taking office for the second time, President Trump began making deep cuts to agencies and programs that play critical roles in human health, slashing funding for medical research, halting global health aid and firing scores of workers at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

But the campaign to downsize government, which has been led by Mr. Trump and Elon Musk, has also hollowed out agencies and programs devoted to protecting plant and animal health. The recent wave of mass firings hit federal workers responding to the nation’s growing bird flu outbreak, protecting crops from damaging pests and ensuring the safety of pet food and medicine, among other critical duties.

Although the government has since rescinded some of these firings, the terminations — combined with a federal hiring freeze and buyout offers — are depleting the ranks of federal programs that are already short on employees and resources, experts said.

The damage could be long-lasting. Workers whose jobs were spared said that the upheaval had left them eyeing the exits, and graduate students said they were reconsidering careers in the federal government. The shrinking work force could also have far-reaching consequences for trade and food security and leave the nation unequipped to tackle future threats to plant and animal health, experts said.

“These really were indiscriminate firings,” said John Ternest, who lost his job at the U.S. Department of Agriculture, where he was preparing to conduct studies on honeybee health and crop pollination. “We don’t know what we’ve lost until it’s potentially too late.”

Plant and animal inspectors

The most recent wave of firings focused on the roughly 200,000 “probationary” employees across the federal government, who had fewer job protections because they were relatively new to their positions. (For some roles, the probationary period can be as long as three years, and it can also reset when longtime employees are promoted.)

The exact size and scope of the job losses remain unclear, and the U.S.D.A. did not answer questions about the number of workers who had been terminated or reinstated at several of its agencies.

But in an emailed statement, a U.S.D.A. spokesman said that Brooke Rollins, the new secretary of agriculture, “fully supports President Trump’s directive to optimize government operations, eliminate inefficiencies and strengthen U.S.D.A.’s ability to better serve American farmers, ranchers and the agriculture community.”

Reports suggest that the department has lost thousands of employees.

That includes roughly 400 people who worked in its Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service, according to one U.S.D.A. official who asked not to be named for fear of retaliation. The plant protection and quarantine program within APHIS was especially hard hit, losing more than 200 employees, including agricultural inspectors, entomologists, taxonomists and even tree climbers who surveyed for pests, the official said.

Some of the fired workers were responsible for combating invasive, plant-killing insects, such as the Asian long-horned beetle, within the nation’s borders. Others worked to ensure that agricultural products entering and exiting the country were free of pests and pathogens. Exotic fruit flies pose a particular risk to American agriculture, including the citrus and berry industries.

The terminations are already causing import delays at the nation’s ports, according to the U.S.D.A. official. Over the longer term, if agricultural pests and pathogens found their way into the country, they could infest the nation’s homegrown crops, threatening food security and reducing demand for American agricultural products abroad.

“If the United States gets a reputation for having dirty products, does that mean other countries will also, you know, step in and say, ‘Hey, we don’t want to buy your goods’?” the official said.

The firings also hit the agency’s veterinary services program, which inspects imported livestock for disease and plays a key role in the nation’s bird flu response, said Dr. Joseph Annelli, the executive vice president of the National Association of Federal Veterinarians.

The U.S.D.A. has quickly rehired some of the employees who were involved in the bird flu response, suggesting that their firings had been a mistake. But even before the recent terminations, the government was short on veterinarians, Dr. Annelli said. “There has not been adequate staffing for at least 10 years,” he said. “We need more veterinarians, not less.”

The agency was in the midst of hiring additional people to assist with the bird flu response, Dr. Annelli said, but the federal hiring freeze put that process on hold.

The workers who remain are nervous about the long-term stability of their jobs. “I’m not very optimistic,” said one current veterinary services employee, who requested anonymity to avoid retaliation and has already applied for another position outside the U.S. government.

Agricultural scientists

Roughly 800 people, including the leaders of laboratories, were also fired across the Agricultural Research Service, the in-house scientific agency at the U.S.D.A, according to a department official who was not authorized to discuss the matter and spoke on the condition of anonymity.

The firings brought a wide range of research projects to an abrupt halt and left the technicians and the students who worked in these labs in limbo.

One New York lab was in the middle of investigating a potential outbreak of late blight, a potato disease, when the lead scientist was fired, said Isako Di Tomassi, a graduate student at Cornell University who worked in the lab. Potato samples from a large, commercial farm are now locked up in the shuttered lab, “untouched and untested,” Ms. Di Tomassi said.

Scientists and statisticians working in the U.S. Meat Animal Research Center in Nebraska, which studies livestock genetics and breeding, were also terminated, including those working on research projects in food safety and salmonella testing. The firings have led to objections from Nebraskas’s Republican congressional delegation and industry groups.

“We understand and respect the federal government’s desire to cut wasteful spending, but the truth of the matter is, U.S. MARC does not fall in that category,” the Nebraska Cattlemen Association said in a statement. The work being done at the center, the statement continued, “has potential to reduce costs for the beef industry long term and improve food safety for consumers.”

Some — but not all — of the agency’s scientists were reinstated this week. Still, the mass firings could do lasting reputational damage to the agency, they said.

“I think that people that want to earnestly do science are going to be viewing and remembering these decisions and how scientists are being treated,” said one agricultural researcher who was fired and then rehired and requested anonymity to protect the job.

In interviews, several graduate students in agricultural science said that they were no longer sure whether they could build research careers in the federal government.

“My future as a scientist seems very uncertain right now,” Ms. Di Tomassi said.

“Getting a federal scientist position is a big deal,” she added. “It’s not easy to do, and all of that investment is now being let go.”

Animal health regulators

Although the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention primarily concerns itself with human health, the agency also aims to prevent zoonotic diseases, including by regulating the entry of animals — particularly those than can carry pathogens — into the United States.

For example, the agency does not permit dogs that have recently been in countries with a high prevalence of rabies to enter the United States unless they have been vaccinated against the disease. C.D.C. officers also examine animals at port stations, and isolate or quarantine those exposed to dangerous pathogens.

But the Trump administration recently dismissed about half of the C.D.C. employees at the agency’s 20 port health stations, leaving some stations entirely unattended.

Calls to the port station in San Juan, P.R., last week were rerouted to the station in Miami, where a C.D.C. employee who declined to be identified said that no one would be at the San Juan post “for a very long time.”

Workers were also fired from the Food and Drug Administration’s Center for Veterinary Medicine. Among those affected were employees reviewing data on novel animal medicines and working to ensure that pet food and animal feed were free of contaminants.

Those teams were already short-staffed, said two fired employees, who asked not to be identified because they are appealing their terminations. They worried that the losses could slow down the approval of new animal drugs and even cause dangerous products to fall through the cracks.

“It’s a gap in the safety structure,” one of the employees said. “They’re big challenges and there’s no one else to take it on. That’s the job of government.”

Linda Qiu contributed reporting.

Click to comment

Business

Trump orders federal agencies to stop using Anthropic’s AI after clash with Pentagon

Published

8 hours ago

February 27, 2026

Press Room

Trump orders federal agencies to stop using Anthropic’s AI after clash with Pentagon

President Trump on Friday directed federal agencies to stop using technology from San Francisco artificial intelligence company Anthropic, escalating a high-profile clash between the AI startup and the Pentagon over safety.

In a Friday post on the social media site Truth Social, Trump described the company as “radical left” and “woke.”

“We don’t need it, we don’t want it, and will not do business with them again!” Trump said.

The president’s harsh words mark a major escalation in the ongoing battle between some in the Trump administration and several technology companies over the use of artificial intelligence in defense tech.

Anthropic has been sparring with the Pentagon, which had threatened to end its $200-million contract with the company on Friday if it didn’t loosen restrictions on its AI model so it could be used for more military purposes. Anthropic had been asking for more guarantees that its tech wouldn’t be used for surveillance of Americans or autonomous weapons.

The tussle could hobble Anthropic’s business with the government. The Trump administration said the company was added to a sweeping national security blacklist, ordering federal agencies to immediately discontinue use of its products and barring any government contractors from maintaining ties with it.

Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth, who met with Anthropic’s Chief Executive Dario Amodei this week, criticized the tech company after Trump’s Truth Social post.

“Anthropic delivered a master class in arrogance and betrayal as well as a textbook case of how not to do business with the United States Government or the Pentagon,” he wrote Friday on social media site X.

Anthropic didn’t immediately respond to a request for comment.

Anthropic announced a two-year agreement with the Department of Defense in July to “prototype frontier AI capabilities that advance U.S. national security.”

The company has an AI chatbot called Claude, but it also built a custom AI system for U.S. national security customers.

On Thursday, Amodei signaled the company wouldn’t cave to the Department of Defense’s demands to loosen safety restrictions on its AI models.

The government has emphasized in negotiations that it wants to use Anthropic’s technology only for legal purposes, and the safeguards Anthropic wants are already covered by the law.

Still, Amodei was worried about Washington’s commitment.

“We have never raised objections to particular military operations nor attempted to limit use of our technology in an ad hoc manner,” he said in a blog post. “However, in a narrow set of cases, we believe AI can undermine, rather than defend, democratic values.”

Tech workers have backed Anthropic’s stance.

Unions and worker groups representing 700,000 employees at Amazon, Google and Microsoft said this week in a joint statement that they’re urging their employers to reject these demands as well if they have additional contracts with the Pentagon.

“Our employers are already complicit in providing their technologies to power mass atrocities and war crimes; capitulating to the Pentagon’s intimidation will only further implicate our labor in violence and repression,” the statement said.

Anthropic’s standoff with the U.S. government could benefit its competitors, such as Elon Musk’s xAI or OpenAI.

Sam Altman, chief executive of OpenAI, the company behind ChatGPT and one of Anthropic’s biggest competitors, told CNBC in an interview that he trusts Anthropic.

“I think they really do care about safety, and I’ve been happy that they’ve been supporting our war fighters,” he said. “I’m not sure where this is going to go.”

Anthropic has distinguished itself from its rivals by touting its concern about AI safety.

The company, valued at roughly $380 billion, is legally required to balance making money with advancing the company’s public benefit of “responsible development and maintenance of advanced AI for the long-term benefit of humanity.”

Developers, businesses, government agencies and other organizations use Anthropic’s tools. Its chatbot can generate code, write text and perform other tasks. Anthropic also offers an AI assistant for consumers and makes money from paid subscriptions as well as contracts. Unlike OpenAI, which is testing ads in ChatGPT, Anthropic has pledged not to show ads in its chatbot Claude.

The company has roughly 2,000 employees and has revenue equivalent to about $14 billion a year.

Business

Video: The Web of Companies Owned by Elon Musk

Published

19 hours ago

February 27, 2026

Press Room

Video: The Web of Companies Owned by Elon Musk

new video loaded: The Web of Companies Owned by Elon Musk

In mapping out Elon Musk’s wealth, our investigation found that Mr. Musk is behind more than 90 companies in Texas. Kirsten Grind, a New York Times Investigations reporter, explains what her team found.

By Kirsten Grind, Melanie Bencosme, James Surdam and Sean Havey

February 27, 2026

Business

Commentary: How Trump helped foreign markets outperform U.S. stocks during his first year in office

Published

20 hours ago

February 27, 2026

Press Room

Commentary: How Trump helped foreign markets outperform U.S. stocks during his first year in office

Trump has crowed about the gains in the U.S. stock market during his term, but in 2025 investors saw more opportunity in the rest of the world.

If you’re a stock market investor you might be feeling pretty good about how your portfolio of U.S. equities fared in the first year of President Trump’s term.

All the major market indices seemed to be firing on all cylinders, with the Standard & Poor’s 500 index gaining 17.9% through the full year.

But if you’re the type of investor who looks for things to regret, pay no attention to the rest of the world’s stock markets. That’s because overseas markets did better than the U.S. market in 2025 — a lot better. The MSCI World ex-USA index — that is, all the stock markets except the U.S. — gained more than 32% last year, nearly double the percentage gains of U.S. markets.

That’s a major departure from recent trends. Since 2013, the MSCI US index had bested the non-U.S. index every year except 2017 and 2022, sometimes by a wide margin — in 2024, for instance, the U.S. index gained 24.6%, while non-U.S. markets gained only 4.7%.

The Trump trade is dead. Long live the anti-Trump trade.

— Katie Martin, Financial Times

Broken down into individual country markets (also by MSCI indices), in 2025 the U.S. ranked 21st out of 23 developed markets, with only New Zealand and Denmark doing worse. Leading the pack were Austria and Spain, with 86% gains, but superior records were turned in by Finland, Ireland and Hong Kong, with gains of 50% or more; and the Netherlands, Norway, Britain and Japan, with gains of 40% or more.

Investment analysts cite several factors to explain this trend. Judging by traditional metrics such as price/earnings multiples, the U.S. markets have been much more expensive than those in the rest of the world. Indeed, they’re historically expensive. The Standard & Poor’s 500 index traded in 2025 at about 23 times expected corporate earnings; the historical average is 18 times earnings.

Investment managers also have become nervous about the concentration of market gains within the U.S. technology sector, especially in companies associated with artificial intelligence R&D. Fears that AI is an investment bubble that could take down the S&P’s highest fliers have investors looking elsewhere for returns.

But one factor recurs in almost all the market analyses tracking relative performance by U.S. and non-U.S. markets: Donald Trump.

Investors started 2025 with optimism about Trump’s influence on trading opportunities, given his apparent commitment to deregulation and his braggadocio about America’s dominant position in the world and his determination to preserve, even increase it.

That hasn’t been the case for months.

”The Trump trade is dead. Long live the anti-Trump trade,” Katie Martin of the Financial Times wrote this week. “Wherever you look in financial markets, you see signs that global investors are going out of their way to avoid Donald Trump’s America.”

Two Trump policy initiatives are commonly cited by wary investment experts. One, of course, is Trump’s on-and-off tariffs, which have left investors with little ability to assess international trade flows. The Supreme Court’s invalidation of most Trump tariffs and the bellicosity of his response, which included the immediate imposition of new 10% tariffs across the board and the threat to increase them to 15%, have done nothing to settle investors’ nerves.

Then there’s Trump’s driving down the value of the dollar through his agitation for lower interest rates, among other policies. For overseas investors, a weaker dollar makes U.S. assets more expensive relative to the outside world.

It would be one thing if trade flows and the dollar’s value reflected economic conditions that investors could themselves parse in creating a picture of investment opportunities. That’s not the case just now. “The current uncertainty is entirely man-made (largely by one orange-hued man in particular) but could well continue at least until the US mid-term elections in November,” Sam Burns of Mill Street Research wrote on Dec. 29.

Trump hasn’t been shy about trumpeting U.S. stock market gains as emblems of his policy wisdom. “The stock market has set 53 all-time record highs since the election,” he said in his State of the Union address Tuesday. “Think of that, one year, boosting pensions, 401(k)s and retirement accounts for the millions and the millions of Americans.”

Trump asserted: “Since I took office, the typical 401(k) balance is up by at least $30,000. That’s a lot of money. … Because the stock market has done so well, setting all those records, your 401(k)s are way up.”

Trump’s figure doesn’t conform to findings by retirement professionals such as the 401(k) overseers at Bank of America. They reported that the average account balance grew by only about $13,000 in 2025. I asked the White House for the source of Trump’s claim, but haven’t heard back.

Interpreting stock market returns as snapshots of the economy is a mug’s game. Despite that, at her recent appearance before a House committee, Atty. Gen. Pam Bondi tried to deflect questions about her handling of the Jeffrey Epstein records by crowing about it.

“The Dow is over 50,000 right now, she declared. “Americans’ 401(k)s and retirement savings are booming. That’s what we should be talking about.”

I predicted that the administration would use the Dow industrial average’s break above 50,000 to assert that “the overall economy is firing on all cylinders, thanks to his policies.” The Dow reached that mark on Feb. 6. But Feb. 11, the day of Bondi’s testimony, was the last day the index closed above 50,000. On Thursday, it closed at 49,499.50, or about 1.4% below its Feb. 10 peak close of 50,188.14.

To use a metric suggested by economist Justin Wolfers of the University of Michigan, if you invested $48,488 in the Dow on the day Trump took office last year, when the Dow closed at 48,448 points, you would have had $50,000 on Feb. 6. That’s a gain of about 3.2%. But if you had invested the same amount in the global stock market not including the U.S. (based on the MSCI World ex-USA index), on that same day you would have had nearly $60,000. That’s a gain of nearly 24%.

Broader market indices tell essentially the same story. From Jan. 17, 2025, the last day before Trump’s inauguration, through Thursday’s close, the MSCI US stock index gained a cumulative 16.3%. But the world index minus the U.S. gained nearly 42%.

The gulf between U.S. and non-U.S. performance has continued into the current year. The S&P 500 has gained about 0.74% this year through Wednesday, while the MSCI World ex-USA index has gained about 8.9%. That’s “the best start for a calendar year for global stocks relative to the S&P 500 going back to at least 1996,” Morningstar reports.

It wouldn’t be unusual for the discrepancy between the U.S. and global markets to shrink or even reverse itself over the course of this year.

That’s what happened in 2017, when overseas markets as tracked by MSCI beat the U.S. by more than three percentage points, and 2022, when global markets lost money but U.S. markets underperformed the rest of the world by more than five percentage points.

Economic conditions change, and often the stock markets march to their own drummers. The one thing less likely to change is that Trump is set to remain president until Jan. 20, 2029. Make your investment bets accordingly.