The fiscal year 2020 budget submitted by President Donald Trump includes a couple of points sure to ignite debate in the budgetary process. The proposal includes imposing additional work requirements on Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program recipients. The Hagstrom Report says the proposed budget also imposes work requirements on recipients of Medicare and federal housing benefits. The work requirements will likely reduce Medicare program participation.

That is part of the administration’s plan to reduce federal mandatory and discretionary spending. A senior administration official says that these are the biggest proposed cuts made by any president in history. However, Congress generally doesn’t follow presidential budgets when they write appropriation bills. The budget proposal is typically seen more as a statement of the administration’s priorities.

The proposed budget will cut back on farm subsidies paid out to farmers in the highest income brackets. It would also reduce the average premium crop insurance subsidy from 62 percent to 48 percent. It also limits commodity, conservation, and crop insurance subsidies to producers that have an adjusted gross income of $500,000 or less.

USDA export numbers compiled by the U.S. Meat Export Federation show U.S. beef exports in 2018 topped both volume and value records that were set in 2017. Pork export volume came up just shy of the 2017 record and the value also fell one percent. Strong demand in South Korea, Japan, Taiwan, and the Asian region helped drive beef exports seven percent higher in 2018, coming in at 1.35 million metric tons. Export value climbed to $8.33 billion, 15 percent higher than in 2017.

“There may have been no greater success story than U.S. beef exports to Korea,” says Dan Halstrom, USMEF CEO. “Less than a decade removed from the street protests opposing the reopening of the market, Koreans now consume more U.S. beef per capita than any international destination.” Korea drove half the $1 billion surge in beef exports. Exports to Japan climbed seven percent in volume and 10 percent in value.

However, Halstrom says that the U.S. position as the number one beef supplier in Japan is tenuous because of the widening tariff rate gap between America and its main competitors. 2018 pork exports totaled 2.44 million metric tons, .5 percent below the 2017 record. Pork value dipped one percent to $6.39 billion. Retaliatory tariffs in place because of U.S. tariffs on steel and aluminum hurt pork exports in the second half of 2018.

Two separate government agencies will come together to regulate the new market of lab-grown meat. The Washington Examiner says the Food and Drug Administration and the USDA Food Safety and Inspection Service will share regulation of the products. Scientists will create products by multiplying animal cells to mimic traditional chicken, pork, beef, and fish. The products will have to be approved by both agencies before they’ll be allowed in stores.

Under the new regulatory agreement, the FDA oversees cell collection, cell banks, and cell growth. FSIS will step in after that to oversee food production and how it’s labeled. The Trump Administration had to hold several meetings to talk about how the emerging market and its products should be regulated. They don’t fit neatly under the jurisdiction of either agency.

In a statement from the FDA, the agency says, “Collaboration between the USDA and FDA will allow us to draw upon the unique expertise of each agency in addressing the many technical and regulatory considerations that arise with the development of animal-cell cultured food products for human consumption.” The traditional meat industry was concerned about the impact the new products would have on their industry and lobbied the Trump Administration to have the cultured foods be regulated by both agencies.

The Congressional Research Service is looking into whether or not President Trump can legally withdraw from the North American Free Trade Agreement on his own. Politico says it’s a question the trade world would like an answer to sooner rather than later. Can the president withdraw without Congressional support? Politico says the answer is unclear.

Congresses’ research arm says, if you look solely at international law, it looks like the Trump Administration would be able to act on its own. However, it’s quite likely that the president would have problems based on domestic law. It’s difficult to say how a court case would get resolved if affected companies pursued litigation. Trump has threatened to withdraw from the original NAFTA agreement as a way to put pressure on Congress to pass the U.S.-Mexico-Canada agreement.

Administration aides have told Politico that there are no immediate plans to back out of the existing deal. One factor that might increase the possibility of legal action is if Congress signals disapproval of any attempt to withdraw from NAFTA. In the past, the Supreme Court typically says presidential power to act unilaterally is at its weakest when the White House takes action that Congress doesn’t agree with.

Politico says the Trump Administration is taking an unusual approach, for this administration, in trying to talk lawmakers into supporting the U.S.-Mexico-Canada trade deal. They’re following a “traditional playbook.” White House officials have dozens of meetings with rank-and-file lawmakers as they try to “charm” Democrats into getting behind the trade agreement.

The administration wants a vote on the trade deal by this summer. However, there are still large numbers of Democrats who say no to the deal unless several substantial changes get made. There’s also the specter of Trump’s steel and aluminum tariffs hanging over the discussions. Tomato growers in Texas and Florida are pushing against each other over a six-year-old tomato deal with Mexico.

The Commerce Department wants to scrap the deal, which the Florida growers are in favor of while Texas is pushing back against the idea. Florida growers want to relaunch an anti-dumping investigation against Mexico. The dispute could complicate the administration’s efforts to get the new trade deal ratified. Dozens of border state trade groups wrote a letter to Commerce Secretary Wilbur Ross, asking him to negotiate a deal that addresses grower concerns but to not withdraw from the six-year-old pact.

Delegates to the National Farmers Union convention in Washington reaffirmed the organization’s commitment to addressing climate change. However, they’ve said no to a proposal asking the organization to get involved with the Green New Deal supported in Congress. A DTN report says the Farmers Union has long supported addressing climate change.

The most Democratic-leaning of the nation’s farm organizations feels that carbon sequestration and other similar farm practices offer opportunities for the nation’s farmers. The NFU has long been the most supportive of the major farm groups when it comes to addressing climate change. The Farmers Union came out with a resolution stating that “The Green New Deal is a bold proposal to transform our society, but as it stands, the resolution appeals to an urban voter base and does not properly take into account the essential contributions of rural America.”

Frank Mitloehner, an animal science professor at the University of California-Davis, says, “People from urban areas are leading the discussion. They’re telling farmers what sustainable is, and they’re telling farmers how to farm despite never having had farm dirt on their hands.”