By JOSH FUNK, Associated Press Business Writer

OMAHA, Neb. (AP) — Rancher Brett Kenzy hopes President Donald Trump’s tariffs will make imported beef expensive enough that Americans will turn to cattle raised at home for all their hamburgers and steaks.

That might raise prices enough to give Kenzy and others the incentive they need to expand their herds for the first time in decades. But doing that would take at least two years, and it’s not clear if Trump’s tariffs on most of the world besides China are high enough to make that worth the investment.

“If we can just fix a few key things, I think that we can reinvigorate rural America,” said the South Dakota rancher. “Just get these imports under control, get them to a level that we can understand and plan on, and then let us fill the void. And I think that the American rancher can do that.”

Trump has enjoyed overwhelming support in rural parts of the country in his three campaigns for president. Still, the uncertainty created by the trade war he instigated has given some ranchers pause as they’ve watched cattle prices drop after the tariffs were announced.

“I just don’t like manipulated markets because somebody is going to artificially win and somebody is going to artificially lose,” said Bryant Kagay, who raises and feeds cattle as well as growing crops on his farm in northwest Missouri. “And how do I know it’s not going to be me?”

Ranchers cautiously optimistic

Ranchers hope the tariffs might create an incentive for them to raise more cattle, and the National Cattlemen trade group is salivating at the idea of selling more cuts of meat overseas if the tariffs lead to new trade deals with countries that don’t buy much U.S. beef.

Related Articles

Core Democratic groups are preparing to be targeted by the Trump administration

Letters: We need St. Paul councilors with business sense

US moves ahead on tariffs with investigations into computer chips, pharmaceuticals

A Palestinian activist expecting a US citizenship interview is arrested instead by ICE in Vermont

Judge in Vermont considers whether he has jurisdiction of detained Tufts University student’s case

That’s a big if — Trump has said dozens of countries have reached out to negotiate new trade deals, but no agreements have been reached.

About the only thing clear so far is that American ranchers will likely lose one of their biggest markets as a result of the 125% tariffs imposed by China in response to Trump. They sold $1.6 billion worth of beef there last year, and since many ranchers also raise crops, they are reeling about the prospect of losing China as a market for those, too.

Most beef exports to China are already on hold because the certificates from that country that meat plants need weren’t renewed at most beef plants in the United States after they expired in March. So the U.S. Meat Export Federation said few American beef plants are even eligible to ship to China right now.

Kenzy hopes Trump’s tariffs represent a lasting change in U.S. trade policy. So far the tariffs have been changing so much since they were announced that ranchers can’t count on them yet.

“If this is just a short-term negotiating tactic — Tarzan beating his chest — then I would say that that would be an epic failure because that will not result in reshoring industry,” Kenzy said.

The problem, as Kenzy and other members of the Ranchers-Cattlemen Action Legal Fund United Stockgrowers of America see it, is that the more than 4 billion pounds of beef that’s imported every year — along with cattle brought in from other countries to be slaughtered here — keeps cattle prices lower.

Much of what is imported is lean beef trimmings that meatpackers mix with fattier beef produced here in the United States to produce the varieties of ground beef that domestic consumers want. Even though Trump placed most of his proposed tariffs on hold, the across-the-board 10% tariffs he imposed for 90 days will make imported beef more expensive, so consumers are likely to see the price of hamburger increase.

Even if ranchers decided to raise more cattle to help replace those imports, it would take at least two years to breed and raise them. That means meat processors will likely pay higher prices for that imported beef for at least that long. And the ongoing drought across most of the West will continue to make it difficult to raise more cattle.

Plus, if American ranchers want to produce more of that lean beef they might have to change the way they raise their animals because the entire system in this country is designed to produce fattier meat to get deliciously marbled and tender steaks that help ranchers make the most money. Kansas State University agricultural economist Glynn Tonsor said most of the lean beef America buys comes from Australia and New Zealand where cattle are fed grass — not grain — their entire lives, and that’s an entirely different system.

US ranchers hope tariffs level playing field but uncertainty remains

The number of cattle being raised across the country has been shrinking for decades to reach the current historic lows of around 28 million, but Texas A&M livestock economist David Anderson said even though that’s less than two-thirds of the number of cattle there were in 1975, more beef — some 26.7 billion pounds — was actually produced last year. That’s because the American beef industry has become so good at feeding cattle and breeding larger animals that now every head of cattle produces more meat. Anderson said that means there’s less incentive to expand the herd.

Casey Maher, owner of the Maher Angus Ranch in Morristown, S.D., said he hopes Trump’s tariffs will level the playing field for American beef producers.

“We’re optimistic and we’re going to stay the course,” said Maher, a third-generation rancher. “We’ve gone through tough times, and if it’s for the greater good, I think ranchers are all in.”

Not all of them, though. Kagay, the Missouri farmer, said uncertainty causes problems of its own.

Bryant Kagay holds a tool in the workshop of the farm he co-owns with his father and grandfather in Amity, Missouri, Friday, April 4, 2025. (AP Photo/Nick Ingram)

“I’m not real confident about these tariffs,” he said. “Will they stick around? Will they not stick around? Can I count on them? What exactly is going to happen? You know, nobody knows. So it makes it hard for me to plan my business. I just don’t like it.”

That uncertainty could extend well beyond farming and ranching if it creates new fears about the economy as a whole. If consumers buy less beef because they are worried about their grocery budgets, it won’t matter how much beef is imported.

“You’re less likely to pay up for a ribeye steak if you’re worried about losing your job,” Tonsor said.

Associated Press writer Sarah Raza contributed to this report from Sioux Falls, South Dakota.

Advocates and deliveristas say a lot of work remains to be done for their sector, including addressing tipping, lockouts, and transparent scheduling and wage structures.

Delivery workers during a recent protest demanding a fix to New York City’s delivery minimum wage. (Justice for App Workers)

After a long journey from Guinea, Mamadou (a pseudonym) arrived in New York City in November 2023, initially living in shelters in Manhattan, Brooklyn and the Bronx. For the last eight months, he has been employed as a delivery worker. 

After he applied for asylum, Mamadou’s 180-day wait time started ticking for employment authorization. As soon as he received it, along with his Social Security number, he began renting a bicycle to work delivering food for local restaurants.

Because of its low barriers to entry, delivery work has attracted many recent migrants and asylum seekers, following in the footsteps of other immigrant, working-class people. For African migrants without permanent homes like Mamadou, it also serves as a way out of the city’s often crowded homeless shelters, where migrants have faced 30- and 60-day time limits in recent years. 

“It’s not easy to get a job in New York City — you have to have experience,” said Mamadou, who asked that his real name not be used for fear of retaliation from delivery apps and of jeopardizing his asylum application. “They’re going to ask you about a lot of things to get a job.”

While waiting for his work permit to arrive, Mamadou, who speaks French, took English classes.

”But you cannot mix two things,” he said, referring to the difficulty of working and studying at the same time. It was hard for him to know his schedule week to week. “You cannot control what you’re going to get, so I quit school.”

In 2024, the city enacted a new wage formula to ensure that app-based restaurant delivery workers would earn a minimum wage of $17.96 an hour. But delivery app platforms have fiercely resisted the changes — by suing and losing, along with other tactics, workers and advocates say. 

These other measures include only offering first-come, first-served work schedules each week, shifting tips to the very last step of the transaction, changing how wages are calculated, deactivating workers’ accounts without notice, and restricting workers’ access to delivery applications.

On April 1, the city’s new minimum wage for app-based restaurant delivery workers went into effect. The latest increase to $21.44 reflects the final phase-in of the city’s plan to raise delivery worker wages, along with an additional inflation adjustment of 7.41 percent.

While the increase is one of several successful battles to improve working conditions and wages for delivery drivers in the wake of the pandemic, workers and advocates say they’re still fighting for transparency on both wages and “lockouts,” in which companies prevent accessing the app during certain times, something workers suspect is intended to reduce the number of hours they have to be paid minimum wage for.

While Mamadou has not had any problems with lockouts, he says that many of his friends have had problems with the apps. 

And he has already had issues with the apps’ new policy, adopted after the minimum wage was approved, to move tipping to the end of the order process. “They’re not giving the customer the opportunity to tip us [right away]”, he said, explaining that delivery workers can’t see how much they can earn in tips until they’ve already made the delivery. This puts pressure on workers to take orders as they come in. “If you don’t take it, they [the apps] might dislike you,” he added.

Last week, for example, he earned a mere $5 for a delivery between 14th Street in the East Village and 44th Street in Times Square.

On Wednesday, members of the Justice For App Workers coalition and app workers held a caravan protest in Elmhurst to demand a change in New York City’s minimum wage law and an elimination of lockouts for delivery workers.

Nicki Morris, a spokesperson for Justice for App Workers, said the lockouts have essentially wiped out any benefit of the wage increase, because not being able to access the app is the same as not being able to work.

Advocates and delivery workers said apps have limited when workers can sign on, forcing the more than 60,000 delivery workers to compete and accept orders that come in when they can log into the platforms.

Uber, DashDoor and Relay, major app companies operating in New York City, did not respond to requests for comment by press time.

Gabriel Montero, director of development and communications at the Worker’s Justice Project, an advocacy group for low-wage workers at the helm of the app-based delivery worker organization Los Deliveristas Unidos, said that app companies have “created new and opaque scheduling and pay structures that intensify competition, blocking workers from [freely] reserving shifts.”

While delivery workers have seen an increase under the new minimum wage rules, as part of the new rules, app companies can now choose to pay workers based on individual hours worked or on the cumulative hours by all delivery workers. According to the city’s Department of Consumer and Worker Protection, the agency enforcing minimum wage laws, both methods are “designed so that workers, on average, are paid at or above the minimum pay rate when calculated over all hours of work.”

However, app companies are not required to tell workers in advance whether their pay will be calculated using the standard method or the alternative method, leaving workers uncertain about how much they will be paid.

Some of the advocates’ demands have been heard by the City Council, which has introduced Intro 859, requiring app companies to disclose the method that they “anticipate using to calculate food delivery worker pay at the outset of each pay period,” according to the bill’s summary.

Other bills, like Intro 738, would present tipping prompts before or at the same time an online order is placed. 

For Mamadou, every dollar has counted as he’s worked to afford housing. “Right now, I’m going to make some money to get out of the shelter and have a place to live,” he remembered saying to himself more than four months ago. Since then, he and several other friends have managed to rent an apartment with the financial help of a New Yorker who offered him odd jobs and the savings of his friends.

Delivering food, along with other odd jobs, has allowed him to survive so far, Mamadou said.

“Sometimes you cannot eat well, but you have to pay your rent,” he said. ”There’s no way [around it]. You can control your stomach, yes. But you cannot control the owner of your house.” 

Advocates and delivery workers like Mamadou say much work remains to be done in their sector, including addressing the minimum wage and tips, lockouts, and transparent scheduling, as well as pay structures that would allow deliveristas to regain some control over their lives and health.

“We’re underpaid, we’re underestimated,” Mamadou said. “The increase is helpful, but it cannot solve the problem.”

To reach the reporter behind this story, contact daniel@citylimits.org. 

Want to republish this story? Find City Limits’ reprint policy here.

The post City’s Delivery Workers Still Fighting for Reforms, Despite New Minimum Wage appeared first on City Limits.

By JENNIFER PELTZ and MICHAEL R. SISAK, Associated Press

NEW YORK (AP) — As jury selection started on Tuesday in Harvey Weinstein’s New York City rape retrial, some prospective jurors made clear they couldn’t be fair in judging the one-time Hollywood mogul-turned-#MeToo pariah.

Mark Axelowitz, an actor who plays a Manhattan prosecutor in the new Robert De Niro film “The Alto Knights,” was one of more than a dozen candidates who raised a hand when the judge asked if anyone felt they couldn’t be impartial.

“I don’t like the guy, he is a really bad guy,” Axelowitz told a reporter after being dismissed from consideration.

Another dismissed prospective juror disqualified herself because she had previously been sexually assaulted. Yet another said, “I don’t see how anyone can be impartial.”

Former film producer Harvey Weinstein appears in court for his retrial at Manhattan Criminal Court in New York, Tuesday, April 15, 2025. (Steven Hirsch/New York Post via AP, Pool)

Weinstein is being tried again after New York’s highest court, the Court of Appeals, last year overturned his 2020 conviction and 23-year prison sentence and ordered a new trial, finding that improper rulings and prejudicial testimony tainted the original one.

That ruling gave Weinstein a second chance to fight the charges, with his new trial playing out in a different atmosphere than his first trial, which was held in the middle of a global reckoning over sexual misconduct.

Weinstein, 73, who has pleaded not guilty and denies that he raped or sexually assaulted anyone, is older and more frail, in and out of the hospital regularly for a variety of health problems. He’s now far removed from when he was among the most powerful men in the movie business.

Even if he is acquitted, he will not walk free.

Weinstein is also appealing a 2022 rape conviction in Los Angeles. His 16-year prison sentence in that case still stands, though his lawyers said he needs to be resentenced because the since-vacated New York conviction factored into how his punishment was calculated.

Weinstein is being retried on two charges from his original trial. He is accused of raping an aspiring actor in a Manhattan hotel room in 2013 and performing a criminal sex act by forcing oral sex on a movie and TV production assistant in 2006.

He is also charged with one count of criminal sex act based on an allegation from a woman who was not a part of the original trial. That woman, who has asked that she not be named publicly, alleges that Weinstein forced oral sex on her at a Manhattan hotel.

Speaking outside the courthouse on Tuesday, that accuser’s lawyer, Lindsay Goldbrum, said one thing would become “crystal clear” from her client’s upcoming testimony at the trial: “This was not consensual. This was sexual assault with force.”

“I am confident that there will be justice in this case,” Goldbrum told reporters, adding that her client was resolved to testify. “It is important for women everywhere and for people who are victims of sexual assault everywhere that others pave the way and show their dedication in this fight against sexual assault.”

Judge Curtis Farber has set aside at least four days for jury selection and expects opening statements and the start of testimony next week.

The judge, prosecution and defense will work to whittle a massive pool of potential jurors down to the 18 people — 12 jurors and six alternates — needed for the trial by asking questions and seeking to eliminate anyone they feel can’t judge the case fairly.

Selecting a jury will involve bringing in around 80 potential jurors at a time for two basic screening questions. The first group was brought in late Tuesday morning after defense lawyers and prosecutors ironed out some last-minute loose ends.

Along with the question about impartiality, the judge is also asking each group of prospective jurors for a show of hands from anyone who has work, family or other obligations that will prevent them from serving.

Anyone who raises a hand to either question will be sent home, Farber has said.

Those who remain will be seated in or near the jury box, 24 at a time, and asked additional questions about things like their education, work, and whether anyone they know is in law enforcement or has been a victim of a crime.

Prosecutors and Weinstein’s lawyers will each have 40 minutes to question each subset of 24 potential jurors. Often, lawyers will use that time to follow up on things raised in earlier questioning or zero in on concerns about potential biases.

Either side can ask the judge to dismiss a potential juror. If too many jurors are dismissed, another group will be brought in and the process will repeat until the full jury is seated.

By NICHOLAS RICCARDI

President Donald Trump on Monday reiterated that he’d like to send U.S. citizens who commit violent crimes to prison in El Salvador, telling that country’s president, Nayib Bukele, that he’d “have to build five more places” to hold the potential new arrivals.

Trump’s administration has already deported immigrants to El Salvador’s notorious mega-prison CECOT, known for its harsh conditions. The president has also said his administration is trying to find “legal” ways to ship U.S. citizens there, too.

Trump on Monday insisted these would just be “violent people,” implying they would be those already convicted of crimes in the United States, though he’s also floated it as a punishment for those who attack Tesla dealerships to protest his administration and its patron, billionaire Elon Musk. But it would likely be a violation of the U.S. Constitution for his administration to send any native-born citizen forcibly into an overseas prison. Indeed, it would likely even violate a provision of a law Trump himself signed during his first term.

Here’s a look at the notion of sending U.S. citizens to prison in a foreign country, why it’s likely not legal and some possible legal loopholes.

If it’s legal to do to immigrants, why not citizens?

Immigrants can be deported from the United States, while citizens cannot. Deportation is covered by immigration law, which does not apply to U.S. citizens. Part of being a citizen means you cannot be forcibly sent to another country.

Immigrants can be removed, and that’s what’s been happening in El Salvador. The country is taking both its own citizens that the United States is sending as well as those from Venezuela and potentially other countries that will not take their own citizens back from the U.S. The Venezuelans sent there last month had no opportunity to respond to evidence against them or appear before a judge.

That’s the deal the Trump administration signed with Bukele. The U.S. has sent people to El Salvador, Costa Rica, Panama and elsewhere even when they are not citizens of those countries. But, under international agreements, people cannot be sent to countries where they are likely to be persecuted or tortured.

Prisoners look out from their cell at the Terrorist Confinement Center in Tecoluca, El Salvador, Friday, April 4, 2025, during a tour by the Costa Rica Justice and Peace minister. (AP Photo/Salvador Melendez)

Why does the Trump administration want to send people to El Salvador?

Bukele calls himself “the world’s coolest dictator” and has cracked down on human rights during his administration. He’s also turned El Salvador from one of the world’s most violent countries into a fairly safe one. Trump has embraced that example, including during the Oval Office visit Monday.

Sending immigrants from countries like Venezuela to El Salvador sends a message to would-be migrants elsewhere about the risks of trying to make it to — or stay in — the United States.

Related Articles

Core Democratic groups are preparing to be targeted by the Trump administration

Joe Biden will speak about Social Security in his return to the national stage

US moves ahead on tariffs with investigations into computer chips, pharmaceuticals

A Palestinian activist expecting a US citizenship interview is arrested instead by ICE in Vermont

Judge in Vermont considers whether he has jurisdiction of detained Tufts University student’s case

There’s a second benefit to the administration: People sent to El Salvador are outside the jurisdiction of United States courts. Judges, the administration argues, can’t order someone sent to El Salvador to be released or shipped back to the U.S. because the U.S. government no longer has control of them.

It’s a potential legal loophole that led Supreme Court Justice Sonia Sotomayor to issue a grim warning in her opinion in a 9-0 U.S. Supreme Court finding that the administration could not fly alleged Venezuelan gang members to El Salvador with no court hearing, even after Trump invoked an 18th century law last used during World War II to claim wartime powers.

“The implication of the Government’s position is that not only noncitizens but also United States citizens could be taken off the streets, forced onto planes, and confined to foreign prisons with no opportunity for redress,” Sotomayor warned. She was writing to dissent from the majority taking the case from the federal judge who had initially barred the administration from any deportations and had ordered planes en route to El Salvador turned around — an order the administration apparently ignored.

A second case highlights the risks of sending people to El Salvador. The administration admits it sent a Maryland man, Kilmar Abrego Garcia, erroneously to El Salvador. A Salvadoran immigrant, Abrego Garcia, who has not been charged with a crime, had an order against deportation but was shipped to CECOT anyway. On Monday Bukele and Trump scoffed at the idea of sending him back, even though the U.S. Supreme Court ordered the administration to “facilitate” his return.

President Donald Trump, left, greets El Salvador’s President Nayib Bukele as Bukele arrives at the White House, Monday, April 14, 2025, in Washington. (AP Photo/Manuel Balce Ceneta)

Wait, so can they send citizens to El Salvador?

Nothing like this has ever been contemplated in U.S. history, but it seems unlikely. There are other legal barriers besides the fact that you cannot deport U.S. citizens. The United States does have extradition treaties with several countries where it will send a citizen accused of a crime in that country to face trial there. That appears to be the only existing way a U.S. citizen can be forcibly removed from the country under current law.

The Constitution also prohibits “cruel and unusual punishment,” and one of CECOT’s selling points is that conditions there are far harsher than in prisons in the U.S. As noted above, federal courts have no jurisdiction there, and that may deprive people sent there of the constitutional guarantee of due process of law.

“It is illegal to expatriate U.S. citizens for a crime,” wrote Lauren-Brooke Eisen of the Brennan Center for Social Justice in New York.

She noted that even if the administration tries to transfer federal prisoners there, arguing they’re already incarcerated, it could run afoul of the First Step Act that Trump himself championed and signed in 2018. The provision requires that the government try to house federal inmates as close to their homes as possible so their families can visit them — and indeed transfer anyone housed farther than 500 miles from their home to a closer facility.

One last loophole?

There is one potential loophole that the administration could use to send a small group of citizens to El Salvador. They can try to strip the citizenship of people who earned it after immigrating to the United States.

People who were made U.S. citizens after birth can lose that status for a handful of offenses, like funding terrorist organizations or lying on naturalization forms. They would then revert to green card holders, and would be potentially eligible for deportation if convicted of other, serious crimes.

That’s a small, but real, pool of people. Perhaps the most significant thing about it is that it would require loss of citizenship first. In other words, there’s still likely no legal way to force a citizen out of the country. But a few could end up in legal jeopardy anyway.