Iowa Ag Secretary Candidates Chris Jones and Mike Naig On Iowa Press

Posted on October 5, 2026 by Trish Nelson

Cyanobacteria

Video first, followed by the transcript.  Link to the episode at Iowa Press here

If you don’t have time to watch this episode of Iowa Press or read the transcript right now, if you take a second and scroll down the page over the transcript, you will notice several large paragraphs, mostly replies by Naig, an experienced, glib politician. Naig took all the time he reasonably could, dragging out his responses even when they were asked to provide a quick answer. 

Chris Jones is not a politician, but a scientist. He used the time he needed to answer the questions, and seemed perfectly comfortable letting Naig show his colors to the voters of Iowa.

Here are a couple of highlights:

Opening question put to current Secretary of Agriculture Mike Naig who has held the office for eight years, since 2018. 

Donnelle Eller:   Water quality has become a big issue in Iowa politics. Both candidates for governor are bringing it up on the campaign trail. Mike Naig, we’ll start with you. How bad is it?

Mike Naig:  How bad is what?

Eller:  The water.

Chris Jones:

“The condition of our water here is the biggest failure of our state government in the history of our state.”

Take a listen or read the transcript below.

Transcript:

[HENDERSON] The Iowa Department of Agriculture and Land Stewardship works with farmers, protects the food supply, animal health and consumers. It also deals with soil and water conservation. Our two guests today are running to be Iowa Secretary of Agriculture for the next four years. Let me introduce the candidates. Mike Naig is a Republican and the current Secretary of Agriculture running for a third term. He was previously the department’s deputy secretary. And Chris Jones is the Democratic nominee. He’s a research scientist working most of his career on water quality and environmental issues. He is the author of a book titled The Swine Republic. Gentlemen, welcome to the Iowa Press table.

Thank you.

Thanks, Kay.

[HENDERSON] Joining our conversation is Donnelle Eller, who covers agriculture, the environment and energy for the Des Moines Register. Thanks.

[DONNELLE ELLER] Water quality has become a big issue in Iowa politics. Both candidates for governor are bringing it up on the campaign trail. Mike Naig, we’ll start with you. How bad is it?

[MIKE NAIG] How bad is what?

[ELLER] The water.

[NAIG] Well, look, first of all, great to be back. And this is a very important topic. And we’re going to obviously dig into that. It’s been a hot topic on the campaign trail, hearing a lot about it. And certainly, what I’m trying to talk through is what are we doing? What are we doing at the Iowa Department of Ag and Land Stewardship? It’s our mission to work with the USDA, with the local soil and water conservation districts, with partners all across the state to improve water quality in the state of Iowa, to implement the nutrient reduction strategy in this state. So, we have to have a long view of these things, and we’re making progress, is what I would say. But we need to be very clear eyed about this. We’ve got a big job ahead of us. And if we want to make sure that Iowans have access to safe drinking water, ultimately we’ve got to do two things work upstream to prevent pollutants from getting into streams to begin with, but also make sure that we’ve got modern drinking water treatment capacity in big cities and small all across the state. So, I’m proud of the work that we’ve done. We’ve set records for conservation adoption in the last five years, and we’re poised for the ability to go further, take the next steps, scale up and accelerate our progress across the state. It’s a daunting task, to be sure, but we’re working all across the state of Iowa and again, setting records.

[ELLER] Chris Jones you said this race between the two of you is a referendum on water quality. Can you explain why?

[CHRIS JONES] Well, we have a million people here in Iowa drinking water with nitrate associated with the whole suite of cancers. We’ve got 7000 private wells that have been contaminated with nitrate above the 10 milligram per liter threshold. We have thousands more contaminated with E coli. We have our state park beaches, which are unusable all summer long. We have people that have lost faith in their drinking water, that are spending thousands of dollars for our own systems. And so, this is central to the quality of life here. And I think the condition of our water here is the biggest failure of our state government in the history of the state, our failure to mitigate the quality.

[ELLER] Rob Sand, the Democrat running for governor, has repeatedly said he’ll be working with the Republican legislature. Chris Jones if you’re elected, how would you convince Republicans to adopt the water quality initiatives that you support.?

[JONES] So firstly, we see the Republican candidate for governor saying a lot of the same things I say about water quality and how we need to break up agribusiness, and we need to rethink agriculture here. And so, I’m happy to see people on the Republican side agree with me on that. I don’t think it’s a foregone conclusion that the Republicans are going to control the legislature, but nonetheless, if that’s the case, I think Republicans represent many of our rural areas, right, and rural people really bear the brunt of a lot of this pollution. Des Moines, we see, has the capacity to cope with this problem. It may not be fair that they have to cope with it, but Des Moines area residents and the water utility here does have the capacity to cope with it. If you live in a small town of 2000 people and your well gets contaminated with nitrate and you need a new well or a new treatment plant, that’s a burden. You know, that’s a big burden. And so, I think Republican legislators, legislators are, you know, dialed into this and want to do what’s best for their constituents. I know that they see this as a quality of life issue. They know that rural residents are leaving the state. Our young people are leaving small towns. Our rural counties are being depopulated. I think there’s Republicans in the legislature that are aware of all these things.

[ELLER] Mike Naig, if you’re reelected, what new water quality initiatives would you recommend to?

[NAIG] Well, first of all, I’m glad you bring up the governor candidates. And I think you’ve got a situation where both candidates are Republican and the Democratic candidate for governor are talking about the same things that I am, which is to provide incentives to farmers and work with farmers, not the mandates and taxes that my opponent is talking about. There is an outlier in this race, and it’s my opponent, not the two Democratic or not the two candidates for governor. But what have we done? This past session is a good example of something that we can accomplish on a bipartisan basis is when we go to the legislature and say, we need to work again upstream to do more of what’s working, cover crops, buffer strips, nutrient management, building wetlands focus on 22 counties upstream from the Des Moines area, but also to and I agree, by the way, that there’s a need for treatment infrastructure modernization all across the state. It’s not just in the Des Moines area. I hear this all the time when I’m traveling across the state, to expect ratepayers to be able to pay a loan for the type of treatment that they need wastewater, stormwater, drinking water. The legislature doubled grants to small communities, created a low interest revolving loan fund. Exactly for this purpose. And we need to continue to look at how do we bring federal funds in to be able to address this need across the state? It’s not just nitrates that we’re treating water for, by the way. And I think we have to be we have to be real about that. So, what are we going to — we are positioned to expand cover crops. Just this year, doubled cover crop enrollment in cost share this year versus last year, 1.4 million acres. That shows momentum. It shows that when we have resources, we can expand our working lands, cattle and conservation program, converting row crop acres that are underperforming or losing nutrients or soil have erosive soil conditions. Getting that converted to pasture or hay ground, trying to deal with this beef herd that needs to expand in the country, but also trying to bring environmental outcomes as well. Those are the types of things that we need to be looking at and expanding.

[HENDERSON] It’s been 16 years since voters approved what was called the Iowa Water and Land Legacy Constitutional Amendment. It created a trust fund. The trust fund is empty because it would have required the sales tax to be raised. Zach Lahn, the GOP candidate for governor, has said he wants the trust fund filled so the state can provide, in his words, real incentives to farmers in the most affected areas to adopt practices, to put a dent in the cancer crisis. Mike Naig, is that the right approach?

[NAIG] Well, look, we’re ready for additional funding and I’ll be asking for that next legislative session if reelected. You know, we need to take cattle and conservation statewide. We showed what we can do when we really stretch the legs on the on the cover crop, a cost share program this year. What I will say is we’re ready for more funding, and we’ve built these programs in a way that we can now scale up in a real way across the state. As it relates specifically to the sales tax, I think too this is something that’s going to have to be really looked at by the legislature too. You’re going to raise a tax sales tax on Iowans. If we’re going to do that, there has to be, I believe, a real conversation around what is the corresponding tax relief that comes as some sort of a package related to that. But on the issue of water quality funding and conservation funding, we’re ready for the next step. We can actually take more funding now.

[HENDERSON] Chris Jones your view on what everybody sort of refers to as IWILL?

[JONES] Well, Republicans tried to kill. I will completely in the last legislative session. And so that tells you where the other party is on this. Yes, we need IWILL to be funded. We need the original formula that the taxpayers voted on in 2010 to be honored by our state government. And so, yes, I’m in favor of funding IWIll.

[ELLER] Ethanol is obviously important to Iowa. We use about half or more, depending on your point of view of the crop. And many farmers see it as critical to a critical market for their crop. And it’s a way to help consumers lower gas prices. Chris Jones, you’re not a fan of ethanol, can you explain why?

[JONES] Well, what has ethanol cost us? Right. It’s entrenched. This corn soy system, it makes it difficult to diversify the system. It’s directly responsible for a lot of this water pollution. And, you know, I would suggest that it just has not been good for Iowans in general. It has provided a security blanket for farmers. There is no doubt about that. And that’s why we need to talk about how we strategize going forward. We know this, that the demand for liquid fuels in the United States is going to decline, along with that, the demand for ethanol is going to decline. I think we’re negligent here in Iowa government that we don’t talk about what comes after ethanol. Some years, we have 8 to 9 million acres of corn that are going to the ethanol plant. That’s one fourth of our state. One fourth of our state’s area is being committed to this economic activity. I think we need to talk about now. How do we strategize going forward from ethanol? It’s a dead end economically. It’s a dead end environmentally. It’s a dead end politically. We need to have this discussion now.

[ELLER] Mike, I’m going to let you respond to that. But I also want you to talk about what happens if the Summit pipeline isn’t built. What impact does that have to the ethanol industry?

[NAIG] Well, first of all, there’s definitely a difference here between us. I don’t think that’s a surprise to anybody. I mean, we’ve both been pretty clear, I think on this and look I see ethanol as an upside. This is value added agriculture. We’re spinning off important feed ingredients for livestock producers. Corn oil, where you’re creating more value. Look, and by the way, we know that this is a multibillion dollar, $5 billion contribution to our state’s economy, thousands of jobs affecting real prices, corn prices for farmers, this has been a very good thing for the state of Iowa. And opportunity for more, by the way, fuel prices being what they are, doesn’t that just drive home the idea that more domestic energy production, more renewable energy production is a good thing for us in all forms ethanol, renewable diesel, biodiesel. These are things that can be very positive. Wouldn’t it be great if, years ago we had been able to access and have year round nationwide access to E15 that consumers could be using all across the country? I mean, we can look for expanded markets around the world. There’s more domestic usage to be had. So that’s what we should be focused on as it relates to the pipeline. What I continue to hear from the ethanol plants is that there is an upside for carbon sequestration and lowering the carbon intensity of ethanol. That’s one way to do it. Iowans have been very clear about that. They don’t want the pipeline built using eminent domain. And we need to look at strengthening private property rights when it comes to the use of eminent domain. But I will say this you’ve got expansion being announced or being talked about in the ethanol industry, and it’s not happening in Iowa. So, there is there’s a consequence, I think, for where we are right now.

[ELLER] Can summit Mike Naig build the pipeline without eminent domain?

[NAIG] I think they need to. That’s I believe that’s how it’s going to get done if it’s going to get done.

[ELLER] Chris Jones, the legislature has tried to resolve this issue, do you believe it can?

[JONES] No, I don’t think it can. And I think the pipeline is a bad idea. I think the carbon credits are a bad idea. This is not a climate change solution. The CO2 is going to be used to scavenge recalcitrant oil out of these oil wells. How is that a climate change solution? I just don’t see ethanol as being an environmentally or economically viable solution going forward. Yes, it has provided the security blanket for Iowa. Yes, it has created some jobs. But look at the land. We’ve committed to this. Dave Swenson at Iowa State said the ethanol industry has created about 7000 jobs. How does that — how do you reconcile that with, you know, 8 or 9 million acres committed to this economic activity? It’s the worst jobs program in history if you look at the natural resources that we’ve had to commit to this.

[HENDERSON] Candidates, we’re about halfway through. We have a lot more topics to cover. Some quick answers to the next few questions, if you will. Mike Naig, as you know, Iowa farmers do not pay taxes on diesel that’s used on the farm. Should that be extended to all Iowa consumers?

[NAIG] Well, I’d say the situation we’re in right now, it’s hurting and we ought to pursue. We have to look at every option that’s on the table that would actually lower the price. And so, I think, you know, if there’s some looking at off farm diesel, off road diesel being used on road that’s got a federal enforcement issue there, I think in that situation, it might be better to just look at some sort of a tax holiday. But look, people are hurting. You got diesel that’s going into combines and tractors across, well, not right now because it’s so wet, but will be hopefully soon. It’s basically two times what it was last year. That’s a real bite on profitability. And we ought to be looking at anything we can to lower the price.

[HENDERSON] Chris Jones?

[JONES] Well, I think a better idea here is to develop a farming system that’s less reliant on fossil fuels. And so that’s the way to go. Talking about the tax on diesel fuel is just scratching at the surface. Let’s devise some policy here that saves money, saves farmers some real money by developing a system that’s less reliant on fossil fuels in the first place.

[HENDERSON] Chris Jones, what’s your view of the president’s decision to import beef to lower the price of ground beef for consumers?

[JONES] It’s one of the stupidest ideas I’ve ever heard of. I think we don’t even know what this meat is. It hasn’t been inspected. It’s hurt Iowa farmers. It’s hurt Iowa beef producers. Let’s have some strategic discussion here about the beef industry here. How can we rebuild our beef industry here in Iowa? Let’s make Iowa the grass fed state. We could do that. We could brand our meat. We could brand our meat with effective policy. We wouldn’t have to worry about this meat coming in from South America. We wouldn’t need it. Let’s do that here.

[HENDERSON] Mike Naig?

[NAIG] It’s a bad idea. Look, we need to — the signal that needs to be sent to grow the beef herd in this country, which is the smallest since the 1950s, is that there’s going to be profitability when investments are made to save back those heifers and build that herd. I think also that there’s a lot of folks that think, well, the herd is going to expand out west. Drought has really put a halt to that. If the beef is going to expand in this country, it’s going to happen in places east of the Missouri, right? If it’s going to happen in Iowa, then we need to look at creating more pasture. That’s how and then creating certainty in the marketplace that allows somebody to make the investment over a couple of years that it takes to see the payback on that. That’s why we the cattle and conservation, that’s why we’re trying to work for more pasture ground, get access to CRP for haying and grazing, convert some of those row crop acres to pasture. Investing in meat locker expansion and capacity across the state are two Iowa program giving a market access to more folks to sell direct to consumer. And you know we appreciate what USDA is doing on looking at competition within the packing industry and also investing in those midsize or a little bit larger processing facilities as well. That’s the answer, not importing more beef candidates.

[HENDERSON] Candidates, we’ll start with you, Mike Naig. Should and could the state sue the companies in the ag sector that people like Zach Lahn and Bernie Sanders referred to as monopolies?

[NAIG] Well, could the state of Iowa. Well, sure. But let’s take a bigger view here. I mean, we’ve got anti-competitive laws and antitrust laws in this country that should be enforced. And DOJ should be engaged in this at the national level. You know, we should always want to be vigilant when it comes to competition in frankly, in every aspect of our lives, not just as it relates to agriculture. So, state of Iowa, if there’s a role to play, we should play it. DOJ certainly should be, Congress, all the oversight is something that we should, we should never be afraid to be looking at those things.

[HENDERSON] Chris Jones.

[JONES] Well, we’ve lost control of our agriculture here in Iowa to the federal government and corporate agribusiness. And so, I’m very much in favor of antitrust that would break some of this up. I’m for that. I think farmers feel pigeonholed by a corporate agribusiness. And yes, I think we need some action there, some antitrust action, aggressive antitrust action.

[ELLER] Let’s talk about the Iowa economy, Iowa ag economy. A lot of farms are struggling right now. And some predict that this state could face another farm crisis. Is there something the state should do to address the current challenges and the long run impacts to rural Iowa? Mike Naig, what are your thoughts?

[NAIG] Well, 100%. We’re in a — profitability is very much under pressure in the farm community and has been now for several years. And it’s not just one thing. It’s not just that prices aren’t where we want them to be, it’s that input prices remain stubbornly high. And we know inflation is affecting that as well. That’s not something that’s happened overnight. We’ve got key supply chains that are disrupted because of the war. And in the Middle East, with Iran fertilizer and fuel. And in the middle of that, you’ve got uncertainty around policy. We still don’t have a farm bill. After waiting how many years now for this and year round nationwide access to E15 trade policy that’s been disrupted. All of that contributes to pressure. And it’s not one thing that’s going to solve that. But again, we need to be a state that’s advocating and we need to be working at the federal level to ensure that we are bringing certainty where we can, that policy is supporting market. And then we are looking on the input side of how do we how do we look at these key supply chains and competition within those? And where does where do critically important things like fertilizer and fuel come from in the world? And should more of that happen in the United States?

[ELLER] Chris Jones, what are your thoughts?

[JONES] Well, the question is here for me, has corn and soy and ethanol brought prosperity to rural Iowa? It has not. Every indication is that it has not. In many parts of rural Iowa, it’s almost destroyed the society there. And so, we need to focus on developing a different type of production system here that’s less reliant on inputs when you can only do two things, which is corn and soy. Guess what? The people that send you, sell you the inputs have you over a barrel. And so, we need to develop a system that’s more diverse, that’s less reliant on the inputs from corporate agriculture, a more diverse assemblage of crops that’s going to be more resilient to climate, more resilient to market forces, more resilient to politics. That’s what we need. That’s what I intend to do.

[HENDERSON] Let’s talk about food for human consumption. Consumers say they want to know where their food comes from, and they also say they want cheap food, which is also mass produced. If it’s cheaper, how do you address those desires? Chris Jones?

[JONES] Well, we hear Iowa agriculture claim all the time that we feed the world and we don’t even feed Iowa. And so, let’s focus on that. What do we need to do to recruit farmers to grow edible foods, to raise livestock in a resilient and humane way that can provide food to Iowans? We need to get these types of farmers access to land. I think we can do that with policy. We see right now we have very little money committed to this activity in Iowa. We need policy that incentivizes these activities. People in our cities desperately, desperately want food that’s grown by Iowa farmers. We see we have the second highest cancer rate. One of the first things people think of to avoid their risk of cancer is to eat fresh and locally grown food that’s not awash in pesticides and preservatives, to get it here from California and Mexico and Chile and Texas and Florida, we can do this. This is within our means to do this. I intend to develop policies. I’m going to ask for $10 million a year from the legislature to do this to get local foods in the mouths of Iowans and in the mouths of our schoolchildren here in Iowa.

[HENDERSON] Mike Naig your thoughts on the topic?

[NAIG] Well, first of all, pork and beef and turkey and eggs and dairy are absolutely food, as is soy protein. I mean, to say that those are not, is not true.

[JONES] I didn’t say that.

[NAIG] Well, but I mean, the whole idea that, hey, we don’t we don’t feed people. We do. We absolutely do. Now is — do we have, you know, everything that you find in the grocery store grown in quantity in the state of Iowa? No. And I don’t think we’re going to given the climate and that sort of thing. But look, this is something I’m very proud of, the work that we’ve done now related to Choose Iowa, which is the branded program that we launched three years ago for Iowa grown, Iowa made, Iowa raised to do exactly this. Not enough funding for that program, by the way. But there was none before our creation of it. And we have been able to secure millions of dollars for value added ag grants on farm, dairy processing and labor saving technology on small dairy farms, investing in meat locker capacity, local food for schools. We launched that program last year. It is small. $200,000 is not enough, but we’re at least doing what we can to connect the dots, providing grants to 125 schools this year to buy local. And, you know, food, working with food banks, with food hubs to Iowa is a platform that we can use to diversify our agriculture, create more of that direct to consumer opportunity, and also create good, great experiences for Iowans as well to get out and have some fun and do some business. This is a platform that we can use, and we need to also be securing, advocating for and securing additional funding for the federal level specialty crop block grants, local food purchasing. I mean, there’s lots of opportunity there that we need to advocate for.

[ELLER] This is a big issue, and we’re getting short on time. But Iowa State says that 40% of Iowa farmland is owned by people 75 years and older. Mike Naig should the legislature take action to prevent hedge funds and other investors from buying Iowa farmland?

[NAIG] We shouldn’t make any bones about it. We want more Iowa ground being owned by Iowans, and we’d like more farm ground being owned by owned by farmers. We have prohibition. There’s been lots of talk about foreign ownership. That’s one we have actually, have one of the gold standards in this country for a prohibition. Robert Ray signed that into law. This is not something recent. We gave the Attorney General additional power to subpoena and look into that, to ensure that we don’t have hidden foreign ownership and LLCs. Look, those are things we need to think about. We need to look at what kind of corporate ownership of farm ground or investor ownership of farm ground is happening. And I think it’s absolutely right that we should create incentives for more of that to be Iowa owned.

[HENDERSON] Last word to you, Chris.

[JONES] We need Iowa farmers to own their own ground, plain and simple. And so, we don’t need hedge funds owning that ground. We don’t need people sitting in air conditioned offices in Minneapolis and Chicago and Kansas City owning that ground. We need policy to get the land ownership patterns that we want. And so, I do think we need some different policy. We need to incentivize people, absentee landowners that currently own that land, We need some policy that’s going to incentivize them to divest. This is a way to get land more available to young farmers. And so, I think it is a travesty that so much of Iowa land is not owned by our farmers.

[HENDERSON] Gentlemen, thanks for being here at Iowa Press. We’re out of time.

[JONES] Thanks for having me.

[HENDERSON] You bet. This is the first in a series of conversations on Iowa Press with candidates for statewide executive offices. So, stay tuned. Next week, we begin our series of Iowa Press Debates. First up candidates for the U.S. Senate. That will be on Wednesday, October 7th. The following night, October 8th, will have candidates for Iowa’s second Congressional District. Then fourth Congressional District candidates on October 14th. Then we’ll wrap up Iowa Press Debates with the candidates for governor on October 21st. All of those debates are live at 7 p.m. on the air and online. For everyone here at Iowa PBS, thanks for watching today.

 

Posted in Blog for Iowa | Tagged , , , | Leave a comment

Physicians For AI Safety

Posted on October 4, 2026 by Paul Deaton
Photo by Thirdman on Pexels.com

At the Make America Healthy Again summit on Sept. 29, 2026, Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. stated that AI offers a second opinion “much better informed than any doctor in the country” and claimed an OpenAI executive suggested doctors would commit malpractice by diagnosing without consulting AI first. Physicians are pushing back and Physicians for AI Safety was quickly organized, and with six prominent physician organizations made this statement:

“Preventing severe harm from AI should be a global priority, alongside pandemics and nuclear war.”

The statement is making its way around medical circles for additional signatures. Dr. Richard Armitage, a co=founder of the group made this case to a physician I know.

I’m a British GP and one of the three founders of Physicians for AI Safety, a new initiative that brings together physicians who see advanced artificial intelligence as a threat to health. We launched in September 2026. Ira Helfand is among our signatories.  

Given your public stance on the threats from advanced AI, I’m writing to ask whether you would consider signing our statement.

The statement is one sentence: “Preventing severe harm from AI should be a global priority, alongside pandemics and nuclear war.” It is deliberately brief so that it can be signed without endorsing any particular forecast or policy. Its purpose is to show that a large number of physicians see advanced AI as a threat to public health that must be addressed now, and to make it easier for others in the profession to say so. It is not a statement against all forms of AI, and many of us use it in our work to great benefit.

The timing follows the Australian Prime Minister’s disclosure on 24 September that an OpenAI agent had bypassed access controls on a government health data portal, taken non-public files, and written files to the server, with its developer noticing only weeks later. Health infrastructure is now within reach of AI systems that their developers cannot reliably control. The wider risks, from biological weapons to loss of human control, are set out on our website.

Your name would carry weight with colleagues who are unsure whether this is their concern. If you are willing, signing takes a minute at physiciansforaisafety.org. The statement is open to physicians, residents, and medical students in any country, and we would be grateful if you would pass it to colleagues who might wish to sign.

We are of course happy to answer any questions you might have.

With best wishes, Dr Richard Armitage, Co-Founder, Physicians for AI Safety

Read more about the group at this website: https://physicianscharter.ai/

Posted in Trump Resistence | Tagged , , | Leave a comment

Protecting Democracy And Fighting Authoritarianism

Posted on October 4, 2026 by Paul Deaton

U.S. Senator Elissa Slotkin (D-MI) delivered remarks at Carnegie Endowment for International Peace on her takeaways from a recent trip to Hungary and Poland, and how we can use lessons from those countries to protect democracy here in the United States. This follows a speech last year to the Brookings Institution, where Slotkin warned of President Trump’s authoritarian playbook.

Posted in Trump Resistence | Tagged , , , | Leave a comment

Three Things About Iowa Politics This Fall

Posted on October 4, 2026 by Paul Deaton
Rural Polling Place

Three things are on my mind now and for the remaining 31 days until the general election.

In case you missed it, last Wednesday was the closing day of the fund raising quarter. I had to tell Mary Peltola, Sherrod Brown, Eugene Vindman, John Ossoff, and James Talarico no. What money I had to donate went to Josh Turek this week.

Democratic victories continue to be in the air, yet Iowa can be cruel that way: teasing us with leading polls and then snatching the actual vote from us. We must keep doing what we can to encourage friends and neighbors to vote, all the way until election day.

By now, everyone heard the news about a possible steel mill in Lee County, Iowa. Mesabi Metallics Company seeks to create a vertically integrated process to take specialized iron ore pellets from their mine in the Minnesota Mesabi Range to a new steel mill where they will make products that haven’t been well defined at this point. If true, the company plans to spend some $15 billion in the start up. They have had failed projects in Kentucky and Arkansas thus far.

Two things about the proposal.

KWQC in the Quad Cities investigated in Lee County and reported there is no evidence that a large steel mill is coming. No permit requests, no land purchases, no financing. The president’s statement, “They’ve already started building,” was a lie. The announcement was an attempt at a Hail Mary pass to save Iowa Republicans in the midterms. Republicans like Judd Lawler in House District 91 are already using this in their midterm campaigns.

As Ed Tibbetts wrote on his substack, comparing the announcement, with its inherent uncertainties, to the Republican record:

There is no uncertainty, however, about the dismal economic record Iowa Republicans have produced over the past 10 years. Their policies have failed working families, job seekers and college-educated young people, who find their prospects here so meager they grab their degrees and leave Iowa as fast as they can.

Will Iowans be duped by this announcement and vote Republican? If they have been paying attention, I doubt it. That’s the problem in 2026 politics. People aren’t always paying attention.

The third thing is artificial intelligence. On Wednesday, the Cedar Rapids Gazette reported, “Linn County Planning and Zoning Commission decided this week to seek more information before deciding whether to recommend the county approve or deny Alliant Energy’s application to build a natural gas power plant northwest of Fairfax near the Linn Benton Road.” The plant would provide 720 megawatts of backup electricity generation to meet growing regional energy demand. One of the potential customers is expected to be regional data centers which serve artificial intelligence.

Artificial intelligence has too many moving parts for me to say much meaningful about it. It is a fact that more than one billion people globally use a stand-alone AI chatbot at least monthly. That’s not to mention AI embedded in search engines, software, and emails, which would bring the tally to nearly 1.5 billion. The horse is out of the barn on its use, and likely on its regulation, despite statements by Anthropic, OpenAI and others to the contrary.

Using a chatbot can be free and easy, and it provides pragmatic and useful solutions to problems. For example, I was having problems with the mower deck on my yard tractor. I explained my experience to the chatbot, and it provided a step-by-step troubleshooting procedure. After following it, I was soon back to mowing the lawn.

Pragmatic solutions to common problems are pitted against the problems about which we read in the news. For example, in late September, independent security researchers discovered that autonomous AI agents had gone rogue, probing and hacking several government websites. There should clearly be consequences for that. I expect the AI discussion will be another distraction from the midterm elections.

For now, we must maintain eyes on the prize and do everything possible to change our government through the best way available to regular folk like us: help Democratic candidates win the midterms.

Posted in Iowa politics | Tagged , , , , , , | Leave a comment

People’s Tribunal on Gaza

Posted on October 3, 2026 by Paul Deaton

Community members in Des Moines and Iowa City are invited to gather on Oct. 10, for a public watch event accompanying the People’s Tribunal on Government Complicity in Gaza, a local and national effort to examine the role of the U.S. government in the ongoing genocide in Palestine. The livestream begins at noon and continues until 7 p.m.

The Iowa City watch event will feature local speaker from Iowans For Palestine, Yassir Abuddagga who will welcome everyone and speak briefly about the current situation in Palestine/Gaza. Gathering begins at 11:30 a.m. in the meeting room of the Great Plains Action Society at 810 Maiden Lane, Iowa City.

The Des Moines watch party also gathers at 11:30 a.m. at the Friends Meeting House, 4211 Grand Ave., Des Moines, and is hosted by the Des Moines Branch of WILPF US (Women’s International League for Peace and Freedom US).

Individuals can livestream this event at home at www.youtube.com/WILPFustoday.

Everyone is invited to join this timely and relevant community convening to learn more about how our tax dollars fund the genocide.

Community members will view the proceedings at the in-person Tribunal originating in Seattle WA, held real time, and including international law experts and attorneys. Attendees will hear testimony and evidence, and participate in collective discussion about the responsibility of U.S. government officials and state actors for their support and complicity in Israel’s assault on the Palestinian people.

The People’s Tribunal format is modeled after a grand jury hearing. Rather than relying on government institutions to investigate themselves, the tribunal places evidence before a jury of community members and asks whether there is sufficient evidence of complicity to warrant the indictment of government officials and state actors.

The tribunal is organized by Women’s International League for Peace and Freedom US, the American Friends Service Committee, and Veterans For Peace. The tribunal seeks to deepen public understanding through facts, testimony, and dialogue while creating a space for communities to confront the question of accountability for U.S. government complicity in Gaza.

If you have questions, contact Iowa WILPF member Marybeth Gardam at Theburrow68@gmail.com.

On Saturday, Sept. 26, WILPF US was awarded the US Peace Foundation’s 2026 national Peace Prize.

Posted in Peace | Tagged , , , | Leave a comment

Keeping For-Profit Corporate Prisons Out Of Iowa

Posted on October 2, 2026 by Trish Nelson

Prairie Dog

From the Fall 2026 edition of The Prairie Progressive, Iowa’s oldest progressive newsletter. The PP is  funded entirely by reader subscription, available in hard copy for $15/yr.  Send check to PP, Box 1945, Iowa City 52244. Click here for archived issues

The heated public debate over a new jail in Johnson County has overlooked one player all Iowans should be worried about: the for-profit corporate prison industry.

With privatized prisons already located in more than half of the United States, including Illinois and Indiana, the prison industrial complex is eager to expand to additional states in the Midwest. Funding from Trump’s ICE initiatives has companies like TheGEO Group and CoreCivic licking their chops, hungry to convert warehouses and shuttered buildings into jails and prisons.

According to the website of the University of Essex, CoreCivic and The GEO Group were major contributors to Trump’s first presidential campaign. In his second term, Trump reversed President Biden’s 2021 executive order which did not renew federal private prison contracts. Pam Bondi was a lobbyist for a private prison company before her
appointment as Attorney General.

As of 2023, 90% of undocumented immigrants were housed in for-profit private prisons.

These private companies have the money and clout to lobby legislators for laws that lead to
increased incarceration. They have already wheedled Iowa’s Republican lawmakers into
introducing and passing mandatory minimum sentences, strict immigration enforcement, and “three strikes” laws.

Fighting the private prison industry requires a unified front. The jail issue could unite a divided community over an issue we should all agree on—keeping for-profit jails out of Iowa.

A divided community is exactly what the prison industry thrives on.

If the Johnson County Jail referendum fails, the county will still have an aging jail, still have overcrowding, still have safety issues, and still have legal obligations, with no clear plan. Voters favoring a new jail and voters opposed must become partners in a coordinated effort to stop private correctional facilities from filling the void.

If the referendum passes, both sides will need to stay engaged, ensuring the new jail is safe, humane, and publicly operated. This referendum matters, but what happens after is equally important.

What is currently a heated debate between neighbors may well become a fight between the
community and the corporations itching to jump in.

******

Currently Iowa has no private correctional facilities. According to The Sentencing Project, here are the states that do:

• Alabama
• Alaska
• Arizona
• Colorado
• Florida
• Georgia
• Hawaii
• Idaho
• Illinois
• Indiana
• Kentucky
• Mississippi
• Montana
• New Jersey
• New Mexico
• North Carolina
• North Dakota
• Ohio
• Oklahoma
• Pennsylvania
• South Carolina
• South Dakota
• Tennessee
• Texas
• Vermont
• Virginia
• Wyoming

— Prairie Dog

Posted in Blog for Iowa | Tagged , , , | 6 Comments

Statement By Iowans Against The Death Penalty

Posted on October 1, 2026 by Trish Nelson

October 1, 2026

Iowans Against the Death Penalty Statement on the Failed Execution of Christa Pike in Tennessee

DES MOINES, Iowa — Iowans Against the Death Penalty (IADP) is deeply troubled by Tennessee’s failed attempt to execute Christa Pike this week. Witnesses reported that Ms. Pike was still conscious, with an audible heartbeat, after two doses of pentobarbital. She was then taken to an outside medical facility for life-saving care. Governor Bill Lee has since paused Tennessee’s remaining executions this year while the state’s protocols are reviewed.

We grieve for Colleen Slemmer, whose life was taken in 1995, and for her family and friends, who have carried that loss for more than three decades. Taking Ms. Slemmer’s life was a grave wrong. But the scene in a Tennessee execution chamber this week does not bring justice to her family. Instead, it brings to the fore the very reasons to oppose state executions.

The first is that the death penalty does not deter crime. Decades of research have failed to show that executions make communities safer. States without the death penalty have consistently had murder rates at or below those of states that use it. Iowa abolished capital punishment in 1965, and Iowans have been no less safe for it.

Also, the death penalty endorses the very violence it claims to condemn. When a state deliberately kills a restrained, defenseless person, it teaches that killing is an acceptable answer to harm. A government cannot credibly say that taking a human life is wrong while setting aside a room, a staff, and a supply of drugs to do exactly that. Iowa should continue to model a better answer: holding people accountable while refusing to make killing the work of the state.

Finally, the death penalty is cruel and unusual. Both the Eighth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution and Article I, Section 17 of the Iowa Constitution forbid cruel and unusual punishment. A lethal injection that leaves someone conscious through two doses of a lethal drug fits any ordinary meaning of “cruel.”

Those reasons are why IADP urges Iowa lawmakers to take note. Bills to bring back the death penalty in Iowa have been introduced in recent sessions. Although none has passed both chambers, what happened in Tennessee shows exactly what Iowa would be signing up for if those bills advanced.

IADP urges members of the Iowa General Assembly and Governor’s office to reject any future attempt to reinstate capital punishment. We also call on Tennessee and every state that still carries out executions to end this practice for good.

Iowa chose a different path more than 60 years ago. We should be proud of that choice and never go back.

Contact: Marty Ryan, President, Iowans Against the Death Penalty —info@iowansagainstthedeathpenalty.org

Posted in Blog for Iowa | Tagged | Leave a comment

Update On Iowa

Posted on October 1, 2026 by Trish Nelson

Info. here for all of the Iowa races from Simon Rosenberg, founder of Hopium Chronicles  and Josh Turek, Democrat running against Ashley Hinson for the U.S. Senate.

The Hopium community has already raised $170,000 for Josh and over $600,000 for the Iowa Democratic party and all of Hopium’s endorsed candidates in Iowa this cycle.

Follow Simon and The Hopium Chronicles on Substack.

A couple of highlights from Simon’s most recent conversation with Josh Turek about the state of the races in Iowa.

Simon:

” I think they are spending more per voter in Iowa than any of the other battleground states… They’re making a stand here. They have decided that, looking at the map, that they cannot lose here and they are going to do whatever it takes to beat Josh, to beat Rob Sand, to beat our three candidates.

And so they’re going to throw everything they can at you. But also we could end up winning your seat, the governorship, three house races, make significant gains at the state legislative level. This is a year of opportunity for Democrats.

And so, it’s really important folks, as you make your final decisions of where you’re going to give today, that you give here.”

Josh:

“They are trying to buy off this election. They just announced today another $20 million getting dumped into my race. I believe they’re up to $85 million on TV alone. That’s not even including mail or digital. But Iowans are ready for change. And so with your help out there and folks’ help, we’re going to be able to do something really special come November. If we win this race in Iowa, we will not only make a generational change in the state of Iowa, we will be able to change the country. And that should be something that’s very, very exciting for everyone out there.”

There are a few ways to support Josh and Iowa candidates today:

  1. Contribute to him directly – here.
  2. Contribute to the Hopium Winning Iowa fund which splits contributions evenly between Turek for Senate, Rob Sand for Governor, and the Iowa Democratic Party and its great Chair, Rita Hart.
  3. Volunteer.  Josh Turek   Rob Sand   Christina Bohannan IA-01   Sarah Trone-Garriott IA-03   Lindsay James IA-02   Dave Dawson IA-04

More info. about Iowa here. Take a listen. 12 minutes. 

Posted in Blog for Iowa | Tagged , , | Leave a comment

It’s All About The Media Sound Bytes

Posted on September 30, 2026 by Trish Nelson

She’s spot on. And everyone should be aware.

Posted in Blog for Iowa | Leave a comment

The Word Is Getting Out About CAFOs In Iowa

Posted on September 30, 2026 by Trish Nelson

This article originally appeared in Sentient 

We Asked 1,000 Iowans About Factory Farming. Here’s What We Learned.

The professor of political science remembers the neighbors emptying the waste from thousands of birds onto fields. She and her brother would break out into rashes.

An Independent voters organization co-founder and farm owner remembers his dad, who raised beef cattle and hogs, calling the smell of manure “the smell of money.” It was the smell that never seemed to wash off, off his hands, off his clothes.

For so many Iowans, factory farms color formative memories. And then there are the Iowans living this now: the polluted private wells and the cancer crisis, the neighbors and the workers, those fighting and campaigning for clean water and the companies themselves, and the people who make their living working for them.

The team at Sentient wanted to know what the state with the most factory farms and agricultural waste really thinks about the large-scale, industrial animal agriculture operations that have come to define Iowa. Factory farms, as they are often informally called, are more formally known and defined by regulators as Concentrated Animal Feeding Operations, or CAFOs. They are characterized by the large number of animals they house, as well as the pollution that shapes surrounding landscapes and water and air quality. These large systems also indirectly drive some of the row crop agriculture that can have other negative effects on the environment. And as the only nonprofit newsroom focused directly on factory farming, we wanted to see where people stand on these deeply entrenched systems.

So we asked them.

With the help of a company called SimpleOpinions, Sentient this spring conducted a 10-minute online survey of a representative sample of 1,051 Iowans about their opinions on factory farming and its role in shaping Iowa’s environment, economy and other facets of life.

Their answers show commonalities between people across the state, and help illustrate why water quality is becoming a defining issue of the upcoming election this fall. But they’re also riddled with contradictions. Some answers fall along expected party lines or demographic qualities like gender, geographic location and education level, but others don’t. Many Iowans aren’t sure how they feel — some because they’re of two minds about the issue, others because they’re ignorant of it.

So to make sense of the results, we sent the survey to professors, community groups and politicians running for and currently holding office at the state and federal level. Our outreach to state and federal leaders included contacting the press teams of gubernatorial candidates Rob Sand (Democrat; currently serving as Iowa state auditor) and Zach Lahn (Republican), Senate candidates Josh Turek (Democrat; currently serving in the Iowa House of Representatives) and Ashley Hinson (Republican; currently serving in the U.S. House of Representatives), House of Representatives candidates Christina Bohannan (Democrat) and Mariannette Miller-Meeks (incumbent Republican), candidates for secretary of agriculture Chris Jones (Democrat) and Mike Naig (incumbent Republican) and Iowa state Senator Catelin Drey (Democrat), whom Sentient has profiled. Lahn and Jones responded to requests for comment.

What we found is an Iowa at a unique moment in its history, with more of its citizens becoming aware of the vast power and environmental toll exerted by factory farming, and yet with many still unaware of or disengaged from that fact. It’s a moment that experts described as ripe for education and change.

Karen Kedrowski is the political scientist who would break out in hives as a kid, a professor at Iowa State University. She tells Sentient that the longer she lives in Iowa, the more she thinks it’s like the rest of the country. What is unique, she believes, is how attached Iowans can be to their homesteading origins.

“I think we are bound together by that sort of mythology, even though that is not really reflective of the reality of Iowa today,” she says.

The Key Findings

The average Iowan in the survey rated Concentrated Animal Feeding Operations, or CAFOs, just below a five out of 10 (46.5 out of 100) when asked to give an overall favorability score. Forty-three percent of respondents scored them exactly five out of 10, meaning they were neither in favor of nor against them. A smaller number of respondents, in about equal numbers, have more polarized views in favor or against CAFOs.

A chart measuring Iowans thoughts on CAFOs

Republican or Independent voters (and those who identify as Republican-leaning) generally show more support for CAFOs than Democrats, according to the survey. But the differences along party lines are only moderate. The average Republican voter gave CAFOs a favorability score of 51.1 out of 100, compared to 48.2 for Independents and 41.3 for Democrats. Gender is also important: women tend to show less support for CAFOs than men (other genders took part in numbers too small for the results to be reliable), and this effect remains after adjusting for the fact that women are more likely to vote Democrat.

David Peterson, a political science professor at Iowa State University, tells Sentient he had expected Iowans to view agriculture more positively, since it’s so important to the state. But the survey also revealed that many have seen, felt and smelt the consequences of CAFOs, with over half of those surveyed (53%) experiencing a drinking water advisory at some point. People who have experienced at least one negative effect from a CAFO — namely a drinking water advisory, contamination of a private well, livestock odors or manure runoff on their property — are, on the whole, less likely to support them.

Peterson has noticed that “concerns with water are really breaking through in this state,” which he says isn’t necessarily a partisan issue. Other public opinion research has substantiated that, with a Johns Hopkins Center for a Livable Future-commissioned survey of 800 Iowans from July of this year finding more than half each of Republicans, Independents and Democrats were concerned about water quality. In the Sentient survey, those who lacked confidence in the safety of their drinking water were also far less supportive of CAFOs.

A chart measuring the relationship between trust in drinking water and CAFOs

These worries reflect wider health concerns about factory farming in Iowa. It has the second highest cancer rate of all US states — a fact that may be linked to agricultural pollution from pesticides or nitrates from manure runoff. Although it can be difficult to prove definitively that specific environmental factors cause cancer, evidence does suggest an association between nitrates in drinking water and the development of certain cancers.

The environmental and health impacts of factory farms touch everyone, says Katie Roth, co-founder of All Votes Count Iowa, an organization that advocates for Independent voters.

“I think universally, some of these issues that people are concerned about are really across the board. I don’t think they’re identified with Republicans or Democrats. I mean, who can not be concerned about rising cancer rates?” Roth tells Sentient.

A chart measuring the problems Iowans dealt with because of CAFOs

Another strong predictor for support of CAFOs was the respondent’s degree of trust in regulators like the Iowa Department of Natural Resources. Those who trust the DNR ‘a lot’ to enforce environmental regulations on livestock facilities were far more likely to support CAFOs (62.2 favorability out of 100) than those who do not trust it at all (24.1).

What’s Behind Iowa’s “Neutral” Stance on Factory Farms?

While many Iowans appear to be on the fence about CAFOs — with 43% of people being exactly five out of 10 in favor — behind that are some mixed feelings.

There’s a recognition of the real environmental hazards, but also of the jobs and economic benefits they can bring in a state so centered on agriculture. Over a quarter of survey respondents (29%) said they believed industrial livestock operations were essential to Iowa’s economy and a further 22% said they were somewhat beneficial. People living within 10 miles of CAFOs were somewhat more positive about their economic role. And people with someone in their household working in the agriculture or food processing industries were more supportive of CAFOs in general, although only slightly (51.1 average favorability compared to 46.5 across all respondents).

A chart measuring Iowans thoughts on CAFOs as they relate to the state's economy

“I think affordability is top of mind for a lot of people, and so the idea of cutting the ag[ricultural] economy down in some way makes people reluctant to push for changes,” Michael Schmidt, general counsel for the Iowa Environmental Council, tells Sentient. Schmidt doesn’t see a productive farm economy and a healthy environment as mutually exclusive. “But how we get there is not something that I think most people think about very much. And so then it’s kind of this split that they have in their mind.”

That split comes through in some respondents’ answers to open-ended questions about why they gave CAFOs a certain favorability score. “I know the benefits of [them] but I still am unsure of whether [they are] safe or not,” one survey taker wrote on factory farms. “They have benefits for some and provide jobs but diminish air quality,” wrote another.

A spokesperson for Republican gubernatorial candidate Zach Lahn writes to Sentient that “we can have clean water and a prosperous farm economy at the same time,” and that cleaning up Iowa’s water quality issues is one of the main reasons Lahn got into the race.

“It’s like looking at a forest that is dry, that’s just waiting for a match,” agricultural and antitrust expert Austin Frerick, author of the book Barons, tells Sentient. “This production model is directly impacting people’s lives in a negative way, and they feel it. At some point, someone’s going to come along and tap into it.”

Why So Many Iowans Just “Don’t Know”

Although many Iowans were ambivalent about CAFOs, plenty of others wrote that they simply didn’t have enough information about them to form an opinion. Those who live closer to CAFOs were, unsurprisingly, more likely to say they knew something about them — and tended to have stronger opinions either for or against. But about half of people overall (49%) considered themselves ‘not knowledgeable’ about CAFOs or had never heard of them.

When somebody responds that they “don’t know” or “aren’t sure” how they feel, data can’t always explain the reasoning behind that, says Andreas Jozwiak, an assistant professor at Grinnell College who studies comparative politics.

“We think in political science a lot about the median voter, and this means that that middle person, that pivotal vote, doesn’t know how they feel about this,” Jozwiak tells Sentient. He thinks that suggests “a lot of potential for political messaging to influence” how Iowans and Midwesterners broadly feel about CAFOs.

Democratic Iowa agriculture secretary candidate Chris Jones says it’s common at campaign events to have to define CAFOs to his audience. He says the system has been in Iowa for so long that many people have forgotten what was there before, what he describes as a smaller patchwork of pastoral animal farms.

“I’m trying to communicate these things effectively, and right now at this point in my life, a political campaign was the best way to do that,” Jones says.

It’s a gap that matches with survey respondents’ dissatisfied views on the media. A majority didn’t think local or national media adequately covers factory farms, with 25% saying local media coverage of nitrate pollution is adequate, and that number dropping to under 17% for national media. This contrasted with other environmental issues like road construction (58% thought local coverage is adequate) or water quality more generally (42%).

“I think that in the public debate about water quality, the people who are concerned about water quality have not drawn a clear line to the massive amount of waste — animal waste — that contributes to water quality issues,” says Kedrowski, noting that factory farms have been lumped into a broader category of agricultural practices. “I think that if they did, then you would begin to see more questioning.”

And not all those living with polluted water know it, either, says Diane Rosenberg, executive director of Iowa community education nonprofit Jefferson County Farmers and Neighbors. She pointed out that while the survey shows 23% of people have experienced private well contamination, which is often caused by manure runoff, only a small fraction of those wells are tested, according to research from the Iowa Environmental Council and Environmental Working Group.

Barb Kalbach, a retired nurse who has fought against CAFOs with the organization Iowa Citizens for Community Improvement, writes to Sentient that the survey matches her lived experience. She sees CAFOS playing a central part in the high nitrate levels in waterways, “but it has flown under most Iowans’ radars,” Kalbach writes.

But she thinks it’s possible that reality is changing, as water quality and cancer become prominent issues in the midterms — which Jozwiak says have potential to “reshuffle and reorient Iowa politics.” Multiple experts expressed a desire to see another round of survey questions, this time in the fall.

It’s a shift Jones has seen through his campaign. “I think there’s an increasing interest for sure. I mean, the fact that I have a chance of winning here tells you a lot,” Jones tells Sentient. “I think there is an awareness of the consequences of livestock production here in Iowa.”

“If people aren’t ready for a change now, I don’t know when it would be,” Jones says.

Posted in Blog for Iowa | Tagged , , , | 1 Comment