Originally appeared in meatingplace
It’s election season, which means it is a good time to throw an extra dash of skepticism on things you see in the news or on social media. One group in particular that’s targeting farmers and ranchers deserves scrutiny: Farm Action.
Farm Action, through its political arm, has rolled out a political campaign this fall called the Rural Independence Initiative. It hits on a lot of populist notes, claiming to represent the little producer against “Big Ag” and support economic independence for farmers.
But like a lot of things, if it sounds too good to be true, it probably is.
Tax filings show that far from representing small farmers, Farm Action represents animal-rights and environmental interests. Here’s the breakdown.
According to public tax records, Farm Action Fund–the group’s political arm–received 74% of its money in 2024 from just one source, a fund tied to California billionaire Dustin Moskovitz. Moskovitz is a major funder of animal rights groups, having put more than $400 million into such groups since 2016.
Farm Action’s two cofounders come from the animal rights movement. Before founding Farm Action, they worked for the Humane Society of the United States (now Humane World).
Farm Action, meanwhile, gets most of its money from a handful of foundations and dark-money groups. According to tax records, Farm Action received $125,000 from the Schmidt Family Foundation, an environmentalist foundation tied to billionaire former Google CEO Eric Schmidt. Farm Action also received $50,000 from a foundation run by a board member for an animal rights group. And it received six figures from dark money groups that act as middlemen for donors who want to be anonymous.
So why is Farm Action interested in recruiting smaller-scale producers? To drive a wedge in agriculture that serves their political interests.
The animal rights movement knows that 99% of consumers aren’t vegan. So rather than have anti-meat messages directly, they want to use small-scale farmers with alternative production systems to front for them, while they stay in the background.
They want to use these producers to drive up the cost of animal protein production and support laws that restrict the sale of animal protein, like California Prop 12.
Small-scale farmers are already free to sell their products. But Farm Action is offering a seductive but dangerous proposition: passing laws that ban their competition.
Some producers with alternative systems might think that these laws don’t affect them. But what all producers need to realize is this: The animal rights movement is morally opposed to raising animals on farms, period. It doesn’t matter the production system.
Consider: Tax filings reveal a board member for Farm Action Fund is the head of global marketing for a company that makes plant-based fake egg and lab-grown chicken. The company was founded by animal activists. The ultimate goal of this fake/lab-grown protein industry is to replace livestock farming entirely.
Beyond that, Farm Action appears to have a “woke” agenda for agriculture. A few years ago, the group pushed legislation that would have paid reparations to Black farmers and provided race-based handouts. It also endorsed DEI programs, backing the “creation of racial equity, diversity, and inclusion priorities in 4-H and other federal agricultural discovery programs.” Its co-founder also publicly backed Black Lives Matter protests.
Farm Action calls itself nonpartisan and says it’s a “movement” to “help farmers.” But again, those are just words.
Farm Action’s funding–and actions–tell a different story.
Jack Hubbard is the executive director at the Center for the Environment and Welfare