Cookies help us run our site more efficiently.

By clicking “Accept”, you agree to the storing of cookies on your device to enhance site navigation, analyze site usage, and assist in our marketing efforts. View our Privacy Policy for more information or to customize your cookie preferences.

How Much Protein Do You Need? Experts Explain

News Feed
Thursday, November 20, 2025

Snack bars, yogurts, ice cream, even bottled water: it seems like food makers have worked out ways to slip extra protein into just about anything as they seek to capitalize on a growing consumer trend.Today, protein-fortified foods and protein supplements form a market worth tens of billions of US dollars, with fitness influencers, as well as some researchers and physicians, promoting high-protein diets as the secret to strength and longevity. Protein is undeniably essential, but how much people really need is still a topic of debate.On the one hand, most official guidelines recommend a minimum of close to one gram of protein per kilogram of body weight per day, or the equivalent of about 250 grams of cooked chicken (which contains around 68 g of protein) for an adult weighing 70 kilograms. On the other hand, a growing narrative in wellness circles encourages people to eat more than double that amount. Many scientists fall somewhere in the middle and take issue with some of the advice circulating online.On supporting science journalismIf you're enjoying this article, consider supporting our award-winning journalism by subscribing. By purchasing a subscription you are helping to ensure the future of impactful stories about the discoveries and ideas shaping our world today.“It’s really frustrating because there isn’t evidence to support the claims that they’re making,” says Katherine Black, an exercise nutritionist at the University of Otago in Dunedin, New Zealand, referring to the super-high protein recommendations often shared on social media. What research does show is that protein needs can vary from person to person and can change throughout a lifetime. And people should think carefully about what they eat to meet those needs. “On social media, it’s like everyone’s worried about protein, putting protein powder into everything,” she says.Health authorities can help to guide people’s dietary choices on the basis of the latest research. The next Dietary Guidelines for Americans, a document that advises on what to eat for maintaining a healthy lifestyle, is due to come out by the end of this year. But its recommendations, which have tended to be broadly influential, might be changing.Calculating protein needsResearchers have been trying to estimate how much protein people need for more than a century. In 1840, chemist Justus von Liebig estimated that the average adult required 120 grams of protein a day, on the basis of a group of German workers’ diets. Later, scientists started to use nitrogen to calculate protein requirements. Protein is the only major dietary component that contains nitrogen. So, by measuring how much of it people consume and the amount they excrete, researchers could estimate how much the body uses.Since the 1940s, this nitrogen-balance method has been used to determine the Recommended Dietary Allowances (RDA), a set of nutrient recommendations developed by the US National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine.The latest such recommendation for protein, from 2005, establishes the RDA for both men and women at 0.8 grams per kilogram of body weight per day, which it states should be enough to meet the needs of 97–98% of healthy people. European and global-health authorities recommend similar or slightly higher levels.Although scientists recognize that RDAs are a useful reference point, many say that people could benefit from a higher amount. “The RDA is not a target; it’s simply the minimum that appears to prevent any detectable deficiency,” says Donald Layman, a researcher focusing on protein requirements at the University of Illinois Urbana–Champaign. Evidence suggests that the optimal range is between 1.2 and 1.6 grams of protein per kilogram of body weight per day, he says.That is especially true for older adults, who often experience muscle loss as they age, as well as for certain athletes and people trying to gain muscle.For example, in an observational study of 2,066 adults aged 70–79, those who reported eating the most protein — about 1.1 gram per kilogram of bodyweight — lost 40% less lean mass during the three years of follow-up than did those who ate the least — around 0.7 grams per kilogram.“For older adults, 1.2 grams per kilogram is just giving them a little extra protection,” says Nicholas Burd, a nutrition and exercise researcher also at the University of Illinois Urbana–Champaign. Furthermore, older people might experience a decline in appetite, which makes it particularly important for them to pay attention to their protein intake. It doesn’t mean that they need to take protein supplements, he says. “It’s all things we can do with just normal incorporation of high-protein foods in our lives.”For healthy adults, increasing protein can boost the effects of resistance exercise, such as weightlifting. A 2017 systematic review found that, among people engaged in this type of training, taking protein supplements enhanced muscle gain and strength. But increasing protein beyond 1.6 grams per kilogram per day provided no further benefit.Meanwhile, some fitness influencers swear by eating 2.2 grams per kilogram of body weight. For most people, that’s simply overkill, says Burd. There’s little harm, other than for people with kidney disease, but Burd adds: “You just create an inefficient system where your body gets very good at wasting food protein.”Some practitioners might recommend higher protein targets to ensure that people get enough, Burd says. But the protein craze has been driven mostly by aggressive marketing of high-protein foods and supplements, he says.“The myth of increased protein needs has seeped into popular imagination, including among health professionals, and has been conveniently reinforced by the food industry,” says Fernanda Marrocos, a researcher specializing in nutrition and food policy at the University of São Paulo in Brazil.Amino-acid goalsNot all proteins are the same, and some researchers argue for a more nuanced recommendation that takes into account the amino acids — the building blocks of proteins — that foods contain. The human body requires 20 amino acids to function properly, including 9 that are considered ‘essential’ because they can be obtained only through food.The balance of those nine in animal-based foods is exactly what other animals need, says Layman. “In plants, the essential amino acids are generally there, but they’re in proportions for the plants.” That means that some plants might be rich in certain amino acids but not in others, so meeting the amino-acid requirements with plant-based products might require a greater variety of foods.He is critical of the way that official dietary guidelines calculate the recommendations for proteins from different sources. For example, according to the US Department of Agriculture, 14 grams of almonds can substitute 28 grams of chicken breast. Research by Layman and his colleagues, which considers the amino-acid balance, suggests that it would actually take more than 115 grams of almonds to substitute 28 grams of chicken.Robert Wolfe, a researcher focusing on muscle metabolism at the University of Arkansas for Medical Sciences in Little Rock, says that dietary guidelines should incorporate the analysis of the quality of the protein, including the amino-acid balance and the degree to which the human body can digest them.One area for future research, Wolfe says, is understanding exactly how food processing affects protein content. Factors such as cooking temperature, for example, can influence how well the body digests protein. This can have implications for certain protein supplements and high-protein bars, which are generally highly processed.Obtaining that information requires going beyond nitrogen-balance studies. Wolfe’s team has used isotope tracers to determine the rate at which food protein is incorporated into new proteins in the body. One study of 56 young adults, for example, concluded that eating animal-based proteins resulted in a greater gain in body protein than did eating the equivalent amount of plant-based protein. But studies in this area are still small and shouldn’t be taken to mean that people must get all their protein from animal sources.The American Heart Association recommends prioritizing plant proteins, given that the saturated fat found in red meats can increase the risk of cardiovascular disease. There’s also a high environmental cost associated with meat production, which is a major source of greenhouse-gas emissions.Burd says that if a diet includes at least a portion of animal-based protein, it will probably provide all the essential amino acids for maintaining good health. And it is possible to achieve the same benefits solely from plant-based proteins. “This is where supplements could be beneficial because it’s more challenging to reach that balance from plants only,” Burd says.Specialists advising the formulation of the upcoming Dietary Guidelines for Americans say that most Americans already eat more than enough proteins. They suggest reducing protein consumption from red meat, chicken and eggs and increasing the consumption of certain vegetables. But it’s unclear what exactly will be in the guidelines: US health secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr has stated in recent months that they will emphasize the need to eat saturated fats from sources including meat and dairy, which goes against recommendations from many medical associations.Protein consumption is adequate in most parts of the world, says Marrocos. A study her team led in Brazil found that, in general, people consume well above the World Health Organization’s protein recommendation, even those with the lowest income. So there’s no need to obsess about hitting an exact protein number.“For most people, as long as they’re eating enough calories and a reasonably varied diet, they’ll get all the protein they need,” says Marrocos.This article is reproduced with permission and was first published on November 12, 2025.

Fitness influencers promote superhigh-protein diets, but studies show there’s only so much the body can use

Snack bars, yogurts, ice cream, even bottled water: it seems like food makers have worked out ways to slip extra protein into just about anything as they seek to capitalize on a growing consumer trend.

Today, protein-fortified foods and protein supplements form a market worth tens of billions of US dollars, with fitness influencers, as well as some researchers and physicians, promoting high-protein diets as the secret to strength and longevity. Protein is undeniably essential, but how much people really need is still a topic of debate.

On the one hand, most official guidelines recommend a minimum of close to one gram of protein per kilogram of body weight per day, or the equivalent of about 250 grams of cooked chicken (which contains around 68 g of protein) for an adult weighing 70 kilograms. On the other hand, a growing narrative in wellness circles encourages people to eat more than double that amount. Many scientists fall somewhere in the middle and take issue with some of the advice circulating online.


On supporting science journalism

If you're enjoying this article, consider supporting our award-winning journalism by subscribing. By purchasing a subscription you are helping to ensure the future of impactful stories about the discoveries and ideas shaping our world today.


“It’s really frustrating because there isn’t evidence to support the claims that they’re making,” says Katherine Black, an exercise nutritionist at the University of Otago in Dunedin, New Zealand, referring to the super-high protein recommendations often shared on social media. What research does show is that protein needs can vary from person to person and can change throughout a lifetime. And people should think carefully about what they eat to meet those needs. “On social media, it’s like everyone’s worried about protein, putting protein powder into everything,” she says.

Health authorities can help to guide people’s dietary choices on the basis of the latest research. The next Dietary Guidelines for Americans, a document that advises on what to eat for maintaining a healthy lifestyle, is due to come out by the end of this year. But its recommendations, which have tended to be broadly influential, might be changing.

Calculating protein needs

Researchers have been trying to estimate how much protein people need for more than a century. In 1840, chemist Justus von Liebig estimated that the average adult required 120 grams of protein a day, on the basis of a group of German workers’ diets. Later, scientists started to use nitrogen to calculate protein requirements. Protein is the only major dietary component that contains nitrogen. So, by measuring how much of it people consume and the amount they excrete, researchers could estimate how much the body uses.

Since the 1940s, this nitrogen-balance method has been used to determine the Recommended Dietary Allowances (RDA), a set of nutrient recommendations developed by the US National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine.

The latest such recommendation for protein, from 2005, establishes the RDA for both men and women at 0.8 grams per kilogram of body weight per day, which it states should be enough to meet the needs of 97–98% of healthy people. European and global-health authorities recommend similar or slightly higher levels.

Although scientists recognize that RDAs are a useful reference point, many say that people could benefit from a higher amount. “The RDA is not a target; it’s simply the minimum that appears to prevent any detectable deficiency,” says Donald Layman, a researcher focusing on protein requirements at the University of Illinois Urbana–Champaign. Evidence suggests that the optimal range is between 1.2 and 1.6 grams of protein per kilogram of body weight per day, he says.

That is especially true for older adults, who often experience muscle loss as they age, as well as for certain athletes and people trying to gain muscle.

For example, in an observational study of 2,066 adults aged 70–79, those who reported eating the most protein — about 1.1 gram per kilogram of bodyweight — lost 40% less lean mass during the three years of follow-up than did those who ate the least — around 0.7 grams per kilogram.

“For older adults, 1.2 grams per kilogram is just giving them a little extra protection,” says Nicholas Burd, a nutrition and exercise researcher also at the University of Illinois Urbana–Champaign. Furthermore, older people might experience a decline in appetite, which makes it particularly important for them to pay attention to their protein intake. It doesn’t mean that they need to take protein supplements, he says. “It’s all things we can do with just normal incorporation of high-protein foods in our lives.”

For healthy adults, increasing protein can boost the effects of resistance exercise, such as weightlifting. A 2017 systematic review found that, among people engaged in this type of training, taking protein supplements enhanced muscle gain and strength. But increasing protein beyond 1.6 grams per kilogram per day provided no further benefit.

Meanwhile, some fitness influencers swear by eating 2.2 grams per kilogram of body weight. For most people, that’s simply overkill, says Burd. There’s little harm, other than for people with kidney disease, but Burd adds: “You just create an inefficient system where your body gets very good at wasting food protein.”

Some practitioners might recommend higher protein targets to ensure that people get enough, Burd says. But the protein craze has been driven mostly by aggressive marketing of high-protein foods and supplements, he says.

“The myth of increased protein needs has seeped into popular imagination, including among health professionals, and has been conveniently reinforced by the food industry,” says Fernanda Marrocos, a researcher specializing in nutrition and food policy at the University of São Paulo in Brazil.

Amino-acid goals

Not all proteins are the same, and some researchers argue for a more nuanced recommendation that takes into account the amino acids — the building blocks of proteins — that foods contain. The human body requires 20 amino acids to function properly, including 9 that are considered ‘essential’ because they can be obtained only through food.

The balance of those nine in animal-based foods is exactly what other animals need, says Layman. “In plants, the essential amino acids are generally there, but they’re in proportions for the plants.” That means that some plants might be rich in certain amino acids but not in others, so meeting the amino-acid requirements with plant-based products might require a greater variety of foods.

He is critical of the way that official dietary guidelines calculate the recommendations for proteins from different sources. For example, according to the US Department of Agriculture, 14 grams of almonds can substitute 28 grams of chicken breast. Research by Layman and his colleagues, which considers the amino-acid balance, suggests that it would actually take more than 115 grams of almonds to substitute 28 grams of chicken.

Robert Wolfe, a researcher focusing on muscle metabolism at the University of Arkansas for Medical Sciences in Little Rock, says that dietary guidelines should incorporate the analysis of the quality of the protein, including the amino-acid balance and the degree to which the human body can digest them.

One area for future research, Wolfe says, is understanding exactly how food processing affects protein content. Factors such as cooking temperature, for example, can influence how well the body digests protein. This can have implications for certain protein supplements and high-protein bars, which are generally highly processed.

Obtaining that information requires going beyond nitrogen-balance studies. Wolfe’s team has used isotope tracers to determine the rate at which food protein is incorporated into new proteins in the body. One study of 56 young adults, for example, concluded that eating animal-based proteins resulted in a greater gain in body protein than did eating the equivalent amount of plant-based protein. But studies in this area are still small and shouldn’t be taken to mean that people must get all their protein from animal sources.

The American Heart Association recommends prioritizing plant proteins, given that the saturated fat found in red meats can increase the risk of cardiovascular disease. There’s also a high environmental cost associated with meat production, which is a major source of greenhouse-gas emissions.

Burd says that if a diet includes at least a portion of animal-based protein, it will probably provide all the essential amino acids for maintaining good health. And it is possible to achieve the same benefits solely from plant-based proteins. “This is where supplements could be beneficial because it’s more challenging to reach that balance from plants only,” Burd says.

Specialists advising the formulation of the upcoming Dietary Guidelines for Americans say that most Americans already eat more than enough proteins. They suggest reducing protein consumption from red meat, chicken and eggs and increasing the consumption of certain vegetables. But it’s unclear what exactly will be in the guidelines: US health secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr has stated in recent months that they will emphasize the need to eat saturated fats from sources including meat and dairy, which goes against recommendations from many medical associations.

Protein consumption is adequate in most parts of the world, says Marrocos. A study her team led in Brazil found that, in general, people consume well above the World Health Organization’s protein recommendation, even those with the lowest income. So there’s no need to obsess about hitting an exact protein number.

“For most people, as long as they’re eating enough calories and a reasonably varied diet, they’ll get all the protein they need,” says Marrocos.

This article is reproduced with permission and was first published on November 12, 2025.

Read the full story here.
Photos courtesy of

Legal Immunity for Pesticide Companies Removed from EPA Funding Bill

January 6, 2026 – After a legislative fight led by Representative Chellie Pingree (D-Maine), members of Congress stripped a controversial provision out of the latest version of a bill that funds the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). The bill is expected to move forward in the House this week, as lawmakers rush to finalize the 2026 […] The post Legal Immunity for Pesticide Companies Removed from EPA Funding Bill appeared first on Civil Eats.

January 6, 2026 – After a legislative fight led by Representative Chellie Pingree (D-Maine), members of Congress stripped a controversial provision out of the latest version of a bill that funds the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). The bill is expected to move forward in the House this week, as lawmakers rush to finalize the 2026 appropriations process by Jan. 30 to avoid another government shutdown. The provision, referred to as Section 435, would have made it harder for individuals to sue pesticide manufacturers over alleged health harms. Bayer, which for years has been battling lawsuits alleging its herbicide Roundup causes non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma, has lobbied for the provision, among other political and legal efforts to protect the corporation’s interests. When the provision first appeared in the bill earlier this year, Pingree quickly introduced an amendment to remove it. At that time, she wasn’t able to get enough votes to take it out. “It had fairly strong Republican support,” she told Civil Eats in an exclusive interview. (In December, the Trump administration also sided with Bayer in a Supreme Court case that could deliver a similar level of legal immunity through the courts instead of legislation.) Pingree said she kept up the battle, and, over the last several months a number of other groups put pressure on Congress to remove the rider, including environmental organizations, organic advocates, and MAHA Action, the biggest organization supporting the Trump administration and Robert F. Kennedy Jr.’s Make America Healthy Again agenda. MAHA Action celebrated the development with a post on X that said, “WE DID IT!,” though they did not mention Pingree. Kelly Ryerson, a prominent MAHA supporter who led efforts to lobby against the rider, thanked a group of Republicans on X for the end result. Pingree said she’s happy to share the credit with advocates. “It was my fight, but nobody does this alone. There are advocates on the environment and organic side that have been at this for a long time. But Republicans got a lot of calls going into the markup, they knew there was a lot of interest on the MAHA side,” she said. “It’s important to have a win to show there is widespread bipartisan support for restricting these toxic chemicals in our food and our environment.” Pingree said she’s been told the rider will likely come up again if the farm bill process restarts, and its supporters could also try to insert it in other legislation. The funding bill also rejects deep cuts to the EPA budget that the Trump administration requested and instead proposes a small decrease of around 4 percent. And, like the agriculture appropriations bill passed in November, it includes language that restricts the ability of the EPA to reorganize or cut significant staff without notifying Congress. (Link to this post.) The post Legal Immunity for Pesticide Companies Removed from EPA Funding Bill appeared first on Civil Eats.

10 Farm Bill Proposals to Watch in 2026

Called marker bills, the proposals cover a wide range of farm group priorities, from access to credit to forever-chemical contamination to investment in organic agriculture. House Agriculture Committee Chair G.T. Thompson (R-Pennsylvania) told Politico in December that he would restart the farm bill process this month. In an interview with Agri-Pulse, Senate Agriculture Committee Chair […] The post 10 Farm Bill Proposals to Watch in 2026 appeared first on Civil Eats.

As lawmakers wrapped up 2025 and agriculture leaders signaled they intend to move forward on a five-year farm bill early this year, many introduced bills that would typically be included in that larger legislative package. Called marker bills, the proposals cover a wide range of farm group priorities, from access to credit to forever-chemical contamination to investment in organic agriculture. House Agriculture Committee Chair G.T. Thompson (R-Pennsylvania) told Politico in December that he would restart the farm bill process this month. In an interview with Agri-Pulse, Senate Agriculture Committee Chair John Boozman (R-Arkansas) said his chamber would work on it “right after the first of the year.” But most experts say there’s no clear path forward for a new farm bill. The last five-year farm bill expired in September 2023. Because Congress had not completed a new one, they extended the previous bill, then extended it again in 2024. In 2025, Republicans included in their One Big Beautiful Bill the biggest-ever cuts to the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) and a boost in commodity crop subsidies, and later extended other farm programs in the bill package that ended the government shutdown. The SNAP actions torpedoed Democrats’ willingness to compromise (some have signaled they won’t support a farm bill unless it rolls back some of the cuts), while the extension of the big farm programs took pressure off both parties. Still, that didn’t stop lawmakers from introducing and reintroducing over the last month many marker bills they hope to get in an actual farm bill package if things change. Here are 10 recent proposals important to farmers, most of which have bipartisan support. Fair Credit for Farmers Act: Makes changes to the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) Farm Service Agency (FSA) to make it easier for farmers to get loans. Introduced by Representative Alma Adams (D-North Carolina) in the House and Senator Peter Welch (D-Vermont) in the Senate. Key supporters: National Family Farm Coalition, RAFI. FARM Home Loans Act: Increases rural homebuyers’ access to Farm Credit loans by expanding the definition of “rural area” to include areas with larger populations. Introduced by Representatives Kristen McDonald Rivet (D-Michigan) and Bill Huizeng (R-Michigan). Key supporters: Farm Credit Council. USDA Loan Modernization Act: Updates USDA loan requirements to allow farmers with at least a 50 percent operational interest to qualify. Introduced by Representatives Mike Bost (R-Illinois) and Nikki Budzinski (D-Illinois). Key supporters: Illinois Corn Growers Association, Illinois Pork Producers Association. Relief for Farmers Hit With PFAS Act: Sets up a USDA grant program for states to help farmers affected by forever-chemical contamination in their fields, test soil, monitor farmer health impacts, and conduct research on farms. Introduced by Senators Susan Collins (R-Maine) and Jeanne Shaheen (D-New Hampshire) in the Senate and Representatives Chellie Pingree (D-Maine) and Mike Lawler (R-New York) in the House. Key supporters: Maine Organic Farmers and Gardeners Association. EFFECTIVE Food Procurement Act: Requires the USDA to weigh factors including environmental sustainability, social and racial equity, worker well-being, and animal welfare in federal food purchasing, and helps smaller farms and food companies meet requirements to become USDA vendors. Introduced by Senator Ed Markey (D-Massachusetts) and several co-sponsors in the Senate, and Representative Alma Adams (D-North Carolina) and several co-sponsors in the House. Key supporters: National Sustainable Agriculture Coalition. AGRITOURISM Act: Designates an Agritourism Advisor at the USDA to support the economic viability of family farms. Introduced by Senator Kirsten Gillibrand (D-New York) and several co-sponsors in the Senate, and Representatives Suhas Subramanyam (D-Virginia) and Dan Newhouse (R-Washington) in the House. Key supporters: Brewers Association, WineAmerica. Domestic Organic Investment Act: Creates a USDA grant program to fund expansion of the domestic certified-organic food supply chain, including expanding storage, processing, and distribution. Introduced by Senators Tammy Baldwin (D-Wisconsin) and Susan Collins (R-Maine) in the Senate, and Representatives Andrea Salinas (D-Oregon) and Derrick Van Orden (R-Wisconsin) in the House. Key supporters: Organic Trade Association. Zero Food Waste Act: Creates a new Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) grant program to fund projects that prevent, divert, or recycle food waste. Introduced by Representatives Chellie Pingree (D-Maine) and Julia Brownley (D-California) in the House, and Senator Cory Booker (D-New Jersey) in the Senate. Key supporters: Natural Resources Defense Council, ReFed. LOCAL Foods Act: Allows farmers to process animals on their farms without meeting certain regulations if the meat will not be sold. Introduced by Senator Peter Welch (D-Vermont) and several co-sponsors in the Senate, and Representative Eugene Vindman (D-Virginia) and several co-sponsors in the House. Key supporters: Rural Vermont, National Family Farm Coalition. PROTEIN Act: Directs more than $500 million in federal support over the next five years toward research and development for “alternative proteins.” Introduced by Senator Adam Schiff (D-California) in the Senate, and Representative Julia Brownley (D-California) in the House. Key supporters: Good Food Institute, Plant-Based Foods Institute. The post 10 Farm Bill Proposals to Watch in 2026 appeared first on Civil Eats.

China and South Korea Pledge to Bolster Ties as Regional Tensions Rise

South Korea and China have pledged to boost trade and safeguard regional stability

BEIJING (AP) — China and South Korea’s leaders pledged to boost trade and safeguard regional stability on Monday during a visit to Beijing by the South Korean president that was overshadowed by North Korea’s recent ballistic missile tests.South Korean President Lee Jae Myung met Chinese President Xi Jinping as part of his four-day trip to China — his first since taking office, in June.As Xi hosted Lee at the imposing Great Hall of the People, the Chinese president stressed the two countries’ “important responsibilities in maintaining regional peace and promoting global development,” according to a readout of their meeting broadcast by state-run CCTV.Lee spoke about opening “a new chapter in the development of Korea-China relations” during “changing times.”“The two countries should make joint contributions to promote peace, which is the foundation for prosperity and growth,” Lee said.The visit comes as China wants to shore up regional support amid rising tensions with Japan. Beijing and South Korea’s ties themselves have fluctuated in recent years, with frictions over South Korea’s hosting of U.S. military troops and armaments. North Korea launches ballistic missiles ahead of the meeting Just hours before Lee’s arrival in China, North Korea launched several ballistic missiles into the sea, including, it said, hypersonic missiles, which travel at five times the speed of sound and are extra-difficult to detect and intercept.The tests came as Pyongyang criticized a U.S. attack on Venezuela that included the removal of its strongman leader Nicolás Maduro.North Korea, which has long feared the U.S. might seek regime change in Pyongyang, criticized the attack as a wild violation of Venezuela's sovereignty and an example of the “rogue and brutal nature of the U.S.”China had also condemned the U.S. attack, which it said violated international law and threatened peace in Latin America.China is North Korea’s strongest backer and economic lifeline amid U.S. sanctions targeting Pyongyang's missile and nuclear program. China’s frictions with Japan also loom over the visit Lee’s visit also coincided, more broadly, with rising tensions between China and Japan over recent comments by Japan’s new leader that Tokyo could intervene in a potential Chinese attack on Taiwan, the island democracy China claims as its own.Last week, China staged large-scale military drills around the island for two days to warn against separatist and “external interference” forces. In his meeting with Lee, Xi mentioned China and Korea’s historical rivalry against Japan, calling on the two countries to “join hands to defend the fruits of victory in World War II and safeguard peace and stability in Northeast Asia.”Regarding South Korea's military cooperation with the U.S., Lee said during an interview with CCTV ahead of his trip that it shouldn't mean that South Korea-China relations should move toward confrontation. He added that his visit to China aimed to “minimize or eliminate past misunderstandings or contradictions (and) elevate and develop South Korea-China relations to a new stage.” Agreements in technology, trade and transportation China and South Korea maintain robust trade ties, with bilateral trade reaching about $273 billion in 2024.During their meeting, Xi and Lee oversaw the signing of 15 cooperation agreements in areas such as technology, trade, transportation and environmental protection, CCTV reported.Earlier on Monday, Lee had attended a business forum in Beijing with representatives of major South Korean and Chinese companies, including Samsung, Hyundai, LG and Alibaba Group.At that meeting, Lee and Chinese Vice Premier He Lifeng oversaw the signing of agreements in areas such as consumer goods, agriculture, biotechnology and entertainment.AP reporter Hyung-jin Kim in Seoul contributed to this report.Copyright 2026 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.Photos You Should See – December 2025

GOP lawmakers’ power transfers are reshaping North Carolina

North Carolina’s Republican-led legislature has siphoned off some of the governor’s traditional powers

North Carolina voters have chosen Democrats in three straight elections for governor; the state’s Republican-led legislature has countered by siphoning off some of the powers that traditionally came with the job. These power grabs have had a profound effect on both democracy in the state and on the everyday lives of North Carolina residents, Democrats argue. The changes are “weakening environmental protections, raising energy costs, and politicizing election administration,” Josh Stein, North Carolina’s governor, said in a text message responding to questions from ProPublica. Republican leaders in the General Assembly did not respond to requests for comment or emailed questions about the power shifts. In the past, they have defended these actions as reflecting the will of voters, with the senate president describing one key bill as balancing “appointment power between the legislative and executive branches.” Former state Sen. Bob Rucho, a Republican picked to sit on the state elections board after lawmakers shifted control from Stein to the Republican state auditor, said the changes would fix problems created by Democrats. “Republicans are very proud of what’s been accomplished,” Rucho said. Shifting authority over the elections board, he argued, would “reestablish a level of confidence in the electoral process” that Democrats had lost. ProPublica recently chronicled the nearly 10-year push to take over the board, which sets rules and settles disputes in elections in the closely divided swing state. Decisions made by the board’s new leadership — particularly on the locations and numbers of early voting sites — could affect outcomes in the 2026 midterms. Below, we examine how other power transfers driven by North Carolina’s Republican legislature are reshaping everything from the regulations that protect residents’ drinking water to the rates they pay for electricity to the culture of their state university system. Related “Biblical justice for all”: How North Carolina’s chief justice transformed his state Environmental Management Commission What it is: The Environmental Management Commission adopts rules that protect the state’s air and water, such as those that regulate industries discharging potentially carcinogenic chemicals in rivers. Power transfer: In October 2023, Republican legislators passed a law shifting the power to appoint the majority of the commission’s members from the governor to themselves and the state’s commissioner of agriculture, who is a Republican. What’s happened since: The new Republican-led commission has stymied several efforts by the state’s Department of Environmental Quality to regulate a potentially harmful chemical, 1,4-dioxane, in drinking water. Advocates for businesses, including the North Carolina Chamber of Commerce, had criticized some regulations and urged the commission to intervene. “Clean water is worth the cost, but regulators should not arbitrarily establish a level that is low for the sake of being low,” the chamber said in a press release. The Southern Environmental Law Center, which has pressed the state to regulate the chemical, has said the commission’s rulings are “crippling the state’s ability to protect its waterways, drinking water sources, and communities from harmful pollution.” Utilities Commission What it is: The North Carolina Utilities Commission regulates the rates and services of the state’s public utilities, which include providers of electricity, natural gas, water and telephone service. The commission also oversees movers, brokers, ferryboats and wastewater. Power transfer: In June 2025, a trial court sided with the General Assembly in allowing a law passed in 2024 to take effect, removing the governor’s power to appoint a majority of the commission’s members and transferring that power to legislative leaders and the state treasurer, who is a Republican. What’s happened since: The state’s primary utility, Duke Energy, has backed off from some plans to rely more on clean energy and retire coal-fired power plants. In November, the company said it would seek the commission’s approval to raise rates by 15%. In response to a new resource plan the company filed in October, the executive director of NC WARN, a climate and environmental justice nonprofit, said in a statement that Duke’s actions would cause “power bills to double or triple over time” and increase carbon emissions. The state’s governor and attorney general, both Democrats, have said they oppose the rate hike. Garrett Poorman, a spokesperson for Duke Energy, said that the company is “focused on keeping costs as low as possible while meeting growing energy needs across our footprint” and that the company had recently lowered its forecasted costs. The commission will decide whether to approve the proposed rate hikes in 2026. University of North Carolina System What it is: The University of North Carolina System encompasses 17 institutions and more than 250,000 students, including at the University of North Carolina-Chapel Hill, considered one of best in the nation. Power transfer: Though the legislature has traditionally appointed the majority of the trustees for individual schools, the governor also made a share of these appointments. In 2016, the legislature passed a law that eliminated the governor’s ability to make university trustee appointments. In 2023, changes inserted into the state budget bill gave the legislature power to appoint all of the members of the state board that oversees community colleges and most of those colleges’ trustees. The governor had previously chosen some board members and trustees. What’s happened since: The system has created a center for conservative thought, repealed racial equity initiatives, suspended a left-leaning professor, gutted a civil rights center led by a professor long critical of Republican lawmakers and appointed politically connected Republicans to the boards. Republicans say the moves are reversing the system’s long-term leftward drift. “Ultimately, the board stays in for a while, and you change administrators, and then start to moderate the culture of the UNC schools,” said David Lewis, a former Republican House member who helped drive the changes to the university system. Democrats, including former Gov. Roy Cooper, have criticized the board changes as partisan meddling. “These actions will ultimately hurt our state’s economy and reputation,” Cooper said in a 2023 press release. Read more about this topic Democrats sound alarm on Trump administration’s attacks on voting rights “Still angry”: Voters say they won’t forget that the North Carolina GOP tried to trash their ballots “We will bring this home”: North Carolina Democrats confident they’ll defeat GOP election denial The post GOP lawmakers’ power transfers are reshaping North Carolina appeared first on Salon.com.

Our Biggest Farming Stories of 2025

Trump’s tariffs created more headaches for farmers, particularly soybean producers, who saw their biggest buyer—China—walk away during the trade fight as their costs for fertilizer and other materials increased. Farming groups also protested when the Trump administration announced it would import 80,000 metric tons of beef from Argentina, about four times the regular quota. We […] The post Our Biggest Farming Stories of 2025 appeared first on Civil Eats.

When we started Civil Eats, we sought to report on farming from a different perspective, focusing on underrepresented voices and issues. This year, most American farmers faced significant challenges, and we strove to tell their stories. Federal budget cuts were a major disruption, impacting USDA grants that helped farmers build soil health, increase biodiversity, generate renewable energy, and sell their crops to local schools and food banks, among other projects. Trump’s tariffs created more headaches for farmers, particularly soybean producers, who saw their biggest buyer—China—walk away during the trade fight as their costs for fertilizer and other materials increased. Farming groups also protested when the Trump administration announced it would import 80,000 metric tons of beef from Argentina, about four times the regular quota. We also identified as many solutions as we could in this turbulent year by highlighting farmers’ extraordinary resilience and resourcefulness, from finding sustainable ways to grow food to fighting corporate consolidation to opening their own meat-processing cooperative. Here are our biggest farming stories of 2025, in chronological order. Farmers Need Help to Survive. A New Crop of Farm Advocates Is on the Way. Farmers with expertise in law and finance have long guided the farming community through tough situations, but their numbers have been dropping. Now, thanks to federally funded training, farm advocates are coming back. California Decides What ‘Regenerative Agriculture’ Means. Sort of. A new definition for an old way of farming may help California soil, but it won’t mean organic. Butterbee Farm, in Maryland, has received several federal grants that have been crucial for the farm’s survival. (Photo credit: L.A. Birdie Photography) Trump’s Funding Freeze Creates Chaos and Financial Distress for Farmers Efforts to transition farms to regenerative agriculture are stalled, and the path forward is unclear. How Trump’s Tariffs Will Affect Farmers and Food Prices Economists say tariffs will likely lead to higher food prices, while farmers are worried about fertilizer imports and their export markets. USDA Continues to Roll Out Deeper Cuts to Farm Grants: A List In addition to the end of two local food programs that support schools and food banks sourcing from small farms, more cuts are likely. USDA Prioritizes Economic Relief for Commodity Farmers The agency announced it will roll out economic relief payments to growers of corn, soybeans, oilseeds, and other row crops. Will Local Food Survive Trump’s USDA? Less than two months in, Trump’s USDA is bulldozing efforts that help small farms and food producers sell healthy food directly to schools, food banks, and their local communities. USDA Unfreezes Energy Funds for Farmers, but Demands They Align on DEI USDA is requesting farmers make changes to their projects so that they align with directives on energy production and DEI, a task experts say may not be legal or possible. Ranchers herd cattle across open range in the Sangre de Cristo Mountains, New Mexico, where conservation initiatives help restore grasslands and protect water resources. (Photo courtesy Ariel Greenwood) Trump Announces Higher Tariffs on Major Food and Agricultural Trade Partners The president says the tariffs will boost American manufacturing and make the country wealthy, but many expect farmers to suffer losses and food prices to rise. USDA Introduces Policy Agenda Focused on Small Farms Agriculture Secretary Brooke Rollins rolls out a 10-point plan that includes environmental deregulation and utilizing healthy food programs that have recently lost funding. USDA Drops Rules Requiring Farmers to Record Their Use of the Most Toxic Pesticides Pesticide watchdog groups say the regulations should be strengthened, not thrown out. Conservation Work on Farms and Ranches Could Take a Hit as USDA Cuts Staff Close to 2,400 employees of the Natural Resources Conservation Service have accepted an offer to resign, leaving fewer hands to protect rural landscapes. USDA Cancels Additional Grants Funding Land Access and Training for Young Farmers The future of other awards in the Increasing Land, Capital, and Market Access Program remains unclear. House Bill Would Halt Assessment of PFAS Risk on Farms The bill also strengthens EPA authority around pesticide labeling, which could prevent states from adopting their own versions of labels. Should Regenerative Farmers Pin Hopes on RFK Jr.’s MAHA? While the Make America Health Again movement supports alternative farming, few of Trump’s policies promote healthy agricultural landscapes. A leaked version of the second MAHA Commission Report underscores these concerns. Minnesota Governor Tim Walz, the Democratic nominee for vice president in 2024, introduces Willie Nelson at Farm Aid’s 40th anniversary this year, in St. Paul, Minnesota. (Photo credit: Lisa Held) At 40, Farm Aid Is Still About Music. It’s Also a Movement. Willie Nelson launched the music festival in 1985 as a fundraiser to save family farms. With corporate consolidation a continuing threat to farms, it’s now a platform for populist organizing, too. Agriculture Secretary Confirms US Plan to Buy Beef from Argentina Brooke Rollins on Tuesday defended a Trump administration plan that has ignited criticism from farm groups and some Republicans. For Farmers, the Government Shutdown Adds More Challenges With no access to local ag-related offices, critical loans, or disaster assistance, farmers are facing even more stressors. Farmers Struggle With Tariffs, Despite China Deal to Buy US Soybeans While the Supreme Court considers Trump’s tariffs, the farm economy falters. This Farmer-Owned Meat Processing Co-op in Tennessee Changes the Game A Q&A with Lexy Close of the Appalachian Producers Cooperative, who says the new facility has dramatically decreased processing wait times and could revive the area’s local meat economy. Farmers Face Prospect of Skyrocketing Healthcare Premiums More than a quarter of U.S. farmers rely on the Affordable Care Act, but Biden-era tax credits expire at the end of the year. After 150 Years, California’s Sugar Beet Industry Comes to an End The Imperial Valley might be the best place in the world to grow beets. What went wrong? Trump Farmer Bailout Primarily Benefits Commodity Farms Of the $12 billion the administration will send to farmers, $11 billion is reserved for ranchers and major row crop farmers. The post Our Biggest Farming Stories of 2025 appeared first on Civil Eats.

Suggested Viewing

Join us to forge
a sustainable future

Our team is always growing.
Become a partner, volunteer, sponsor, or intern today.
Let us know how you would like to get involved!

CONTACT US

sign up for our mailing list to stay informed on the latest films and environmental headlines.

Subscribers receive a free day pass for streaming Cinema Verde.
Thank you! Your submission has been received!
Oops! Something went wrong while submitting the form.