It’s been nearly two years since I started reporting on abuses of foreign farmworkers in Georgia. Some of the workers I tracked down had come to the U.S. legally through the H-2A visa program and were harmed and exploited by labor contractors — despite protections that were supposed to be guaranteed by the federal government.
During those two years, I’ve thought a lot about how the government’s obligation to keep foreign workers safe has collided with another priority: to help U.S. farmers stay in business.
Farmers have long pushed for fewer H-2A regulations. That’s in part because of the skyrocketing costs of the program, which sets minimum hourly wages and requires that farmers pay for workers’ housing and transportation. As one Georgia farmer wrote last year in a letter to the U.S. Department of Labor, “It has felt like every policy that pertained to the H2A program was made focusing solely on the benefit of the migrant worker.”
All of that brings to mind a freezing cold weekend in January 2025, early on in my reporting, when I showed up at a farmers’ conference in Savannah, Georgia. What the farmers sought at that gathering — and what happened in the months that followed — exemplifies the tension between keeping workers safe and keeping farms solvent.
After I made my way through a brightly lit convention hall — past the tractor salesman’s stall, the labor regulator’s booth, and tables of peach preserves and dried blueberries — I arrived in a room full of farmers eager to know what President Donald Trump’s second term would mean for an industry dependent on foreign labor and facing a rising number of bankruptcies.
A small group of lawyers and lobbyists gave several presentations to the farmers. One of them vowed that Trump could “profoundly” change the program, in part by making it easier to hire H-2A workers and pay them less. And if the lobbyists’ plans were successful, farmers would save even more money by facing fewer labor protections for workers.
“Everything is on the table,” said Braden Boucek, an attorney who has represented the farm industry in challenges to the H-2A program’s requirements.
In the year to come, Trump’s immigration policies would drastically reduce the number of immigrants crossing the border and accelerate deportations of people without legal status living in the country. But one important pathway — the H-2A visa program — would remain wide open. And the administration, under pressure from the farm industry, would be quick to embrace the types of changes the lobbyists told the farmers about on that frigid January weekend.
To get the financial relief that farmers were seeking, three key things had to change with the H-2A program, the lawyers and lobbyists told the farmers at the conference.
The first was to overturn parts of a rule enacted by the Biden administration. The rule granted workers the right to pursue certain union protections, including ones that would shield them from unfair treatment by their employers. Farmers opposed the rule because they felt it would make it harder to run their businesses.
At the conference, I listened as former U.S. Labor Department assistant secretary Leon Sequeira told farmers how several ongoing lawsuits could help “invalidate” parts of the rule. The previous June, a Georgia blueberry farm, along with 17 states, had sued the administration, alleging that the rule went beyond what Congress allowed. That lawsuit, along with two others, had led to injunctions that temporarily halted part of the rule.
Sequeira, who is a lawyer in one of the three cases, later told me that the legal effort “isn’t about denying more protection for workers.” Rather, it’s intended to protect farmers from overreach by the U.S. Labor Department.
“People can certainly differ on whether or not workers should receive more protection under the law,” he told me. “But as multiple courts have said, that is a decision for Congress to make in passing laws, not the agency.”
Five months after Trump took office, his administration suspended enforcement of President Joe Biden’s rule. It then proposed to rescind parts of it. That proposal is pending.
The second change was to slow or stop wage increases for H-2A workers that had soared during the first Trump administration and the Biden administration. After months of industry pressure, the Trump administration last year reduced the hourly pay rate, which it expects will save farmers more than $2 billion a year. Those savings are projected to cost H-2A workers up to 32% of their annual wages, according to the think tank the Economic Policy Institute.
The last thing I heard at the conference was an ambitious legal strategy to advance the interests of farmers even further.
One of the lawyers, Ann Margaret Pointer, explained that three recent U.S. Supreme Court rulings had together diminished the powers of the federal government. One decision limits the ability of federal agencies to create new regulations. Another makes it harder for agencies to fine companies that violate some federal laws. And a third makes it easier for employers to challenge federal regulations that had been on the books for many years.
Pointer said those decisions could pave the way for future lawsuits challenging the visa program — and could strengthen the odds of farmers winning those lawsuits.
All three of those efforts were vital, she explained to the farmers at the conference, to “prevent some of the costs to comply with the H-2A program from falling on your shoulders.”
I recently reached out to the lawyers and lobbyists who spoke at that conference to ask how they felt about their progress on the plan they’d described.
Boucek, who is now a U.S. attorney in Tennessee, declined to comment for this story.
Pointer and Sequeira both said that the Trump administration’s initial changes to the program improved the way it works for farmers. Sequeira also said that the changes are just the beginning of the wish list for the agriculture industry.
Pointer and Sequeira said the larger changes the industry is seeking to the H-2A program will require action from Congress. They pointed to a recently filed bill that proposes to limit wage hikes, cut red tape for farmers and allow additional sectors of the farming industry to participate in H-2A. (Labor and immigrant advocacy organizations oppose the bill, saying it would harm farmworkers and would amount to executive overreach.)
Until Congress changes the statute, Sequeira said, the Labor Department “can only fiddle around the edges.”
Facts Only
* Reporting on abuses of foreign farmworkers in Georgia occurred over nearly two years.
* Some workers tracked through the program were harmed by labor contractors despite federal protections.
* Farmers have pushed for fewer H-2A regulations due to program costs, minimum wages, and requirements for housing/transportation.
* At a conference in Savannah, Georgia, farmers sought information regarding President Trump’s second term's impact on the agricultural industry.
* Lobbyists suggested changes could make it easier to hire H-2A workers and reduce labor protections.
* One proposed change involved overturning a Biden administration rule granting workers union protections.
* Legal efforts, including lawsuits by a Georgia blueberry farm and 17 states against the administration, sought to invalidate parts of the rule based on congressional authority.
* Another focus was reducing wage increases for H-2A workers to save farmers money.
* Three recent Supreme Court rulings were cited as diminishing federal agency powers regarding regulations and fines.
* The proposed legal strategy aimed to prevent compliance costs from falling on farmers.
Executive Summary
The author reported on abuses of labor involving H-2A visa workers in Georgia over nearly two years, noting these workers were harmed by labor contractors despite federal protections. The core tension explored is the conflict between ensuring worker safety and maintaining the financial viability of U.S. farmers. Farmers have historically advocated for fewer H-2A regulations due to the high costs associated with the program, which includes setting minimum wages and covering worker housing and transportation.
The situation culminated in a meeting in Savannah, Georgia, where farmers sought direction regarding the potential impact of President Trump’s second term on the agricultural industry facing bankruptcies and reliance on foreign labor. Lobbyists presented a strategy suggesting that changes could make it easier to hire H-2A workers and reduce labor protections for them. This proposed change involved overturning aspects of a Biden administration rule that granted union protections, a legal effort supported by lawsuits from farmers and state entities seeking to challenge regulatory overreach. Additionally, there was a focus on slowing or stopping wage increases for H-2A workers, with some proposals aiming to save farmers significant money while potentially costing workers up to 32% of annual wages.
Full Take
The narrative structures the conflict between regulatory intent (worker protection) and economic imperatives (farmer solvency) by framing legislative and judicial action as a direct battleground for the H-2A program. The pattern reveals an attempt to shift accountability: shifting responsibility from the federal agency to the lobbyist/legal strategy, and ultimately toward Congress for ultimate change.
The implication of linking worker protection directly to farmer financial stability is a form of structural capture where regulatory frameworks are framed not as rights or obligations but as impediments to economic output. The legal maneuvering described—using existing lawsuits and Supreme Court shifts to achieve specific outcomes—suggests that the fight over immigration policy is being strategically leveraged by industry interests, irrespective of the initial stated goals of protecting vulnerable populations.
The pattern of referencing legal challenges succeeding in halting rules, yet still requiring further legislative action to achieve substantive change, points toward a systemic bottleneck where agency power is constrained but the political will for comprehensive reform remains elusive. The ultimate tension lies in whether judicial and administrative limitations can effectively counteract powerful economic lobbies seeking deregulation that disproportionately impacts labor conditions.
Bridge Questions: If legal avenues are continuously being used to challenge regulatory overreach without immediate legislative consensus, what systemic reforms would be required to decouple agricultural economic stability from the specific mechanisms of the H-2A program? How does the cost-benefit analysis embedded in current regulations systematically favor industry solvency over worker dignity? What is the long-term effect on trust when legal victories prioritize financial outcomes over established social protections?
Sentinel — Human
The text appears to be a human-written piece functioning as narrative journalism, grounded in specific personal experience while synthesizing complex legislative and legal arguments surrounding the H-2A visa program.
