The Environmental Protection Agency has proposed handing more power to states and tribes to block major energy projects based on water quality concerns.

The proposal would undo a Trump-era rule that restricted local regulators' authority to stand in the way of fossil fuel development. The new proposal would allow states to conduct a broader, more flexible review before making a permitting decision.

The public will have time to weigh in on the proposal. For now, the Trump-era rule will remain in place.

That rule required local regulators to focus their reviews on the pollution that projects might discharge into rivers, streams and wetlands. It also rigidly enforced a one-year deadline for regulators to make permitting decisions. Some states lost their authority to block certain projects based on allegations they blew the deadline, the Associated Press reported.

The EPA is taking the position that states should have authority to look beyond pollution discharged into waterways and “holistically evaluate” the impact of a project on local water quality. The proposal would gives local regulators more power. It allows localities to make sure they have information needed before facing deadline pressure to then issue or deny permits.

CINCINNATI —

Jurors began hearing testimony Wednesday in P.G. Sittenfeld's political corruption trial.

The former Cincinnati councilman is accused of agreeing to approve a downtown development in exchange for campaign donations.

In her opening statements, prosecutor Emily Glatfelter called Sittenfeld an "ambitious politician" who traded "power for money." She told jurors he betrayed the people of Cincinnati who he was elected to serve.

Much of the opening statements centered around 435 Elm Street, the vacant property at the heart of this trial.

The property is owned by former Bengal turned developer, Chinedum Ndukwe.

"Chin" as he was referred to in the courtroom was secretly working for the FBI. Ndukwe introduced Sittenfeld to two men, Rob and Bryan.

They were undercover agents pretending to be investors.

Prosecutors said over the course of 18 months, the so-called investors gave Sittenfeld $40,000 in campaign donations in exchange for helping to move the 435 elm street development forward.

Glatfelter told jurors Sittenfeld said, "I can deliver the votes" and "I can always get a vote on my left and on my right."

Defense attorney Charlie Rittgers started his opening statements telling the jury "everything in life requires context" and "partial truth is not truth at all."

435 Elm Street was on Sittenfeld's radar before he met Rob and Bryan, Rittgers said.

He said it was an eyesore and was draining the city of $400,000 a year.

Rittgers said Sittenfeld isn't denying the meetings with the so-called investors nor is he denying he received $40,000 in campaign contributions, but the defense said nothing Sittenfeld did was illegal.

Rittgers said during the "scheme," undercover agents were the ones to first bring up the form of payment and amount they'd give.

Rittgers said Sittenfeld "always did what was best for the City of Cincinnati."

Rittgers also told the jury, the FBI paid Ndukwe $27,000 for his role in the "scheme."

Former city councilman Kevin Flynn was the first witness to be called by prosecutors.

Flynn testified about the role of city council, duties of the city manager and mayor and veto power.

Former economic development director for the city, Phil Denning was the second witness to be called.

Denning's testimony centered around development agreements and 435 Elm Street.

He said he had a conversation with Sittenfeld where Sittenfeld asked about the process for Ndukwe to develop the property.

Prosecutors are expected to call Nathan Holbrook, special agent for the FBI, to the stand Thursday morning.

Holbrook's testimony is expected to last all day.

A Florida teen is being credited with putting a child predator behind bars.In January, Zachary Spiegel, 38, started talking to who he believed was a 14-year-old girl named "Shayla" online. But in reality, "Shayla" was a fictional persona created by a 16-year-old boy who was trying to find child predators in the area."Here you have a 16-year-old boy wanting to take the matter into his own hands and find these child predators in his area, and he found one," Callahan Walsh, a child advocate with the National Center for Missing and Exploited Children, said.Court documents show Spiegel’s messages with Shayla, trying to persuade her to meet him for sex in his car, graphic conversations and images.Authorities said the two never met up due to Spiegel being pulled over by police during a traffic stop that day, but the boy went to police who then took over as Shayla. Then on Jan. 20, authorities arrested Spiegel at his home in Jensen Beach, Florida, after finding him in possession of the cellphone he had used to communicate with Shayla.Spiegel was sentenced to 10 years in prison after being found guilty of trying to entice a teenage girl for sex online. While Walsh said he takes his hat off to that 16-year-old boy for wanting to catch Spiegel, he cautions other people from doing the same thing because the predators they encounter could be dangerous.He encourages people to report exploitation if they see it happening, but to leave the hunting and investigating up to law enforcement.

File video above: U.S. preps for rising migration when Title 42 ends

A federal judge on Tuesday blocked Title 42 — a controversial rule that's allowed U.S. authorities to expel more than 1 million migrants who crossed the U.S.-Mexico border.

Tuesday's court order leaves the Biden administration without one of the key tools it had deployed to address the thousands of migrants arriving at the border on a daily basis and could restore access to asylum for arriving migrants.

While the rule was drafted by the Trump administration during the COVID-19 pandemic, the Biden administration has relied heavily on it to manage the increase of migrants at the border.

District Judge Emmet Sullivan in Washington, D.C., found the Title 42 order to be "arbitrary and capricious in violation of the Administrative Procedure Act."

Prior to Title 42, all migrants arrested at the border were processed under immigration law. Thousands of migrants sent back to Mexico have been waiting along the border in shelters. Officials have previously raised concerns about what the end of Title 42 may portend, given limited resources and a high number of people trying to enter the country.

CNN has reached out to the White House, Justice Department and Department of Homeland Security for comment.

Sullivan faulted the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, which issued the public health order, for "its decision to ignore the harm that could be caused" by issuing the policy. He said the CDC also failed to consider alternative approaches, such as letting migrants self-quarantine in homes of US-based friends, family, or shelters. The agency, he said, should have reexamined its approach when vaccines and tests became widely available.

"With regard to whether defendants could have 'ramped up vaccinations, outdoor processing, and all other available public health measures,'... the court finds the CDC failed to articulate a satisfactory explanation for why such measures were not feasible," Sullivan wrote.

The judge also concluded that the policy did not rationally serve its purpose, given that COVID-19 was already widespread throughout the United States when the policy was rolled out.

"Title 42 was never about public health, and this ruling finally ends the charade of using Title 42 to bar desperate asylum seekers from even getting a hearing," American Civil Liberties Union attorney Lee Gelernt, who argued the case, said in a statement.

The injunction request came from the ACLU, along with other immigrant advocacy groups, and involves all demographics, including single adults and families. Unaccompanied children were already exempt from the order.

The public health authority was invoked at the onset of the coronavirus pandemic and has been criticized by immigrant advocates, attorneys and health experts who argue it has no health basis and puts migrants in harm's way.

Sullivan had previously blocked the Biden administration from expelling migrant families with children apprehended at the US-Mexico border.

Earlier this year, the CDC announced plans to terminate the order. The CDC said at the time it's no longer necessary given current public health conditions and the increased availability of vaccines and treatments for COVID-19.

But in May, a federal judge in Louisiana blocked the Biden administration from ending Title 42.

Since that court order, the administration has continued to rely on Title 42 and most recently, expanding it to include Venezuelan migrants who have arrived at the US southern border in large numbers.

MIAMI —

Donald Trump became the first former president to face a judge on federal charges as he pleaded not guilty in a Miami courtroom Tuesday to dozens of felony counts accusing him of hoarding classified documents and refusing government demands to give them back.

The history-making court date, centered on charges that Trump mishandled government secrets that as commander-in-chief he was entrusted to protect, kickstarts a legal process that could unfold at the height of the 2024 presidential campaign and carry profound consequences not only for his political future but also for his own personal liberty.

Trump approached his arraignment with characteristic bravado, posting social media broadsides against the prosecution from inside his motorcade en route to the courthouse and insisting — as he has through years of legal woes — that he has done nothing wrong and was being persecuted for political purposes. But inside the courtroom, he sat silently, scowling and arms crossed, as a lawyer entered a not-guilty plea on his behalf in a brief arraignment that ended without him having to surrender his passport or otherwise restrict his travel.

The arraignment, though largely procedural in nature, was the latest in an unprecedented public reckoning this year for Trump, who faces charges in New York arising from hush money payments during his 2016 presidential campaign as well as ongoing investigations in Washington and Atlanta into efforts to undo the results of the 2020 race.

Always in campaign mode, he swiftly pivoted from the solemn courtroom to a festive restaurant, stopping on his way out of Miami at Versailles, an iconic Cuban spot in the city’s Little Havana neighborhood where supporters serenaded Trump, who turns 77 on Wednesday, with “Happy Birthday.” The back-to-back events highlight the tension for Trump in the months ahead as he balances the pageantry of campaigning with courtroom stops accompanying his status as a twice-indicted criminal defendant.

Yet the gravity of the moment was unmistakable.

Until last week, no former president had ever been charged by the Justice Department, let alone accused of mishandling top-secret information. The indictment unsealed last week charged Trump with 37 felony counts -- many under the Espionage Act -- that accuse him of illegally storing classified documents in his bedroom, bathroom, shower and other locations at Mar-a-Lago and trying to hide them from the Justice Department as investigators demanded them back. The charges carry a yearslong prison sentence in the event of a conviction.

Video below: Trump comments after classified documents arraignment

Trump has relied on a familiar playbook of painting himself as a victim of political persecution. But Attorney General Merrick Garland, an appointee of President Joe Biden, sought to insulate the department from political attacks by handing ownership of the case to a special counsel, Jack Smith, who on Friday declared, “We have one set of laws in this country, and they apply to everyone.”

Smith attended Tuesday’s arraignment, sitting in the front row behind his team of prosecutors.

The court appearance unfolded against the backdrop of potential protests, with some high-profile backers using barbed rhetoric to voice support. Trump himself encouraged supporters to join a planned protest Tuesday at the courthouse. Though city officials said they prepared for possible unrest around the courthouse, there were little signs of significant disruption.

Video below: Protesters outside Doral ahead of Trump arraignment

Trump didn’t say a word during the court appearance, other than to occasionally turn and whisper to his attorneys who were seated on either side of him. He fiddled with a pen and clasped his hands on the table in front of him as the lawyers and the judge debated the conditions of his release.

While he was not required to surrender a passport — prosecutors said he was not considered a flight risk — the magistrate judge presiding over the arraignment directed Trump to not discuss the case with certain witnesses. That includes Walt Nauta, his valet who was indicted last week on charges that he moved boxes of documents at Trump’s direction and misled the FBI about it.

Nauta did not enter a plea Tuesday because he did not have a local lawyer with him.

Trump attorney Todd Blanche objected to the idea of imposing restrictions on the former president’s contact with possible witnesses, noting they include many people close to Trump, including staff and members of his protection detail.

“Many of the people he interacts with on a daily basis — including the men and women who protect him — are potential witnesses in this case,” Blanche said.

Trump, who has repeatedly insisted that he did nothing wrong, showed no emotion as he was led by law enforcement out of the courtroom through a side door.

Even for a man whose presidency and post-White House life have been defined by criminal investigations, the documents probe had long stood out both because of the volume of evidence that prosecutors had seemed to amass and the severity of the allegations.

Video below: Why was Trump indicted and not Biden, Pence or Clinton?

A federal grand jury in Washington had heard testimony for months, but the Justice Department filed the case in Florida, where Trump’s Mar-a-Lago resort is located and where many of the alleged acts of obstruction occurred.

Though Trump appeared Tuesday before a federal magistrate, the case has been assigned to a District Court judge he appointed, Aileen Cannon, who ruled in his favor last year in a dispute over whether an outside special master could be appointed to review the seized classified documents. A federal appeals panel ultimately overturned her ruling.

It’s unclear what defenses Trump is likely to invoke as the case moves forward. Two of his lead lawyers announced their resignation the morning after his indictment, and the notes and recollections of another attorney, M. Evan Corcoran, are cited repeatedly throughout the 49-page charging document, suggesting prosecutors envision him as a potential key witness.

In the indictment, the Justice Department unsealed Friday most of the charges — 31 or the 37 felony counts — against Trump relate to the willful retention of national defense information. Other charges include conspiracy to commit obstruction and false statements.

The indictment accuses Trump of illegally retaining national security documents that he took with him from the White House to Mar-a-Lago after leaving office in January 2021. The documents he stored, prosecutors say, included material on nuclear programs, defense and weapons capabilities of the U.S. and foreign governments and a Pentagon “attack plan,” prosecutors say. He is accused of showing off some to people who didn't have security clearances to view them.

Beyond that, according to the indictment, he repeatedly sought to obstruct government efforts to recover the documents, including by directing Nauta to move boxes and also suggesting to his own lawyer that he hide or destroy documents sought by a Justice Department subpoena.

---

Tucker reported from Washington. Associated Press writers Jill Colvin in New York and Terry Spencer in Doral, Florida, contributed to this report.

WASHINGTON — The Biden administration announced last week it had canceled more than $400 million in student loans for people who attended for-profit colleges.

The ruling affects 16,000 students who the government says were defrauded by for-profit colleges, including 1,800 former DeVry University students.

While it comes as a relief to thousands of people and their families, it's left some to wonder: If President Joe Biden can cancel debt for those students, can he cancel debt for everyone?

AMERICA'S DEBT PROBLEM

The U.S. has accrued nearly $1.75 trillion worth of student debt nationwide.

In Florida, the average debt for those with loans is around $24,000. In Montana, it's averaging just over $27,000. In Wisconsin, it's over $30,000.

Similar numbers are reported in most states throughout the country.

A RELUCTANT PRESIDENT

When Biden ran for office, he pledged to cancel student debt. However, since he has taken office, he has not acted on his own to do it.

Instead, he has encouraged Congress to take action to cancel student debt — a move that has frustrated many in his party.

Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer, D-New York, has recently called on the Biden Administration to take more action to cancel student debt.

CHANGES HAVE HAPPENED

But that doesn't mean no changes are happening. In fact, some changes have already occurred that are impacting families.

For one, every American with federal student loan debt has enjoyed nearly two years of not having to make the payments — without interest accumulating on those loans.

Since March of 2020, under a program that began under former President Donald Trump, federal payments have been suspended. Biden has extended the pandemic-related policy several times since taking office.

May 1 is when federal student loan payments are set to resume. However, that date may get pushed back again.

Additionally, federal law already allows Americans who work in public service to get their debt forgiven after working a certain number of years.

Before Biden took office, the process was complicated, and many borrowers were denied loan forgiveness over technicalities. A new waiver by the Biden administration has changed some of that, and experts now say 9.3 million Americans are now eligible for student loan forgiveness. That includes teachers, police officers, government employees and even some who work for non-profits. Those who think they may qualify are encouraged to apply — or re-apply.

Finally, a big change has happened recently involving bankruptcies.

Student loans aren't treated the same way as credit cards when someone files for bankruptcy. While it's possible to get the debt discharged, typically, the debt stays with someone after they get a bankruptcy ruling. However, in New Jersey, a federal judge decided to interpret the law differently and canceled more than $100,000 in one man's student debt after he filed for bankruptcy. The Justice Department has decided not to object to that case, a rare move, and the Department is now reviewing bankruptcy policies going forward.

PRESSURE ON PRESIDENT

Still, Biden is facing pressure to do more.

The White House has not yet released an internal legal analysis showing whether Biden's attorneys believe he has the authority to cancel debt on his own.

Many members of Congress believe he does and would like to see that analysis released.

A federal judge overseeing litigation related to the nation's opioid epidemic ruled Tuesday that lawsuits targeting Purdue Pharma and other drug companies can move to trial even as the OxyContin maker tries to reach a settlement.

The ruling was one of several issued by U.S. District Court Judge Dan Polster, who is preparing for a trial scheduled for Oct. 21 over claims from the Ohio counties of Cuyahoga and Summit.

It would be the first federal trial seeking to hold drug companies, distributors and pharmacies accountable for an overdose and addiction crisis that has killed more than 400,000 Americans since 2000. More than 2,000 local governments have sued the industry, with most of the cases gathered in multidistrict litigation under Polster. The first trial is partly intended to answer legal questions that could arise in others that would follow if a settlement can't be reached.

Polster issued six rulings Tuesday denying motions for summary judgment from various groups of defendants, who had hoped to have at least some claims against them tossed out. While it's not a surprise that Polster denied the requests, the decisions strengthen the plaintiffs' positions with the initial trial less than two months away.

He ruled that civil conspiracy claims against the companies that make, distribute and sell opioids can remain in the case. In his opinion, Polster wrote that it's for a jury to decide whether there is enough evidence to show the companies' actions meet the criteria of a conspiracy claim.

Some of the defendants also sought to have claims tossed out because of conflicts between the underlying state and federal laws; Polster denied those, as well.

Polster also made rulings specific to certain defendants or groups of them. He found that claims should not be dropped against Mallinckrodt, Teva and Actavis, three makers of generic drugs.

They argued that there was no proof they had marketed their generic opioids during certain time periods, but plaintiffs in the case responded that the companies had indeed done marketing. They pointed to their sponsorship of patient advocacy groups that called for more access to pain treatment.

The judge also ruled against a group of smaller drug distributors. They had argued that lawsuits against them should be tossed out because their involvement in the opioids industry was too small to make a difference.

In recent weeks, Polster has ruled against several efforts to keep expert witnesses from testifying on behalf of the local governments.

It's not clear just which defendants might be included when the trial begins. Last month, drugmakers Endo and Allergan settled claims with the two Ohio counties, and more settlements could come in the weeks ahead.

Purdue, a company strongly associated with the opioid epidemic through its OxyContin drug, has proposed settlement terms that would have the Stamford, Connecticut-based company file for a structured bankruptcy and pay $10 billion to $12 billion to settle all claims against it. The Sackler family, which owns Purdue, would pay $3 billion under the proposal and contribute an estimated $1.5 billion more from the sale of another company they own, Mundipharma.

Since details of the deal became public last week, some local officials and state attorneys general have pushed back, saying the amount of money offered is too small. Others have said they want people affected by the opioid epidemic to have a chance to address company executives in court.

Last month, a state judge in Oklahoma ruled that Johnson & Johnson and its subsidiaries must pay $572 million in the first state-court verdict on the opioid crisis. Purdue and Teva Pharmaceutical Industries settled with the state before the trial began.

Meanwhile, Ohio Attorney General Dave Yost has sued to stop the trials involving the Ohio local governments' claims, saying the state's lawsuit should go first.

Video above: U.S. mandates vaccines or tests for big companies

More than half of the states in the country have filed or signed on to lawsuits challenging the Biden administration's federal vaccine mandate for large companies.

The law, which is set to take effect Jan. 4, would require companies with 100 employees or more as well as any federal contractors to mandate the vaccine or start weekly testing of their workers. This would impact more than 84 million workers, roughly 31 million of whom are unvaccinated.

At least 27 states s0 far, most of which are Republican-led, have decided to take legal action against the new rules, claiming the mandate is an example of federal overreach and both "unlawful and unconstitutional."

Florida kicked off the states' legal pushback against the mandate, with Gov. Ron DeSantis announcing the Sunshine State's lawsuit on Oct. 29.

"Just months ago, Joe Biden was saying that it wouldn’t be appropriate or lawful for the federal government to mandate these COVID shots," DeSantis said. "But now we have somehow gone from 15 days to slow the spread to 3 jabs to keep your job. The federal government is exceeding their power and it is important for us to take a stand because in Florida we believe these are choices based on individual circumstances."

Labor Secretary Marty Walsh said he stands by the mandate, adding that the administration is well-prepared for the avalanche of legal battles.

"We're confident about the rule put together, and I think it's unfortunate that this rule has been out for about eight hours now and people already are suing on it," Walsh said on "All Things Consider," an NPR news program. "This is about protecting workers in the workplace. This is about protecting Americans. This is about increasing our number of people in this country that are vaccinated."

Hearst station WPBF contributed to this report.

DENVER, Co. — Taking children away from parents is a heartbreaking situation. Now, a federal law just put into effect Oct. 1 is hoping to prevent those moments.

The Families First Prevention Services Act aims to move away from placing children into residential facilities or group homes, and instead, keeps them in either a foster home or, preferably, their own home. In order to do that, federal dollars will be put towards services that can be accessed at the home, something that couldn't be done before.

National data says the most common reasons children end up in the foster care system are neglect and drug abuse. By providing treatment in the home, the hope is that it will heal the family unit from within.

"That could be for substance use. That could be for mental health issues that could be for really strengthening families and making more resources available to families to utilize while they're together in their home, rather than having to remove a child before you can access that funding for those support services," said Yolanda Arredondo, a child welfare professional.

She says the new law makes it so children will only be taken out of the home and into a group setting if it is absolutely necessary.

"Because that need is there not just a reaction to this family circumstance, that it really is a need to protect the safety and well-being of a child," said Arredondo, "and hopefully that's temporary and we can provide treatment-focused services to reunify the family as quickly as possible."

In Colorado, where Arredondo works, the state has already been implementing these new federal rules over the last few years. Right now, they serve 70% of children and families in their own home, 30% are with foster families. However, some advocates are concerned that since more foster homes will be needed, there won’t be enough places for children to go.

Arrendondo says she hasn’t necessarily seen that, but anyone interested in becoming a foster parent should seek out resources near them.

Hopefully, this new law means more families getting the help they need to stay together through the tough times in hopes of a brighter future.

The 2022-23 Free Application for Federal Student Aid process officially began Oct. 1.

For many college students, the FAFSA form is one of the most important forms to fill out to receive financial aid, including scholarships, grants, work-study and loans.

All students are encouraged to apply — even if you don’t think you’re eligible.

Here’s what you should know about filling out the FAFSA form this year.

WHAT ARE MY FILING OPTIONS?

You can apply online at fafsa.gov, or you can fill out the form using the myStudentAid app available on both the Apple App Store and Google Play Store.

If you’re not able to fill out the form online, you can print out and complete the FAFSA PDF and mail it in. You can also request a print-out of the PDF by calling 1-800-433-3243, then filling it out and mailing it in.

WHAT DOCUMENTS WILL I NEED TO HAVE?

Once you’ve created an FSA ID, it’s time to gather all your necessary documents.

• Your Social Security number and your parents’ Social Security numbers if you’re a dependent
• Driver’s license number if you have one
• If not a U.S. citizen, have your permanent resident card handy
• Your 2020 federal tax information for yourself, your spouse if married, and your parents if a dependent
• Any records of untaxed income like child support, interest income and veteran non education benefits
• Information on cash, which includes savings and checking account balances and investments

DO I HAVE TO LIST WHICH SCHOOLS I WANT TO ATTEND?

Yes, you should list any school you plan on applying to or have already applied to — even if you haven’t been accepted yet.

In the form, you must list at least one school that will receive your information, and the schools you list will use your FAFSA information to determine how much aid you could receive.

The order of schools listed may not matter for federal aid, but could matter for state aid depending on the state itself. Click here to see if your state requires your school list to be in order.

DO I HAVE TO INCLUDE MY PARENTS’ INFORMATION?

If you’re a dependent student, yes.

You must provide information on both your parents whether or not they are married to each other if they live together. If your legal parent is widowed or never married, then answer questions about that parent.

If your parents are divorced or separated and do not live together, you must answer questions about the parent with whom you lived over the past 12 months. If you lived with both parents the same amount of time, provide information about the parent who provided more financial support.

For those who have stepparents married to their legal parent, you must provide information on them as well.

If you don’t live with any parent, you must still provide information about them.

Find more information here.

WHAT IF I’M UNABLE TO PROVIDE MY PARENTS’ INFORMATION?

If you can't provide parent information because of circumstances like your parents are incarcerated, you have left home because of an abusive environment or don’t know where your parents are, you can still fill out the form.

However, your form won’t be fully processed and you will not receive an Expected Family Contribution and you must contact your school’s financial aid office immediately. You should also gather as much information as possible regarding your situation, including court or law enforcement documents.

The financial aid staff will work with you to determine how much aid you can get.

WHAT IF MY FAMILY’S FINANCIAL SITUATION HAS CHANGED SINCE DOING OUR TAXES?

Some FAFSA applicants may have recent financial changes because of the pandemic or other reasons.

If you find yourself in this situation, complete and submit the FAFSA form like normal, then contact the financial aid office at your school to discuss how your situation has changed.

Financial aid offices may be able to adjust your financial aid award based on your family’s current income.

WHAT ARE THE DEADLINES TO FILL OUT THE FORM?

Applicants are encouraged to submit the FAFSA as soon as possible. The form opened on Oct. 1, and the federal deadline is June 30, 2023.

However, some colleges may have their own deadlines for grants, scholarships and loans, so it’s always best to call ahead to your school to see if they have a specific deadline.

Any corrections or updates to your FAFSA must be submitted by Sept. 10, 2023.

For decades, Black farmers say they have been at the mercy of historically discriminatory lending practices by the U.S. government and banks that do not treat them fairly.

“Farming is really hard for white males, and if it’s really hard for white males, then it’s dreadful for anyone else,” said Zephrine Hanson, an urban farmer who grows small crops she then sells to artisan shops.

Hanson and others say the practices have led to a precipitous decline in the number of Black farmers in our country.

According to the Census of Agriculture, there were roughly 1 million Black farmers in the United States in 1920, comprising around 14 percent of the total number of farmers in the United States.

In 2020, according to the same data, the number of Black farmers in the U.S. had fallen to 45,000, comprising only 1.4 percent of all farmers.

“You know, when you take a man’s farm, it’s not like he’s going down to work at McDonald’s,” said Dr. John Boyd, CEO of the National Black Farmer’s Association. “You break his spirit. You take his history, and dignity, and respect, and you crush him.”

Boyd says he founded the NBFA in the 1980s after he and four other Black farmers would experience discriminatory practices at the hands of the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) when they would go into the office and ask for loans.

“At one particular time, [the director of the local USDA] spat on my shirt,” said Boyd. “He tore my application up and threw it in the trash can. I was pleading for $5,000, and this white farmer comes in, during my time when I’m supposed to be getting this loan, and he passes [the white farmer] a government check for $157,000.”

We reached out twice to the USDA for comment but have not gotten a response.

Boyd says, today, discrimination is less blatant. It can be something like pleasantly-worded letters saying loans cannot be processed and a farmer will have to try again next year. But to farmers of color, it is difficult; federal loans are often their only funding option outside of predatory lenders and suppliers who charge outrageous interest rates.

Otherwise, in a business built on credit, Black farmers are pushed out and forced to sell their farms.

“I’ll be honest, I hope the USDA changes, but I’m not waiting,” said Hanson. “That’s definitely something they’ll have to want to change.”

In 1997, more than 400 Black farmers filed a class action lawsuit against the USDA in what became known as Pigford vs. Glickman, charging the agency with discrimination against Black farmers. The government settled for more than $1.25 billion, the largest discrimination settlement ever paid by the federal government.

Related video: Biden orders tough new fed. vaccination rules

President Joe Biden’s requirement for federal workers to reveal their COVID-19 vaccination status is likely to force uncomfortable questions not only at government agencies but at private companies as well.

Right now, there's a lack of clear answers.

Getting the policy right will take time, and vary across government agencies. The same holds for private companies, for which the White House is trying to provide a guide. It's not like there's a cheat sheet. Nothing on this scale has been attempted before in the face of a virus morphing in real time to become a bigger threat.

“We developed a miracle vaccine in a very short period of time, and there has been a lot hesitancy from the government and from businesses to run with a top-down approach," said Andrew Challenger, senior vice president at the workforce consulting firm Challenger, Gray & Christmas. "Now we’ve reached a point where it’s become very clear the individual incentive people have to protect themselves has not been strong enough to protect the country, and we’re seeing the government take this first step.”

Biden's plan for the federal workforce, announced Thursday, stopped short of a direct order for feds to roll up their sleeves.

Instead, workers will have to attest to whether they're vaccinated. Although employees will not be required to produce a vaccination card, “attest” is a loaded word in the federal workplace, minutely governed by rules and regulations. It implies consequences for providing false or misleading information. How that will be enforced remains unclear, but employees who voluntarily provide valid proof of vaccination will likely settle potential questions upfront.

The unvaccinated will have to put up with regular testing, required masking and social distancing, and they will be barred from official travel. Similar rules will be applied to federal contractors.

Continual testing raises other issues. For most people, health insurance has been paying. But will that continue if someone refuses to be vaccinated and is not eligible for medical or religious exemptions?

Masking has been a perennially touchy subject. But how will agencies enforce a masking policy if not everyone is required to be vaccinated? Will supervisors patrol the cubicles with lists of the unvaccinated?

There are many reasons why translating Biden's order to the workplace may not go smoothly. Government agencies tend to have their own unique cultures, and their missions run the gamut. Doctors at the National Institutes of Health are probably already vaccinated, but some law enforcement agents may be wary of getting a shot not yet fully approved by the Food and Drug Administration.

The largest union representing federal workers, the American Federation of Government Employees, already served notice it expects any changes to working conditions will be “properly negotiated with our bargaining units prior to implementation.”

As for the Pentagon, it's been ordered to study how and when COVID-19 vaccines will become mandatory for military personnel. Service members are already required to get as many as 17 vaccines, depending on where they are based around the world.

Even as Biden laid out his federal plan, some companies like Google were already ahead, saying they will simply require vaccination. But the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, the country's largest business organization, seconded Biden's actions as “prudent steps to protect public health and our economic recovery.”

For public or private employees, the first and most important questions revolve around proving their vaccination status and qualifying for exceptions, said Jeff Hyman, a business author and recruitment expert.

“Are they going to take it on faith?” asked Hyman. There is no central database that records vaccinations.

“What is the exceptions policy?" he continued. "There have got to be exceptions for religious and medical reasons, and that asterisk is going to be really important.”

But if workers seek a religious exemption, will they have to submit a note from a clergyperson?

The federal Equal Employment Opportunity Commission says an employer must provide “reasonable accommodation" for medical or religious reasons "that does not pose an undue hardship on the operation of the employer’s business.”

But companies can legally require vaccination as a “condition of employment,” the Justice Department said in a recent opinion.

Biden is taking a risk here, said Hyman, but doing nothing in the face of rising cases driven by the aggressive delta variant was not an option.

“This is super-easy to second-guess because you only find out in hindsight if you were right,” Hyman said. “We're not going to know for awhile whether this was the optimal decision, but at least he is doing something.”

News that the economy has surpassed its pre-pandemic size only underscores the significance of Biden's move. More outbreaks and shutdowns could dampen hiring and production, creating a new political narrative for Republicans trying to regain control of Congress next year.

Then there's the often delicate issue of workplace etiquette. How will unvaccinated employees interact with their peers who have gotten their shots? Will work units have to be split apart?

Challenger, the workforce consultant, said his company has developed a system for everyone to discreetly signal their comfort level with interaction during the workplace reentry. It involves wrist bands colored green, yellow and red.

Green means a person is comfortable with things going back to the way they were before. Red signals others to stay 6 feet away. Yellow is an in-between zone, implying some hesitancy about chumminess.

“This is such a novel situation, there are not a lot of best practices for us to follow,” he said.