By Alejandra Trejo Nieto. SPR Informa. Mexican Press Agency.
In 2018, during President Donald Trump’s first term, NPR published an article entitled “When The U.S. Government Tried To Replace Migrant Farmworkers With High Schoolers.” In that piece, author Gustavo Arellano revisits the 1965 A-TEAM episode (Athletes in Temporary Employment as Agricultural Manpower), a program aimed at replacing the millions of Mexican agricultural workers who had been employed under the Bracero Program with American youth labor. The article not only reveals the U.S. agricultural sector’s structural dependence on migrant labor, but also shows that the real working conditions in the fields can be harsh and brutal—something that hasn’t changed much in sixty years. The A-TEAM project, led by then-Labor Secretary W. Willard Wirtz, proved that agricultural work—grueling, unsanitary, and poorly paid—was not appealing to American youth, even if they were physically fit.
In July 2025, five months into Donald Trump’s second term, we are witnessing what appears to be an intensification and expansion of the deportation apparatus targeting undocumented immigrants, particularly in states with high migrant populations such as California. This escalation in anti-immigration operations follows the passage of a sweeping fiscal bill that President Trump is using to advance his administration’s agenda. With the “Big Beautiful Bill,” immigration enforcement will be significantly bolstered by allocating $100 billion to Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE), aiming to double the country’s immigrant detention capacity.
This reinforcement of immigration policy could have profound economic consequences for key regions and economic sectors, especially California’s agricultural sector, which relies heavily on migrant labor. The immediate implication would be a critical shortage of farmworkers.
This text explores the tensions between economics and politics, ideological dilemmas, and the possible alternatives within a system that needs labor but whose government openly rejects those who sustain its functioning. It delves into the policies the Trump administration might need to consider to address the farm labor deficit without contradicting its anti-immigration narrative. It argues that the mass deportation of farmworkers is far from a short-term issue and instead reveals the contradictions between economic nationalism, institutionalized xenophobia, and the actual dynamics of agribusiness capitalism.
The A-TEAM Episode
After the termination of the Bracero Program in 1964—which had allowed Mexican laborers to legally work in the United States—a wave of concern swept through the country over its impact on agriculture. Secretary Wirtz launched the A-TEAM initiative to recruit high school athletes to replace migrant farmworkers. The plan aimed to enlist up to 20,000 student-athletes, based on the claim that their physical fitness made them well-suited for agricultural labor. The project’s promotional campaign involved the Department of Labor, the Department of Agriculture, and the President’s Council on Physical Fitness, which invested in radio spots and magazine ads featuring figures like quarterback John Huarte, winner of the 1964 Heisman Trophy. “Farm work makes men!” one of the slogans proclaimed.
In the summer of 1965, around 18,100 youth signed up, but fewer than 20% actually worked in the fields. Students from across the country began arriving at farms in Texas and California in early June. However, they were met with extreme working conditions, with temperatures reaching 110°F (≈43°C), six-day work weeks, squalid housing (old barracks), and inadequate equipment. The pay was minimum wage plus a small bonus for the amount of produce picked. In places such as California’s Salinas Valley, most of the students quit within days due to the harsh labor conditions.
The experiment was considered a complete failure and was canceled after its first season. The failed A-TEAM project not only revealed the impracticality of replacing migrant farmworkers with local citizens, but also highlighted a structural reality, namely that industrial agriculture in the United States relies on a labor force that is easily exploitable, often racialized, and deportable. As many labor historians have argued, any attempt to change that equation without improving farm labor conditions is doomed to failure.
The American Dilemma: Structural Agricultural Dependence on Migrant Labor
Donald Trump’s return to power in 2025 has brought with it a policy that prioritizes raids and deportations in so-called “strategic” sectors. The state of California has become an epicenter of large-scale immigration operations and frequent protests that often result in arrests. For instance, on Thursday, July 10, clashes erupted between protesters and federal immigration agents during raids at legal marijuana farms in Ventura and Santa Barbara counties. While ICE has reported mass deportations and the forced departure of numerous workers, exact figures remain unclear, as the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) ceased publishing detailed deportation and repatriation statistics after Trump took office. However, ICE operations have instilled widespread fear among immigrant communities, dissuading even legal migrants from showing up to work.
This situation is particularly complex for the agricultural sector, which is now facing both a physical shortage of workers and a time gap needed to implement alternative solutions, such as recruiting new labor or automating processes.
California’s economy is exceptionally large. In 2024, its nominal Gross Domestic Product (GDP) reached approximately $4.1 trillion, placing it as the fourth-largest economy in the world if it were an independent nation—trailing only the United States, China, and Germany, and surpassing Japan. It is also the leading agricultural producer in the United State. According to the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA), California generated over $59 billion in agricultural products in 2022, accounting for roughly 13.5% of the total national agricultural output.
Historically, California has maintained its agricultural productivity thanks to a predominantly migrant labor force. Moreover, the majority of field workers are undocumented. Their presence has been tolerated—or de facto facilitated—for decades as part of an informal labor system that keeps production costs low and ensures the sector’s competitiveness. According to the National Agricultural Workers Survey (NAWS), most hired farmworkers are foreign-born, and nearly 50% lack regular immigration documents (DOL-NAWS, 2020). For California specifically, estimates place this figure even higher— with undocumented workers accounting for between 60% and 70% of the total.
This labor structure has been highly functional for agribusiness capital, allowing for low wages, high flexibility, and minimal investment in labor protections. U.S. immigration policy, by criminalizing these workers while enabling their exploitation, has served more as a tool of labor control than outright exclusion. Given this context, the federal government faces an obvious contradiction, as anti-immigration policies are harming key economic sectors. With ICE’s budget now significantly increased, California could be facing a perfect storm—the collision of hardline immigration ideology with structural labor needs.
Possible Policies to Address the Farmworker Shortage
There are several policies the Trump administration could implement to mitigate a shortage of agricultural workers, though each comes with its own political, economic, and social implications.
The most viable option within the Trumpist ideological framework would be to expand the H-2A temporary visa program, which allows foreign agricultural workers to be hired legally for a limited time. To avoid criticism from his anti-immigrant base, Trump could frame this policy as “patriotic and orderly migration,” where workers do not settle in the country, have no path to citizenship, and remain fully under state control. However, this measure faces administrative hurdles, and many farmers view the process as slow, bureaucratic, and costly. In addition, numerous reports of labor rights violations under this scheme could lead to lawsuits and international criticism.
Another potential approach could involve launching a new program to encourage U.S. citizens to work in agriculture by offering subsidies, student loan forgiveness, or tax benefits. But past experiences—such as the A-TEAM—have shown that few Americans are willing to take on agricultural jobs that are physically demanding, poorly paid, and marked by precarious working conditions. Furthermore, the fiscal cost of subsidizing such programs could be unpopular with the more conservative wing of the Republican Party.
A third option would be to invest in agribusiness technology to replace workers with machines. This would align with rhetoric around “reducing foreign dependence,” but it requires time and significant investment. Moreover, many crops in California (like strawberries, grapes, or lettuce) still cannot be efficiently harvested by machines. Automation also presents another political dilemma: who would fund this technological transition? Would the government subsidize large agribusinesses to replace workers that the same government has deported?
In a pragmatic turn, the government could establish a pilot program to allow previously deported farmworkers to return if they meet certain criteria (no criminal record, documented work history, etc.). While likely unpopular with Trump’s most radical base, this measure would allow companies to regain skilled labor. Though such policies have been implemented in other contexts, in this case, the obstacle is ideological. For Trump, admitting he needs those he deported implies a defeat of his narrative.
Any policy that opens pathways for foreign labor—even temporarily—would generate tensions. On the one hand, business sectors would push for pragmatic solutions; on the other, Trump’s hardline wing would accuse him of “betraying” his promise to protect American jobs.
The Limits of Economic Nationalism
The shortage of agricultural workers, a direct result of the mass raids and deportations promoted by the U.S. federal government, reveals a structural reality of the country’s agro-industrial system: it cannot sustain itself without migration. The dilemma facing U.S. society is not technical but political and ideological. Any attempt to resolve the labor deficit implies acknowledging that the system depends on the very population it seeks to officially exclude.
The proposed policies—from expanding H-2A visas to automating the harvest—are partial responses and, in many cases, contradict Trump’s political project. This exposes the limits of economic nationalism in a context of global interdependence and raises an uncomfortable question: Can a country maintain its prosperity while expelling those who make its harvest possible?
As Saskia Sassen warns: the global economy expels and then reintegrates those it has marginalized under new rules. In that logic, the migrant worker is both essential and disposable. Ultimately, the United States faces a critical crossroads, because sustaining a productive agricultural sector will require recognizing the dignity and rights of those who make it possible. Denying that reality from positions of power may lead to consequences no government will be able to contain.
Related: President Sheinbaum Condemns U.S. Immigration Raids: ‘They Are Unjust and Harm the Economy’
Mexican Press Agency is part of ALMA, which is dedicated to news and information about Mexico and Mexicans in the United States and is a fiscally sponsored project of Social Focus, a 501(c)(3) nonprofit organization based in Redwood City, California.
