Across the United States, the term “public good” has become a catch-all justification for the government to seize private land, often benefiting corporations more than communities. Farmers, ranchers, and rural landowners are fighting back against eminent domain abuse, arguing that many of these land seizures serve private profit under the guise of public necessity.
Charlie Rankin, host of Yanasa TV, has been covering this growing crisis, particularly its impact on American farmers. He warns that while eminent domain was once reserved for critical infrastructure – like highways, railroads, and public utilities – it is now being used to justify land grabs for corporate interests, including data centers, carbon sequestration projects, and private energy corridors.
As farmland disappears and food production shrinks, many fear this trend could severely affect national food security.
Farmers Are Vanishing at an Alarming Rate
The numbers paint a grim picture for the future of American agriculture. Over the past 42 years, the U.S. has lost half of its cattle ranchers, and the decline is accelerating. According to Rankin, an average of 21,000 cattle farms shut down every year, with only roughly 622,000 left. This is just one sector of the agricultural industry, yet it reflects a larger crisis in which farmers are being pushed out by government policies, economic hardship, and corporate consolidation.
Many of these farms disappear due to rising costs, land development, and environmental regulations, but government-backed eminent domain projects are playing a growing role in the loss of farmland. Rankin believes that rather than supporting farmers, policymakers are making it more difficult for them to survive, favoring industries that rely on farmland for their own expansion.
How the Supreme Court Redefined Eminent Domain
A major turning point in eminent domain law occurred in 1997 with the Supreme Court case Kelo v. City of New London. Before this ruling, the government could only seize private land if it was needed for public use, such as roads, schools, or essential infrastructure. However, the Supreme Court expanded the definition, allowing the government to take land for “public good”, a much broader and more subjective justification.
This shift meant that the government could now seize private land and hand it over to corporations if it was deemed to provide an economic benefit to the community. Rankin and other critics argue that this has created a loophole for private interests to use government power to acquire land at the expense of small farmers and rural residents.
Maryland’s Energy Crisis and Farmland Seizures
One example of this land grab can be seen in Maryland, where residents have watched their electricity bills skyrocket due to the state’s efforts to phase out coal and import power from other states. Instead of investing in local, sustainable energy production, Maryland policymakers have prioritized corporate-backed infrastructure projects that require massive land seizures for power transmission corridors.
These corridors cut through family farms, ranches, and private properties, often offering low compensation while permanently altering the landscape. Rankin highlights that while these projects are billed as necessary for public energy needs, the real beneficiaries are often private tech companies that require enormous amounts of electricity for data centers and artificial intelligence operations.
Georgia Farmers Lose Land for a Private Railway
A recent ruling by the Fulton County Superior Court in Georgia exemplifies how private corporations are benefiting from eminent domain. The court approved a 4.5-mile railway project, supposedly for public good, but Rankin explains that this railway serves private businesses, not the general public.
The railway will primarily reduce transportation costs for corporations, cutting their reliance on trucking by providing a direct rail connection to a larger transport hub. While officials claim that these savings could be passed on to consumers, Rankin is skeptical. He points out that companies rarely lower prices when they can simply increase their profit margins instead.
The real victims are small farmers and landowners in Georgia, many of whom lost their generational farmland to this project. Among those affected are Black farmers whose families have worked the land for decades. By carving up their properties, this project devalues the remaining land and disrupts their ability to farm effectively.
Summit Carbon Pipeline: A Five-State Land Grab
One of the most controversial eminent domain cases today is the Summit Carbon Pipeline, a five-state project that claims to be an environmental necessity but functions primarily as a corporate money-making venture. The pipeline is designed to transport captured carbon emissions from ethanol plants and store it underground, a process that enables massive government subsidies for the companies involved.
While supporters argue that this project will reduce carbon emissions, Rankin and other critics see it as a taxpayer-funded scam. The pipeline cuts through farmland, displacing farmers, yet its benefits are primarily financial, with companies standing to gain billions of dollars in federal incentives.
Silencing Opposition with Legal Threats
One of the most alarming aspects of the Summit Carbon Pipeline project is its aggressive effort to silence opposition. Rankin references a report from the Iowa Dispatch, which revealed that Summit sent cease-and-desist letters to journalists and activists who spoke critically about the pipeline.
Legal threats like these highlight a disturbing trend in which corporations use intimidation tactics to suppress public dissent. Instead of engaging in open discussion about the impact of their projects, these companies are trying to silence opponents through legal pressure.
Carbon Sequestration: A False Solution?
Beyond the pipeline, Rankin also discusses the growing industry of direct air capture, where massive machines pull carbon dioxide from the air, compress it into bricks, and bury it underground. These projects require huge amounts of electricity and water, yet they are being marketed as a green solution.
For farmers, this is especially concerning because carbon is essential for soil health. By removing carbon from the air and storing it out of reach, these projects could negatively impact crop production in the long run. Yet, corporations continue to receive government funding and tax incentives to expand these operations.
Texas Water Rights and the Future of Land Seizures
Texas has become another battleground in the eminent domain fight, particularly regarding water rights. Rankin highlights a reservoir project in Texas that is seizing farmland to store water for future use, despite no immediate need for the resource.
This has led to speculation that the real goal is to secure water for corporate data centers rather than public consumption. As artificial intelligence operations and massive server farms expand, their demand for water is increasing, raising concerns that farmland will be sacrificed to sustain corporate growth.
Artificial Intelligence and the Drive for Land Seizures
A recurring theme in these cases is the role of artificial intelligence in driving land seizures for energy production and infrastructure. Many of these projects – whether energy corridors, carbon sequestration, or water storage – are ultimately tied to supporting AI development.
As Rankin points out, while AI is not a necessity for survival, food is. Yet, the push for AI expansion is displacing the very people who produce our food. If this trend continues, it could lead to higher food prices, supply chain disruptions, and a loss of American agricultural independence.
Eminent Domain Needs Reform
As more states experience land seizures under questionable justifications, Rankin argues that it’s time to reexamine eminent domain laws. The shift from “public use” to “public good” has allowed too much room for abuse, leading to corporate-driven land grabs rather than truly public-benefit projects.
Until this loophole is closed, farmers and landowners will continue to face displacement, while corporations reap the financial rewards. The battle for land rights is far from over, and rural America is at the center of the fight.
Ed spent his childhood in the backwoods of Maine, where harsh winters taught him the value of survival skills. With a background in bushcraft and off-grid living, Ed has honed his expertise in fire-making, hunting, and wild foraging. He writes from personal experience, sharing practical tips and hands-on techniques to thrive in any outdoor environment. Whether it’s primitive camping or full-scale survival, Ed’s advice is grounded in real-life challenges.