3-time Trump voter has now lost 50% of his business. Hear why he’s still a supporter

CNN - Apr 10th, 2025

North Carolina beekeeper Jim Hartman, a three-time Trump voter, is reconsidering his support for the former president due to the negative impact of tariffs and cuts to federal assistance programs. These policies have significantly affected his income, reducing the tens of thousands of dollars in federal aid he previously received. In an interview with CNN's Randi Kaye, Hartman expressed his concerns about the economic hardships these changes have brought to farmers like himself.

This situation highlights the broader implications of political decisions on individual livelihoods, particularly within the agricultural community. The story underscores the complex relationship between political allegiance and policy outcomes, as well as the potential for shifts in voter sentiment when economic realities clash with political expectations. Hartman's experience is a microcosm of the challenges faced by farmers nationwide, offering insight into the evolving perspectives among rural voters who initially supported Trump's presidency.

Donald Trump Agriculture Cnn Tariffs North Carolina Federal Aid Cuts Jim Hartman Randi Kaye

Story submitted by Fairstory

RATING

5.4

Moderately Fair

Read with skepticism

The news story provides a personal account of a beekeeper's experiences with political policies, offering insight into the real-world impacts of tariffs and federal program cuts. While the narrative is clear and accessible, it lacks thorough verification and diverse perspectives, which affects its overall reliability and balance. The story is timely and relevant, addressing issues of public interest, but its potential impact is limited by the absence of corroborating evidence and broader viewpoints. Overall, the article serves as a starting point for discussion but would benefit from additional sourcing and context to enhance its credibility and depth.

Accuracy

The story claims that Jim Hartman, a North Carolina beekeeper, voted for Donald Trump three times and believed a second Trump presidency would benefit farmers. It also reports that tariffs and cuts to federal programs have negatively impacted his business, leading to significant revenue losses. While these claims are specific, they require verification from credible sources. For instance, Hartman's voting history and his views on Trump's policies need confirmation, as does the impact of tariffs and federal program cuts on his business. Without direct evidence or statements from Hartman, the story's accuracy remains partially unverified.

Balance

The story primarily focuses on Jim Hartman's perspective, providing insight into his experiences and views. However, it lacks a broader range of viewpoints, such as those from other farmers or experts in the agricultural sector who might offer different perspectives on the impact of Trump's policies. This singular focus could lead to a perceived bias, as it does not fully explore the diversity of opinions within the farming community or the complexities of the policies in question.

Clarity

The language and structure of the article are straightforward, making the main points easy to understand. The story effectively conveys Hartman's perspective and the challenges he faces. However, the lack of detailed explanations for certain claims might leave readers with unanswered questions, slightly affecting overall comprehension.

Source quality

The story relies heavily on the account of Jim Hartman, but it lacks additional sources or references that could bolster its credibility. There is no indication of external verification of Hartman's claims, such as financial records or expert analysis. The absence of multiple authoritative sources or corroborating evidence weakens the overall reliability of the report.

Transparency

The article provides limited context regarding the basis of its claims. While it presents Hartman's experiences and opinions, it does not thoroughly explain the methodology behind the claims, such as how the financial impacts were calculated or which specific federal programs were cut. This lack of transparency makes it difficult for readers to fully understand the factors influencing Hartman's situation.