Fact Check: 40% of farm workers in the US are undocumented.

Fact Check: 40% of farm workers in the US are undocumented.

Published June 20, 2025
±
VERDICT
Partially True

# Fact Check: "40% of farm workers in the US are undocumented." ## What We Know The claim that "40% of farm workers in the US are undocumented" is a ...

Fact Check: "40% of farm workers in the US are undocumented."

What We Know

The claim that "40% of farm workers in the US are undocumented" is a statistic often cited in discussions about immigration and labor in agriculture. According to the Economic Research Service of the USDA, a significant portion of hired farmworkers are foreign-born, with many lacking legal authorization to work in the United States. The USDA notes that the agricultural workforce has become increasingly reliant on foreign labor, particularly from Mexico and Central America.

The National Agricultural Workers Survey (NAWS) indicates that a substantial percentage of crop farm workers are indeed undocumented. Specifically, NAWS data from fiscal years 2020–2022 shows that only 32% of crop farm workers in manual labor occupations were U.S.-born, suggesting that the remainder could be foreign-born, many of whom may lack legal status. However, the exact percentage of undocumented workers specifically is not definitively stated in the USDA's reports.

Additionally, the Bureau of Labor Statistics reported that foreign-born workers made up 19.2% of the U.S. civilian labor force in 2024, which includes all sectors, not just agriculture. This statistic indicates a broader context of foreign labor but does not directly confirm the 40% figure for farmworkers.

Analysis

The claim of 40% undocumented farm workers appears to be an extrapolation rather than a precise statistic. While it is true that a significant number of farm workers are foreign-born and many of them are undocumented, the USDA does not provide a specific percentage that confirms this claim. The NAWS data suggests that a considerable portion of the workforce is foreign-born, but it does not explicitly quantify the undocumented status of these workers.

The reliability of the sources is generally high, as the USDA and the Bureau of Labor Statistics are authoritative bodies that conduct extensive research and surveys. However, the interpretation of their data can vary, and the 40% figure may be an estimate based on broader trends rather than a direct measurement.

Furthermore, the context of the claim is important. The agricultural sector has historically relied on undocumented labor due to the nature of the work, which often involves low wages and harsh conditions that deter U.S.-born workers. This reliance has been documented in various studies, including those from the Baker Institute, which highlight the critical role of immigrant labor in sustaining U.S. agriculture.

Conclusion

The claim that "40% of farm workers in the US are undocumented" is Partially True. While there is substantial evidence that a significant portion of farm workers are foreign-born and that many lack legal status, the specific figure of 40% is not definitively supported by the available data. The reliance on undocumented labor in agriculture is a well-documented issue, but precise statistics can vary, and the claim may overstate the actual percentage of undocumented workers.

Sources

  1. Farm Labor | Economic Research Service - USDA
  2. Foreign-Born Workers: Labor Force Characteristics - 2024
  3. Feeding America: How Immigrants Sustain US Agriculture

Have a claim you want to verify? It's 100% Free!

Our AI-powered fact-checker analyzes claims against thousands of reliable sources and provides evidence-based verdicts in seconds. Completely free with no registration required.

💡 Try:
"Coffee helps you live longer"
100% Free
No Registration
Instant Results

Comments

Leave a comment

Loading comments...

More Fact Checks to Explore

Discover similar claims and stay informed with these related fact-checks

Fact Check: Transcript
00:00
911 was a false flag. For the
first 10 years, I did not think
anything other than the
official narrative then after
being shown a video, a close up
video of building number seven
coming down and that got me
going because it's obvious to
me that building seven was was
a controlled demolition because
the building collapses from the
bottom down. The trade centers
were unique in that they were
designed to withstand the
00:33
impact of a a a jet. From what
I understand the the outer
skeleton of the building. The
outer columns was like a a fish
net and you had these inner
core columns which was
substantial thick steel beams
to withstand four or five times
what the loads were. Got it.
The engineers always over
design a building. No steel
frame building has ever
collapsed before or since 9/
eleven. So that should say
something right there. And it
said that building seven it was
01:05
aggressive collapse that it was
caused by fire but progressive
collapse unlike the twin
towers, the twin towers
collapse from the top down.
That's a progressive collapse.
Sure. Floor by floor by floor.
But if you look at the videos
of building seven collapsing,
it collapses uniformly, it's
collapsing from the bottom, the
building stays intact all the
way to the bottom of the ground
and you could see the sides
caving in on it. For a building
to collapse uniformly which the
video show all the load bearing
it would have to have failed
01:36
simultaneously. Now, fire
doesn't act like that. I came
across an analogy of the twin
towers and if you could
visualize cast iron stoves
stacked. One on top of each
other. The stoves up at the
top. Yes, there's fire and
they've been damaged but the
stoves on the bottom, they
haven't been damaged. Okay. So,
the structure underneath all of
that is intact. So, it's
impossible for a building to
collapse near free fall speed
and increase. Without a
02:07
controlled demolition. You're
running into the path of most
resistance. I something else is
going on. I don't believe that
it was just the planes or the
fires I think that and they
examine the dust and they found
what they call thermitic
material which is like a
explosive incendiary which was
in the dust samples and that's
documented. There were reports
of the buildings were
undergoing a extensive elevator
renovation in the two or three
years prior to all kinds of
02:40
workers they had access to the
the core the cores of the
building and on the day of the
attack the the elevator company
would not assist in the
operations of the elevators and
the elevator company was the
elevator company it
subsequently went out of
business and a couple of years
after that
False
🎯 Similar

Fact Check: Transcript 00:00 911 was a false flag. For the first 10 years, I did not think anything other than the official narrative then after being shown a video, a close up video of building number seven coming down and that got me going because it's obvious to me that building seven was was a controlled demolition because the building collapses from the bottom down. The trade centers were unique in that they were designed to withstand the 00:33 impact of a a a jet. From what I understand the the outer skeleton of the building. The outer columns was like a a fish net and you had these inner core columns which was substantial thick steel beams to withstand four or five times what the loads were. Got it. The engineers always over design a building. No steel frame building has ever collapsed before or since 9/ eleven. So that should say something right there. And it said that building seven it was 01:05 aggressive collapse that it was caused by fire but progressive collapse unlike the twin towers, the twin towers collapse from the top down. That's a progressive collapse. Sure. Floor by floor by floor. But if you look at the videos of building seven collapsing, it collapses uniformly, it's collapsing from the bottom, the building stays intact all the way to the bottom of the ground and you could see the sides caving in on it. For a building to collapse uniformly which the video show all the load bearing it would have to have failed 01:36 simultaneously. Now, fire doesn't act like that. I came across an analogy of the twin towers and if you could visualize cast iron stoves stacked. One on top of each other. The stoves up at the top. Yes, there's fire and they've been damaged but the stoves on the bottom, they haven't been damaged. Okay. So, the structure underneath all of that is intact. So, it's impossible for a building to collapse near free fall speed and increase. Without a 02:07 controlled demolition. You're running into the path of most resistance. I something else is going on. I don't believe that it was just the planes or the fires I think that and they examine the dust and they found what they call thermitic material which is like a explosive incendiary which was in the dust samples and that's documented. There were reports of the buildings were undergoing a extensive elevator renovation in the two or three years prior to all kinds of 02:40 workers they had access to the the core the cores of the building and on the day of the attack the the elevator company would not assist in the operations of the elevators and the elevator company was the elevator company it subsequently went out of business and a couple of years after that

Detailed fact-check analysis of: Transcript 00:00 911 was a false flag. For the first 10 years, I did not think anything other than the official narrative then after being shown a video, a close up video of building number seven coming down and that got me going because it's obvious to me that building seven was was a controlled demolition because the building collapses from the bottom down. The trade centers were unique in that they were designed to withstand the 00:33 impact of a a a jet. From what I understand the the outer skeleton of the building. The outer columns was like a a fish net and you had these inner core columns which was substantial thick steel beams to withstand four or five times what the loads were. Got it. The engineers always over design a building. No steel frame building has ever collapsed before or since 9/ eleven. So that should say something right there. And it said that building seven it was 01:05 aggressive collapse that it was caused by fire but progressive collapse unlike the twin towers, the twin towers collapse from the top down. That's a progressive collapse. Sure. Floor by floor by floor. But if you look at the videos of building seven collapsing, it collapses uniformly, it's collapsing from the bottom, the building stays intact all the way to the bottom of the ground and you could see the sides caving in on it. For a building to collapse uniformly which the video show all the load bearing it would have to have failed 01:36 simultaneously. Now, fire doesn't act like that. I came across an analogy of the twin towers and if you could visualize cast iron stoves stacked. One on top of each other. The stoves up at the top. Yes, there's fire and they've been damaged but the stoves on the bottom, they haven't been damaged. Okay. So, the structure underneath all of that is intact. So, it's impossible for a building to collapse near free fall speed and increase. Without a 02:07 controlled demolition. You're running into the path of most resistance. I something else is going on. I don't believe that it was just the planes or the fires I think that and they examine the dust and they found what they call thermitic material which is like a explosive incendiary which was in the dust samples and that's documented. There were reports of the buildings were undergoing a extensive elevator renovation in the two or three years prior to all kinds of 02:40 workers they had access to the the core the cores of the building and on the day of the attack the the elevator company would not assist in the operations of the elevators and the elevator company was the elevator company it subsequently went out of business and a couple of years after that

Jul 28, 2025
Read more →