A story originally published by Capital B and reported in The Guardian reveals significant changes to American agricultural policy that could impact farmers worldwide.
By Maile Matsimela
The United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) has announced the elimination of a 35-year-old policy designed to support black farmers, marking what critics are calling a “disgraceful step backward” in addressing agricultural discrimination. The agency will no longer use the term “socially disadvantaged” to describe farmers who have faced racial, ethnic or gender discrimination, including black, Hispanic, Native American and Asian agricultural producers.
Lloyd Wright, an 84-year-old soybean and vegetable farmer from Virginia, expressed his concerns about the policy shift. “The government is going to take back the money. The little bit we were getting and some of the outreach money will be crawled back,” Wright told reporters. “Because they’re eliminating ‘socially disadvantaged’ and anything else dealing with DEI [diversity, equity and inclusion].”
The contentious term was adopted in the Food, Agriculture, Conservation, and Trade Act of 1990 to deliver resources to minority farmers through initiatives such as the 2501 Program, which required the USDA to ensure historically underserved farmers had access to grants and other resources. Under the new policy direction, the agency will no longer consider race- or sex-based criteria in its decision-making process for programmes.
According to the USDA’s announcement, this move will ensure that department programmes “uphold the principles of meritocracy, fairness, and equal opportunity for all participants”. The department also stated that it has “sufficiently” addressed its history of discrimination through litigation that has resulted in settlements, relief and reforms.
USDA Secretary Brooke Rollins defended the policy change in an agency statement. “Under President Trump, USDA does not discriminate and single out individual farmers based on race, sex or political orientation,” the statement read. “Secretary Rollins is working to reorient the department to be more effective at serving the American people and [to] put farmers first whilst following the law.”
‘Trump’s Resegregation Agenda’
The decision has sparked significant opposition from Democratic congressional leaders. Shontel Brown, an Ohio Democratic representative and Vice Ranking Member on the House Committee on Agriculture, characterised the move as “Trump’s resegregation agenda”. Brown argued that “the department has a long history of locking out and leaving behind black, brown and Indigenous farmers” and described the new rule as “a deliberate and disgraceful step backward on the path to attempt to right the historic wrongs”.
Shomari Figures, a Democratic representative from Alabama who also serves on the House Committee on Agriculture, called for compensation rather than policy reversal. “It’s no secret that black farmers were economically disadvantaged by the past intentional discrimination by USDA,” Figures stated. “I believe this administration should take every opportunity to implement criteria that ensure that black farmers are not subjected to such treatment in the future.”
Wright, a retired USDA employee who has worked with 10 presidents dating back to the 1960s, offered a nuanced perspective on the terminology itself. “I don’t think I’m socially disadvantaged. I just happen to be black, and they discriminated against me because I’m black, and so I think it’s time that we straighten it out,” he explained. However, he emphasised that “there are people who deserve compensation. I wouldn’t call it reparations, but they deserve to be compensated for the damage done to them in the past” by various levels of government.
Tiffany Bellfield El-Amin, founder of the Kentucky Black Farmers Association, acknowledged the need for refined definitions while expressing concerns about losing support systems. “Not all black people fit into the category of being disadvantaged,” she said, but stressed that redefining policy language remains crucial to ensure adequate support for black farmers, who often receive limited resources.
The policy change is a response to executive orders issued by the Trump administration that terminate mandates supporting DEI programmes. It also addresses pressure from white farmers who have demanded action against what they describe as reverse discrimination.
Legal Challenges
Recent legal challenges have influenced this shift, including a lawsuit filed by Adam Faust, a white dairy farmer from Wisconsin, who alleges discrimination in three USDA programmes. Faust claims these programmes favour women and farmers of colour through reduced administrative fees, higher loan guarantees and increased conservation funding.
Meanwhile, black farmers continue pursuing legal remedies for historical discrimination. The Memphis-based Black Farmers and Agriculturalists Association has brought a case to the US Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals, alleging they were ineligible to apply for the Discrimination Financial Assistance Program that provided assistance to 43 000 farmers of all backgrounds who experienced discrimination prior to 2021.
Senator Raphael Warnock from Georgia, who serves on the Senate agriculture committee, pledged continued support for equitable resource distribution. “Instead of working to create more certainty for our nation’s farmers and adopting a stable trade agenda, this administration is focused on divisive publicity stunts that will hurt our agriculture industry long-term,” Warnock commented.
The Census of Agriculture indicates that farmers of colour represent approximately 4% of the nation’s 3.3 million producers, highlighting the relatively small but significant population affected by these policy changes.
Wright remains cautiously optimistic about future possibilities despite his concerns about the current political climate. “We’re going to have plenty of time to work on a new definition,” he said. “You’re not going to be able to get anything passed unless we get a different Congress and president, and you’re really talking about the next administration at best. By then, we ought to be able to straighten it out.”
The policy reversal represents a significant shift in American agricultural support systems and may influence similar discussions about farmer assistance programmes globally, particularly in countries grappling with their own histories of agricultural discrimination and land reform.
