‘Disgraceful step backward’: USDA ends support for Black farmers, saying it ‘sufficiently’ handled discrimination | Black farmers

This story was originally published by Capital B, a nonprofit newsroom that centers Black voices.

Lloyd Wright isn’t shocked that the US Department of Agriculture is reversing a 35-year-old policy meant to help Black farmers in favor of a race-neutral approach.

But the 84-year-old, who grows soybeans and vegetables in Virginia, knows his fellow Black farmers will feel the damage.

Earlier this month, the agency announced that it’s eliminating the term “socially disadvantaged,” which describes farmers or ranchers who had been subjected to racial, ethnic or gender discrimination. It includes Black, Hispanic, Native American, and Asian groups.

“[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 said. “Because they’re eliminating ‘socially disadvantaged’ and anything else dealing with DEI [diversity, equity and inclusion].”

The department adopted the language in the 1990 Farm Bill to deliver resources to minority farmers, including through the 2501 Program – an initiative that requires the USDA to ensure that historically underserved farmers have access to grants and other resources.

Now, the agency will drop the use of the term entirely and will no longer consider race or sex-based criteria in its decision-making process for programs. According to the decision, this move will ensure that USDA programs “uphold the principles of meritocracy, fairness, and equal opportunity for all participants”.

The decision also said the department has “sufficiently” addressed its history of discrimination through litigation that has resulted in settlements, relief and reforms.

USDA officials did not respond to a question about the potential impact this policy will have on programs or on farmers of color, who represent about 4% of the nation’s 3.3 million producers, according to the Census of Agriculture.

However, a spokesperson for the agency said in a statement that Brooke Rollins, the USDA secretary, will follow the law while putting farmers first.

“Under President Trump, USDA does not discriminate and single out individual farmers based on race, sex or political orientation. Secretary Rollins is working to reorient the department to be more effective at serving the American people and put farmers first while following the law,” the statement said.

Several Democratic congressional leaders are speaking out against the change and demanding the USDA be held accountable.

Shontel Brown, an Ohio Democratic representative who is a vice-ranking member on the House committee on agriculture, said this is “Trump’s resegregation agenda”. Brown said the rule isn’t about fairness, but stripping the tools to help level the playing field.

“It’s no secret that the department has a long history of locking out and leaving behind Black, brown, and Indigenous farmers,” Brown wrote in a statement. “Now, this administration is taking a deliberate and disgraceful step backward on the path to attempt to right the historic wrongs. The ‘socially disadvantaged’ designation was a long overdue recognition of the barriers to land, credit and opportunity that farmers of color have faced for generations.”

Shomari Figures, a Democratic representative of Alabama who also serves on the House committee on agriculture, said that instead of reversing this rule, the administration should compensate Black farmers impacted by the USDA’s past actions.

“It’s no secret that Black farmers were economically disadvantaged by the past intentional discrimination by USDA,” Figures said in a statement. “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.”

For Wright, a retired USDA employee who has worked with 10 presidents dating back to the 1960s, the label “socially disadvantaged” was never a good one because it included too many groups of people. He said Black people haven’t benefited from the wording as much as other people.

Wright said while he doesn’t believe preferential treatment should be given to a person because of race or sex, the government shouldn’t deny a person resources for the same reason.

“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 said.

“There are people who deserve compensation – I wouldn’t call it reparations – but they deserve to be compensated for the damages done to them in the past” by state, local and federal governments, he added.

Tiffany Bellfield El-Amin, founder of the Kentucky Black Farmers Association, agrees that there needs to be a new definition, because not all Black people fit into the category of being disadvantaged. However, redefining the language of the policy is crucial to ensure that Black farmers, who often receive limited resources, are adequately supported, she said.

She pointed out that some Black farmers with larger operations have been able to secure loans, even though they do not face disadvantages or discrimination. Additionally, she said that in some county offices, USDA officials prioritize outreach to white farmers – specifically those they are familiar with – leaving many Black farmers to navigate the system on their own.

The most prominent concern for Bellfield El-Amin was the loss of inclusivity.

“That’s why we adopt new ways of doing Underground Railroad-type situations. We’re gonna figure it out one way or another,” she said. “We just don’t have time to fight with definitions that may or may not help us in the long run, just exhaust us even further … and we still end up here.”

The new policy comes in response to two executive orders issued earlier this year by Trump, which terminates any mandates or programs that support DEI.

“We are taking this aggressive, unprecedented action to eliminate discrimination in any form at USDA,” Brooke Rollins, secretary of agriculture, said in a news release. “It is simply wrong and contrary to the fundamental principle that all persons should be treated equally.”

There’s also been ongoing pressure from white farmers who have demanded the administration address what they describe as reverse discrimination.

Just last month, a conservative law firm sued the Trump administration on behalf of Adam Faust, a white dairy farmer from Wisconsin. Faust alleges that he has experienced discrimination in three USDA programs – Dairy Margin Coverage Program, Loan Guarantee Program, and Environmental Quality Incentives Program. He claims the programs favor women and farmers of color, offering reduced administrative fees, higher loan guarantees, and more money for conservation efforts.

In 2021, the farmer successfully sued Joe Biden’s administration over similar claims. Faust, along with a group of white midwestern farmers, argued that a $4bn loan forgiveness program that would have helped farmers of color was unconstitutional because it discriminated against them. This suit was filed by the Wisconsin Institute for Law and Liberty, the same firm representing him in the current case.

Meanwhile, Black farmers are still suing for their due.

Earlier this year, the Memphis, Tennessee-based Black Farmers and Agriculturalists Association brought a case to the sixth US circuit court of appeals, alleging they were ineligible to apply for the Discrimination Financial Assistance Program. The program provided assistance to 43,000 farmers – of all racial backgrounds – who experienced discrimination prior to 2021.

Raphael Warnock, a Democratic senator from Georgia who serves on the Senate agriculture committee, said that he pledges his support to help Black farmers receive equitable resources.

“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 said.

Given the current political climate, Wright isn’t sure if he should see the glass as half empty or half full, but he remains pessimistic about this administration. However, he says this is an opportunity to get some things straightened out and implement a new definition.

“In some cases, they started to broaden the social disadvantage to include the historically underserved, and if you add it up, it was about 80% of the population,” Wright said.

He added: “We’re going to have plenty of time to work on [a new definition]. 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.”