In a bold move that signals a dramatic departure from the policies of previous administrations, the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) announced on July 10, 2025, that it will no longer consider race or sex in many of its farm loan, commodity, and conservation programs. This decision, aligning with the Trump administration’s broader directive to dismantle diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) policies across federal agencies, marks a significant step toward restoring fairness, meritocracy, and a singular focus on agriculture within the USDA. The agency’s new rule, signed by acting General Counsel Ralph Linden, asserts that “USDA will no longer apply race- or sex-based criteria in its decision-making processes, ensuring that its programs are administered in a manner that upholds the principles of meritocracy, fairness, and equal opportunity for all participants.”
This shift is a welcome change for many who have long criticized the USDA’s entanglement in identity politics, reparative payouts, and extraneous activism that strayed far from its core mission of supporting American farmers. Under previous administrations, particularly during the Biden era, the USDA became a battleground for social justice initiatives, with billions of dollars funneled into programs that prioritized race and sex over qualifications or need. These policies not only sowed division but also led to accusations of reverse discrimination, forcing White farmers to sue for equal treatment under the law. The USDA’s latest decision to eliminate DEI considerations, along with its removal of LGBTQ and climate change activism from its agenda, is a clear signal that the agency is refocusing on its primary purpose: agriculture.
The Burden of “Reparations” and Identity-Based Payouts
For decades, the USDA acknowledged its history of discriminatory practices, particularly against Black farmers, as evidenced by the landmark Pigford v. Glickman settlement in 1999, which provided over $1 billion in payments and debt relief to address systemic exclusion from credit programs between 1981 and 1996. While these efforts were intended to rectify past wrongs, they evolved under subsequent administrations into sprawling, loosely regulated programs that invited abuse and undermined fairness.
During the Biden administration, the USDA rolled out the Discrimination Financial Assistance Program, funded by the 2022 Inflation Reduction Act, which allocated $2.2 billion to farmers who claimed discrimination based on race, religion, gender, or other identities. Unlike earlier settlements, this program required minimal evidence of discrimination, allowing individuals to qualify simply by alleging unfair treatment in loan denials or other USDA interactions. Critics argued that this opened the door to fraudulent claims, with some recipients having little to no verifiable connection to farming. Reports surfaced of non-farmers receiving payouts, further eroding trust in the agency’s ability to administer funds responsibly.
Meanwhile, White farmers faced exclusion from these race-based relief programs, prompting legal challenges. Courts repeatedly struck down efforts to provide debt relief exclusively to farmers of color, ruling that such policies violated equal protection under the law. White farmers, many of whom struggled under the same economic pressures as their minority counterparts, were forced to sue to access the same aid, highlighting the irony of a system meant to combat discrimination creating new forms of bias. The USDA’s decision to eliminate race- and sex-based criteria in its programs directly addresses these inequities, ensuring that aid is distributed based on merit and need, not identity.
DEI’s Distraction from Agriculture
The USDA’s embrace of DEI under previous administrations went far beyond financial assistance programs. The agency allocated significant resources to initiatives that had little to do with farming, such as promoting LGBTQ inclusion and combating climate change. While these issues may hold importance to some in broader societal contexts, their integration into the USDA’s mission diluted its focus on supporting farmers and ranchers. For example, the agency spent millions on contracts and grants for projects like “expanding equitable access to land, capital, and market opportunities for underserved producers” and “educating and engaging socially disadvantaged communities,” totaling over $148 million in DEI-related expenditures. These initiatives, often criticized as vague or performative, diverted funds from practical agricultural support.
Climate change activism also became a central pillar of the USDA’s agenda, with programs like the Partnership for Climate-Smart Commodities allocating $3 billion to projects aimed at reducing greenhouse gas emissions. While environmental stewardship is a valid concern, many farmers argued that these programs prioritized ideological goals over their immediate economic needs, with too much funding siphoned off for administrative costs rather than direct aid. The USDA’s cancellation of such initiatives, coupled with its restoration of climate-related webpages only after legal pressure from farm groups, underscores the agency’s pivot back to practical, farmer-focused priorities.
A Renewed Focus on Agriculture
By eliminating DEI, race-based policies, and extraneous activism, the USDA is poised to return to its roots as an agency dedicated to supporting all American farmers, regardless of identity. The new rule maintains benefits for beginning farmers and military veterans, ensuring that support is targeted toward those who are actively contributing to the agricultural sector. This approach not only aligns with constitutional principles of equal protection but also resonates with farmers who have long called for a level playing field.
The contrast with previous administrations could not be starker. Where past policies leaned heavily on identity politics and reparative justice, often at the expense of fairness and efficiency, the current USDA is prioritizing meritocracy and practicality. The agency’s decision to redirect funds away from DEI contracts and climate slush funds—saving over $5.5 billion in wasteful spending—demonstrates a commitment to fiscal responsibility and farmer-centric governance.
Critics of the new rule, such as University of Michigan law professor Margo Schlanger, argue that it shuts off a pathway for ensuring access for farmers of color. However, proponents counter that race-neutral policies better serve the diverse agricultural community, which includes only 4.5% of farmers from minority groups according to the 2022 Census of Agriculture. By focusing on universal criteria like economic need, experience, and commitment to farming, the USDA can support all producers without perpetuating divisive identity-based frameworks.
Looking Ahead
The USDA’s decision to dismantle DEI and refocus on agriculture is a victory for fairness, merit, and common sense. It addresses the grievances of farmers who felt marginalized by race-based policies, reins in wasteful spending on non-agricultural initiatives, and restores the agency’s mission to its rightful place: supporting the men and women who feed America. As the USDA moves forward under this new framework, it has an opportunity to rebuild trust with farmers of all backgrounds, ensuring that its programs are accessible, equitable, and laser-focused on the needs of the agricultural sector.
This shift is not just a policy change—it’s a cultural reset. By prioritizing agriculture over activism, the USDA is setting a precedent for other federal agencies to follow, proving that government can serve its constituents effectively without being mired in ideological battles. For America’s farmers, this is a long-overdue step in the right direction.