In a recent Yahoo News article titled “Black Farmers Sue USDA Over $127 Million in Canceled Grants,” the publication frames a lawsuit by organizations representing Black farmers and other groups as a stand against injustice. It portrays the termination of these Biden-era grants as an attack on efforts to address historical discrimination. This narrative misses the central issue: the grants relied on explicit racial and ethnic preferences that discriminated against non-minority farmers, primarily White producers who make up the large majority of American agriculture. Such preferences violate the principle of equal protection under the law.
The U.S. Supreme Court has made clear that government programs using race as a factor must survive strict scrutiny. They require a compelling interest and narrow tailoring based on specific evidence of discrimination, not broad generalizations. Recent court actions against USDA programs reflect this standard. In 2025 and 2026, challenges by groups like the Wisconsin Institute for Law & Liberty led to settlements removing race- and sex-based criteria from multiple USDA initiatives, including loan guarantees, Dairy Margin Coverage, and environmental quality incentive programs. The agency acknowledged that prioritizing certain racial groups over others, including White male farmers who represent over 60 percent of producers, was unconstitutional.
The “socially disadvantaged” categories in these programs explicitly favored Black, Hispanic, Asian, Native American, and other designated groups for easier access to funding, lower fees, and priority consideration. This created a two-tier system where non-preferred farmers faced higher barriers simply based on their race or ethnicity. Equal protection applies to individuals, not racial groups. Government cannot lawfully disadvantage one set of citizens to advantage another based on skin color.
Past discrimination against Black farmers has already received substantial remedies. The Pigford litigation and subsequent settlements delivered billions in payments, debt relief, and other assistance. More recent programs under the Inflation Reduction Act provided billions more in discrimination financial assistance tied to claims of past harm. While disputes over implementation continue, these efforts show that targeted redress for proven victims is possible without creating permanent racial entitlements that harm others.
The Yahoo article highlights programs such as the Increasing Land, Capital, and Market Access initiative, which directed funds specifically toward certain demographic groups. Continuing such race-conscious allocations invites ongoing division and litigation. White farmers, who produce the overwhelming share of the nation’s food supply, also face real economic pressures from debt, input costs, weather, markets, and regulation. They should not be treated as second-class applicants for taxpayer-supported programs.
Race-based approaches have not reversed long-term declines in Black farmland ownership, which stem from complex factors including economic consolidation, urbanization, heirs’ property issues, and market dynamics affecting small farms of all backgrounds. Blanket preferences risk fostering dependency rather than building broad-based resilience across agriculture.
The better approach is straightforward and fair: USDA support should focus on objective, color-blind criteria such as farm viability, income levels, disaster losses, credit needs, innovation, or conservation practices. All farmers benefit from policies that strengthen markets, reduce regulatory burdens, invest in research and infrastructure, and provide targeted help for genuine hardship regardless of race.
The lawsuit described in the Yahoo article seeks to reinstate racially targeted funding. True fairness in farm policy demands ending discrimination in every direction. Canceling these race-based grants represents a necessary step toward equal treatment under the law. American agriculture thrives when policy serves producers as individuals and stewards of the land, not as members of preferred or disfavored racial categories. AgroWars will continue tracking these developments to ensure farm policy remains grounded in merit, evidence, and unity of purpose for all who feed the nation.