The U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) has formally discontinued the use of race- and gender-based criteria in determining eligibility for a broad range of its farm assistance programs. Effective immediately, loan, commodity, and conservation support will no longer include “socially disadvantaged” as a determining factor. The policy change was enacted under Acting General Counsel Ralph Linden, signaling a shift toward merit-based federal aid.
The authority to prioritize minorities and women in USDA aid stems from a lengthy legal backdrop. Historically, these priorities aimed to rectify documented discrimination within USDA lending and program access, particularly under Democratic-led efforts throughout the Obama and Biden administrations. In 2024, the USDA issued restitution to tens of thousands of farmers who suffered bias, leveraging funds through the Inflation Reduction Act’s Discrimination Financial Assistance Program (DFAP). However, in the wake of judicial rulings and executive policy shifts, such race-based relief has come under question.
Under Secretary Brooke Rollins, aligned with the former Trump administration’s ideals of equity through equality, USDA has moved forcefully against what it terms “DEI funding.” In June 2025 alone, Secretary Rollins announced termination of over $145 million in DEI-oriented projects, among them urban forestry and minority outreach initiatives. Today’s announcement marks the culmination of this policy pivot.
“Moving forward, 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,” said the rule, signed by acting General Counsel Ralph Linden.
The policy’s defenders argue that removing race and gender from eligibility restores fairness and reduces taxpayer expenditures on programs they see as partisan or divisive. DOJ officials also confirmed that race- and sex-based aid fails to pass constitutional scrutiny, stating that remedies for historical discrimination do not justify new discrimination.
Critics caution that abandoning these measures risks undoing progress made for minority and female farmers, who currently represent only 4.5% of all U.S. farmers, according to USDA data. Legal scholar Margo Schlanger described this move as “shutting off one way that the department…ensured it was truly open for business to farmers of color”.
In conservative legal circles, however, the change is regarded as constitutionally sound. Following a 2021 court injunction that halted race-based loan forgiveness, advocacy groups like the Wisconsin Institute for Law & Liberty have sued to eliminate similar programs nationwide. One farmer, Adam Faust, alleges that allowances are currently biased in favor of women and minorities—such as lower fees and higher loan guarantees—placing white male farmers at a disadvantage.
This lawsuit has gained traction, leading the USDA to align with legal standards and halt race- or sex-based benefits in aid packages. GOP lawmakers from Wisconsin and other states have urged Secretary Rollins to enforce this policy change, citing federal constitutional protections.
One GOP spokesman noted that the moves under the Trump-aligned administration “do not discriminate and single out individual farmers based on race, sex, or political orientation”.
Supporters of the USDA’s new direction emphasize the restoration of merit-based support without regard to immutable traits. They highlight that beginning and veteran farmers will still receive targeted benefits, ensuring assistance to those who need it without bias. The policy, they say, places emphasis on individual initiative and equal treatment under the law, a stance echoed by DOJ’s withdrawal of legal defense for race-based emergency farm aid.
Public opinion in agricultural regions appears split. Conservative constituencies applaud the move as a rollback of “woke” government spending, while Minority farming groups express concern that the policy may render recent restitution efforts moot. National Black Farmers Association President John Boyd Jr. remains skeptical, warning that stripped-down programs could level back enforcement, undermining access for historically underserved communities.
From a conservative Christian standpoint, the policy shift underscores principles of equality under the law and prudent stewardship of taxpayer funds. Aid is now predicated on need rather than identity, echoing biblical calls for impartial justice and the rejection of favoritism. The move seeks to accentuate character and labor over classification, a stance likely embraced by those who view federal intervention as warranting restraint and faith-aligned accountability.
For farmers like Faust, the recalibration offers renewed confidence in a system where merit, rather than category, governs access. For the USDA, this change marks a definitive reorientation of farm policy—one that places the agency at the center of a broader cultural and legal debate. As the litigation proceeds and the agency implements the rule, the nation will observe whether this transition ushers in fairer, more efficient aid or deepens disparities for those still recovering from generational inequities.
In sum, while USDA’s new policy signals an ideological and legal correction toward equal treatment, it also reignites conversations about the balance between constitutional fairness and restorative justice. As evidence mounts on both sides, the future of farm aid will hinge not on identity, but on performance—and the policies the USDA crafts to support it.