The concession came in response to a racial and gender equality lawsuit brought by the Wisconsin Institute for Law and Liberty, a civil rights watchdog, on behalf of Wisconsin dairy farmer Adam Faust. According to WILL, Faust is one of 2 million white male farmers still subject to persisting prejudiced practices at the USDA.<\/p>\n

In June, Faust filed equal protection challenges to three USDA farmer financial assistance programs, arguing that they contain lingering, unconstitutional race- and sex-specific preferences.<\/p>\n

USDA STILL DISCRIMINATING AGAINST WHITE FARMERS, WATCHDOG SAYS<\/strong><\/a><\/p>\n

The loan guarantee program<\/a> ensures farm loans for up to 95% against possible financial loss, allowing eligible farmers to borrow more money at a lower interest rate. Women and racial minorities can receive a higher guarantee, as much as 95%<\/a> of the outstanding principal, while white males may only get a guarantee of 90%<\/a> of a loan’s value. A lower guarantee means higher interest rates<\/a> and lower overall loan amounts.<\/p>\n

The Dairy Margin Coverage Program<\/a> pays producers when the margin between the price of milk and the average cost of feed falls below a certain coverage level. To participate in the program, enrollees are required by the USDA to pay an annual $100 administrative fee. However, the USDA only charges white male farmers<\/a> this fee and exempts “socially disadvantaged farmers&rdquo<\/a>;<\/a> from having to pay. USDA regulations currently define<\/a> the “socially disadvantaged” as ethnic minorities and women.<\/p>\n

The Environmental Quality Incentives Program<\/a> awards up to 90% of conservation project costs<\/a> associated with planning, design, materials, equipment, installation, labor, management, maintenance, and training to “socially disadvantaged farmers.”<\/a> White male participants, meanwhile, are only entitled to 75% of costs reimbursed.<\/p>\n

MINORITY FARMERS DISPROPORTIONATELY SUBSIDIZED BY BIDEN-ERA USDA LOANS, DATA SHOW<\/strong><\/a><\/p>\n

On July 10, the USDA issued a final rule<\/a> amending regulatory language to remove the designation of “socially disadvantaged” for bestowing benefits under a slate of USDA programs, including the guaranteed loan program. Per the proclamation published in the Federal Register, the USDA concluded that usage of the “socially disadvantaged” designation is “inconsistent with constitutional principles and the administration’s policy objectives.”<\/p>\n

“Moving forward,” the rule declares, “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.<\/em>”<\/p>\n

While implementation of the loan guarantee program will be amended accordingly, the USDA is “considering how to implement the administration’s position” concerning the other two programs at issue in Faust’s case. <\/p>\n

“USDA’s decision could obviate the need for further litigation,” the government’s motion says.<\/p>\n

A farmer drives a tractor alongside strawberry fields at the Boxx Berry Farm in Ferndale, Washington, U.S., on Monday, June 18, 2018. (David Ryder\/Bloomberg)<\/figcaption><\/figure>\n
The move marks a significant policy reversal, falling in line with President Donald Trump’s plans to root out any remaining diversity, equity, and inclusion initiatives embedded at the federal level.<\/p>\n
“This lawsuit served as a much-needed reminder to the USDA that President Trump has ordered the end to all federal DEI programs,” Dan Lennington, deputy legal counsel at WILL, told the Washington Examiner<\/em>. “There’s more work to be done, but today’s victory gives us a clear path to do even more in the name of equality.”<\/p>\n
WILL’s “Roadmap to Equality”<\/a> tracks the Trump administration’s progress in dismantling DEI-based programming within departments across the federal government. According to the tracker, areas in need of reform at the USDA include racially selective disaster relief and crop assistance.<\/p>\n
The Washington Examiner<\/em> contacted the USDA for comment.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n