Ag Policy Blog

The U.S. Department of Agriculture will no longer recognize race- or gender-based criteria when it comes to farm programs -- dropping the "socially disadvantaged" designation despite the provision still being in federal law.

USDA published a final rule Thursday in the Federal Register announcing the "Removal of Unconstitutional Preferences Based on Race and Sex in Response to Court Ruling." The rule is effective immediately.

The rule will affect about 20% of USDA's total farm-loan volume and affect loans and programs for roughly 4.5% of ethnic producers and more than 1.2 million women farmers. The rule also will remove any special incentives for loans and conservation programs.

"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," the Federal Register rule states.

The rule follows two presidential executive orders issued by President Donald Trump, including Executive Order 14173, "Ending Illegal Discrimination and Restoring Merit-Based Opportunity." The order calls on agencies to "eliminate all discriminatory and illegal preferences, mandates, policies, programs and activities." Since then, the Trump administration has been focused on removing any funding tied to "diversity, equity or inclusion," or DEI initiatives.

The term "socially disadvantaged" was defined in the 1990 farm bill, which identified farmers and ranchers as members of a group who had been subjected to racial or ethnic discrimination. USDA's 1990 definition for socially disadvantaged farmers lists farmers who are Black, or African American, American Indians or Native Alaskans, Hispanics, Asians and Native Hawaiians or Pacific Islanders. Women were added to the definition in 1992 for loan programs.

USDA cited the department has faced a long history of litigation stemming from allegations of discrimination on farm loans and other programs. "However, over the past several decades, USDA has undertaken substantial efforts to redress past injustices, culminating in comprehensive settlements."

While citing multiple cases of discrimination against USDA such as Pigford v. Glickman and Keepseagle v. Vilsack, USDA also cites Strickland v. USDA, in which white farmers challenged USDA's pandemic relief programs that supported socially disadvantaged farmers.

Just last month, a white dairy farmer in Wisconsin sued the Trump administration claiming he was being denied assistance that was granted to socially disadvantaged farmers.

See, "Wisconsin Dairy Farmer Sues USDA on Alleged Race, Sex Discrimination in Farm Programs,"

https://www.dtnpf.com/…

USDA has removed all of the FSA loan data for socially disadvantaged farmers. The department had listed annual reports showing that data by state.

Based on data DTN pulled back in January, USDA issued $1 billion in loans to farmers who meet the definition of "socially disadvantaged" farmers in 2023, or just over 21% of all USDA loan volume. Oklahoma, with a large population of Native American farmers, accounted for $222 million in socially disadvantaged loans, followed by Arkansas which had $112 million. Texas, Louisiana and Missouri are typically the three next-highest states for farmers who qualified for socially disadvantaged farmer loans.

Rep. Shontel Brown, D-Ohio, the vice-ranking member of the House Agriculture Committee, quickly criticized USDA for ending programs supporting socially disadvantaged farmers.

"Trump's resegregation agenda has arrived at USDA," Brown stated in a news release. "It's no secret that the department has a long history of locking out and leaving behind Black, Brown, and Indigenous farmers. 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. This move isn't about fairness or efficiency. It's about erasing the history and stripping the tools that help level the playing field."

Chris Clayton can be reached at Chris.Clayton@dtn.com

Follow him on social platform X @ChrisClaytonDTN

(c) Copyright 2025 DTN, LLC. All rights reserved.