USDA AXES Race Rules—Bureaucrats Freak Out

Rows of orange trees laden with ripe oranges under a clear blue sky

The USDA has officially dropped race and sex from its farm program eligibility criteria, leaving Americans wondering how long it will take before common sense finally wins out across the rest of our bloated, agenda-driven bureaucracy.

At a Glance

The USDA will no longer consider race or sex for farm loans, subsidies, or conservation programs.
This ends decades of “socially disadvantaged” set-asides after a long history of discrimination lawsuits and settlements.
Advocacy groups and former officials blast the rollback, warning it could reverse recent gains for minority and women farmers.
The agency claims “meritocracy, fairness, and equal opportunity” for all, aligning with broader federal moves to dismantle DEI initiatives.

USDA Ends Race and Sex Criteria in Farm Programs: The End of Identity Politics in Agriculture?

After decades of bureaucratic navel-gazing and endless government hand-wringing over historical discrimination, the U.S. Department of Agriculture has finally decided to stop playing identity politics with taxpayer-funded farm programs. As of July 10, 2025, the USDA is dropping race and sex as criteria for farm loan, commodity, and conservation programs—putting an end to the era of quotas and “socially disadvantaged” set-asides that have shaped federal agriculture policy since the late 20th century. The new rule, signed by acting General Counsel Ralph Linden, is being praised by some as a long-overdue return to equal treatment under the law and slammed by others as a betrayal of “progress.”

This change comes after years of mounting legal challenges, costly settlements, and the constant expansion of diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) bureaucracies. For years, advocacy groups and lawyers feasted on USDA discrimination lawsuits, with Black farmers and other minority groups claiming they were systematically excluded from loans and subsidies. The infamous Pigford v. Glickman case in 1999 resulted in a billion-dollar payout, and the USDA has paid tens of thousands more in recent years to settle claims of past bias. Now, the agency says it’s time to move forward, claiming it has “addressed past bias” and will now focus on “meritocracy, fairness, and equal opportunity for all participants.”

From New Deal Discrimination to DEI Overdrive: A Brief History

Let’s not rewrite history: the USDA’s record is a mess. In the early 20th century, Black farmers made up 14 percent of all U.S. farmers, but thanks to a toxic mix of government incompetence and outright racism, they were squeezed out by local committees controlled by wealthy White landowners who controlled federal assistance. The New Deal’s Agricultural Adjustment Act of 1933, lauded by progressives as a “social safety net,” often excluded Black farmers from life-saving subsidies and loans. By 1965, the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights found the USDA was still blatantly discriminating against Black farmers, a pattern that continued well into the 1980s and 1990s. Government reports and lawsuits kept piling up, but accountability and real reform were always in short supply.

In the name of making amends, the USDA created a system of “socially disadvantaged” set-asides—essentially, quotas based on race and sex. These were supposed to level the playing field, but like most government fixes, they created a new set of problems. Eligibility rules became a maze of identity boxes to check, and federal aid turned into a political football for activists and bureaucrats alike. Now, after years of litigation and government payouts, the agency says it’s time to move past identity-based preferences and let farmers compete on merit. The only carve-outs left? Beginning and veteran farmers—categories that actually make sense if the goal is to promote new entrants and support those who served their country.

The Blowback: Critics Decry the End of Preferences, Agency Doubles Down on “Fairness”

Predictably, the outrage machine is in full swing. Advocacy groups and former USDA anti-discrimination officials are already denouncing the policy shift. University of Michigan law professor Margo Schlanger, a former USDA official, accused the agency of “shutting off one way that the department both communicated and ensured that it was truly open for business to farmers of color, as well as white farmers.” The National Black Farmers Association and other groups insist that without explicit race and sex preferences, the ghosts of discrimination will come roaring back. They claim the new rule will “widen disparities” and “reverse recent gains” for minority and women farmers, all while ignoring the fact that the USDA just finished doling out massive settlements to address precisely those historic grievances.

The USDA, meanwhile, isn’t blinking. The agency insists it’s done enough to address past wrongs and that the new approach is about “equal opportunity”—not endless bean-counting and quota-chasing. The Biden administration’s DEI apparatus has already been in retreat across much of the federal government, and the Trump administration’s directives to dismantle DEI policies clearly influenced the USDA’s decision. Still, the agency continues to face pressure from all sides: advocacy groups demanding more preferences, fiscal hawks demanding less spending, and taxpayers sick of watching their dollars fund bureaucratic fads and activist wish lists.

What’s Next: Legal Showdowns, Political Theater, and a Test for “Meritocracy”

The rule is now in effect, but the fight is far from over. Critics are already threatening lawsuits, arguing that the end of race- and sex-based preferences in federal farm programs violates the spirit—if not the letter—of past settlements and civil rights laws. Supporters counter that it’s about time the government stopped dividing Americans into grievance groups and started treating everyone by the same rules. The stakes are high: the agricultural sector remains deeply polarized, and the broader debate over DEI policies is only getting more intense as the 2026 elections loom.

The reality is simple: government should serve all citizens equally, not pick winners and losers based on identity checkboxes. For taxpayers, farmers, and families who just want a fair shot, the USDA’s move is a step back toward sanity. The question now is whether other agencies will have the courage to follow suit—or whether the ever-expanding grievance industry will drag us back into the quota-ridden past. Time, and the courts, will tell.