The Department of Agriculture will no longer consider a farmer’s race or sex in determining eligibility for benefits in many of its farm loan, commodity, and conservation programs, the agency said in a regulatory note.
On July 10, the Department of Agriculture published a final rule that ends the agency’s decades-long use of the “socially disadvantaged” designation. The designation was aimed at addressing historic discrimination against nonwhite and female farmers. The rule is effective immediately.
A broad range of USDA programs are affected, including farm loan programs, conservation efforts, disaster relief, and rural development initiatives. Benefits for beginning and veteran farmers remain in place, but race and sex will no longer be considered when awarding aid.
“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 rule states.
In its final rule, the agency said the decision aligns with recent federal directives emphasizing equal protection under the law and merit-based opportunity. Furthermore, the rule reflects the agency’s conclusion that past discrimination has been sufficiently addressed through litigation, settlements, and reforms.
The policy shift follows up on two executive orders signed by President Donald Trump immediately after his inauguration in January, directing the government to roll back so-called diversity, equity, and inclusion policies.
Specifically, Trump signed an executive order revoking earlier executive actions promoting racial equity through targeted preferences. The following day, Executive Order 14173 declared a national policy to end illegal discrimination and restore merit-based opportunity across federal agencies, directing them to terminate programs based on diversity, equity, or advancing equity.
In its explanation for the final rule, the Department of Agriculture said it has faced a long history of lawsuits alleging discrimination in the administration of its farm loan and benefit programs. Over the years, the agency took substantial steps to address these problems through settlements, institutional reforms, and direct compensation.
The rule referenced the Pigford v. Glickman class-action lawsuit filed in 1998 on behalf of black farmers who were allegedly systematically excluded from Department of Agriculture credit programs between 1981 and 1996.
A settlement in that case, approved in 1999, provided more than $1 billion in payments and debt relief and required institutional reforms at the federal agency. Because many eligible claimants missed the original filing deadlines, Congress authorized a second settlement in 2010, allocating an additional $1.25 billion in compensation.
Similar lawsuits, such as Keepseagle v. Vilsack, brought by Native American farmers, resulted in a $760 million settlement as well as additional reforms. Other cases involving Hispanic and female farmers spurred the USDA to create administrative processes to review and compensate individual claims, the final rule said.
Representatives of the USDA did not immediately respond to a request for comment from The Epoch Times.
