The United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) has announced a major policy reversal, ending a 35-year-old framework that supported minority farmers. This move involves eliminating the use of the term “socially disadvantaged,” which was previously applied to farmers facing racial, ethnic, or gender discrimination—particularly Black, Hispanic, Native American, and Asian agricultural producers.
The original policy was rooted in the 1990 Food, Agriculture, Conservation, and Trade Act and included programmes like the 2501 Program, which aimed to deliver resources to historically underserved farmers. With the new directive, race- or sex-based considerations will no longer influence the USDA’s allocation of grants or resources.
According to the department, the decision aligns with principles of fairness, meritocracy, and equal opportunity. Officials argue that past issues of discrimination have been addressed through lawsuits, settlements, and structural reforms. However, critics view the shift as a serious regression, stripping away hard-fought gains for minority farmers and dismantling vital support systems.
Longtime farmers and advocates have voiced concern over the implications. Many worry that the rollback of DEI-related initiatives could drastically reduce access to funding, training, and government programmes that helped level the playing field for minority producers. The changes come amid broader executive efforts to dismantle federal diversity, equity, and inclusion mandates.
Legal battles have also contributed to this shift, with white farmers claiming reverse discrimination in USDA programmes that previously offered benefits such as lower fees and higher loan guarantees to women and farmers of colour.
In contrast, Black farmers continue to pursue justice through the courts, arguing they were excluded from newer financial assistance initiatives designed to redress historical injustices. Lawmakers and farmer groups have called for clearer definitions and a renewed focus on equitable resource distribution rather than sweeping reversals.
Currently, farmers of colour represent just 4% of the nation’s 3.3 million producers, yet they remain significantly impacted by systemic barriers. While some acknowledge the need to refine terminology, many believe abandoning the policy altogether will exacerbate disparities.
The policy change not only alters the domestic agricultural landscape but could also influence global discussions on equity in farming, particularly in nations addressing their own legacies of discrimination and land inequality.
