Rep. Adams Calls on USDA to Rescind Misguided Rule Overturning Programs Supporting Socially Disadvantaged Farmers
WASHINGTON, DC— Today, Congresswoman Alma S. Adams, Ph.D. (NC-12), Senior Member of the House Agriculture Committee, called on the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) to rescind their misguided rule overturning decades-old programs for socially disadvantaged (SDA) farmers who face race- and sex-based discrimination.
“I was appalled and disappointed to learn that the USDA is no longer taking remediation steps for race- and sex-based discrimination in farm lending, conservation grants, loans, and other programs,” said Congresswoman Adams. “According to the Trump Administration, the ‘socially disadvantaged’ designation is no longer needed since past discrimination has been ‘sufficiently addressed.’ Who is the administration trying to fool? And where’s the data?"
While the Trump Administration says that past discrimination has been sufficiently addressed, reports on the USDA website suggest otherwise:
- SDA farmers on average have fewer financial resources than non-SDA producers, making land purchases more difficult.
- Median household income is significantly less for SDA farmers than for non-SDA farmers—about $60,000 compared to about $75,000.
- SDA farmers are more likely to operate smaller farms and face greater financial challenges compared to the white farmers who dominate U.S. agriculture.
- Including off-farm earnings, the median household income of SDA farmers was lower than white farmer households.
“Exclusion of these populations from USDA programs is blatantly sexist and racist,” Adams continued. “Women make up half the population so excluding half the population and all communities of color who are hard-working taxpayers from USDA programs is outrageous, unfair, and wrong. This is a perverse, deliberate, and intentional effort to undermine the protections of the 1964 Civil Rights Act and turn the clock backwards on progress made. The USDA has been found to have consistently discriminated against both its employees of the department and the farmers, ranchers, and stakeholders who seek legally protected access to the benefits Congress has authorized and approved. It is shameful.”
“All these communities need, deserve, and have a right to be included. And the department knows that. It has among the worst records of discrimination in the history of our country and seems eager to repeat that horrid behavior. I demand that the USDA rescind this discriminatory rule and do the right thing because it is right!” Adams concluded.