White Farmer Sues USDA, Alleges Reverse Discrimination Under Trump-Era Programs

A white male dairy farmer in Wisconsin brought forward a federal lawsuit alleging that the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) is putting white men at a disadvantage by continuing programs that concentrate on diversity. The lawsuit was filed on Monday and is built around the insinuation that race and gender are the two factors that play a role in the selection of some people for better treatment and others for worse.

Adam Faust, a dairy farmer who is a double amputee, has already waged legal disputes with the USDA in the past. He was one of the plaintiffs in a 2021 lawsuit, which was successful in putting a temporary halt to the race-oriented loan forgiveness scheme by the Biden administration deemed unconstitutional by a federal court.

At present, Faust is determined to move to the next step of their plan in accusing the government of promoting DEI policies that have not been swept under the rug even if the Trump era has ended. Together with the Wisconsin Institute of Law and Liberty (WILL), the advocate for his case, they assert in their legal claim that such policies lead to an inequitable balance in the advantage of the minority and female agricultural workers, making white male farmers such as Faust suffer a lot.

Faust argues that the bias can be measured in actual dollars and cents. One such case from the complaint is that he has to bear the brunt of a $100 administrative fee to be in the milk pricing support program—even though, he argues, this is not the case for minority and women farmers. Then, his lawsuit states that the USDA would be willing to extend the loan guarantee to white farmers by 90%, whereas the same guarantee for minority and women farmers gets raised to 95%. Moreover, he outlines that his manure storage project is only able to obtain a 75% repayment under an environmental conservation program as opposed to minority farmers who are entitled to 90%.

“These differences are not just numeric values – they are barriers,” Faust highlighted in a written statement. “USDA is expected to help all farmers. But it seems that the system serves a selected few and discriminates against others because of race or gender.” She further added.

The USDA has chosen to keep silent pointing out their standard practice of not discussing ongoing litigations.

On the other hand, Faust’s view is not shared by everyone. John Boyd Jr., the head of the National Black Farmers Association, expressed disapproval of the lawsuit. “Black farmers are the ones who operate under the toughest conditions currently,” he insisted. “You may attempt to present the lawsuit differently, but the actual situation on the ground is rather contrary.”

The lawsuit involves three specific programs that the USDA is claimed to favor white farmers to the detriment of others and, thereby offending the Constitution’s equal protection clause. The situation for unequal treatment and the issue of the promotion of diversity have made their mark in the current national debate on government agencies of different races or sexes and their actions.

The Wisconsin Institute, in thirty plus states, is also part of the lawsuits that have been filed and argues that it reached out to the USDA with a letter before pursuing a lawsuit this year. However, the lack of a response prompted them to go ahead, saying that “it’s inexcusable to let such discrimination continue”.

The lawsuit has been filed before the court in the middle of Trump’s campaign, which includes the promise to kill off the diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) policies in all federal agencies and be replaced by the comeback of “merit-based” decisions. It does not single out Trump, but it does bring attention to the fact that once a policy that is born under an administration finds its way into the fabric of the national government with the potential of causing a future ripple should it spark controversy later.