Farmers Claim USDA Aid Programs Discriminate Against Whites

The Biden administration has injected identity politics into various aspects of society over the past several years, using race and other immutable characteristics to determine eligibility for disaster aid and student loan forgiveness.

In response to U.S. Department of Agriculture programs using race and gender as primary factors in the distribution of taxpayer-funded aid, a group of White farmers is taking the White House to court.

According to reports, the Texas-based coalition is being represented by the Southeastern Legal Foundation and filed the complaint with the U.S. District Court in Amarillo.

“When natural disasters strike, they don’t discriminate based on race and sex,” the complainants argued. “Neither should the Department of Agriculture.”

The motion, which was made public on Monday, asserted that the agency should be prohibited “from using race, sex, or progressive factoring when administering the programs” based on the argument that the existing programs “are unconstitutional” and that the USDA “lacks statutory authority to run the programs in their current form.”

Furthermore, the coalition of farmers claimed that the federal agency “failed to adequately explain changes in calculating payments when implementing progressive factoring.”

According to the court filing, eight such programs have served as the vehicles for the distribution of at least $25 billion in aid related to disasters and the COVID-19 pandemic.

Doing so based on groups deemed “socially disadvantaged,” the complainants claim, violates the Constitution’s Fifth Amendment as well as the Administrative Procedures Act.

“The Constitution promises equal treatment to all Americans regardless of their race or sex,” the motion added. “It also promises the separation of powers. USDA broke both promises through the disaster and pandemic relief programs challenged here.”

Since the USDA’s programs provide “more money to some farmers” specifically because of their physical characteristics, the motion cites last year’s U.S. Supreme Court ruling overturning affirmative action policies regarding college and university admissions as a precedent in this case.

“The USDA does this by first defining farmers who are black/African-American, American Indian, Alaskan native, Hispanic, Asian-American, Native Hawaiian, Pacific Islander, or a woman as ‘socially disadvantaged,’” the motion continued. “Then, it provides farmers who qualify as socially disadvantaged more money for the same loss than those it deems non-underserved, along with other preferential treatment.”

Previous articleTrump Breaks ‘Every Fundraising Record In History’
Next articleLackluster Funding, Reliance On Out-Of-State Donors Haunting Fani Willis