Farmers seeking USDA clean energy grants must now scrub all mentions of “climate” and “diversity” from their applications or risk losing their funding entirely.
At a Glance
- The USDA is unfreezing billions in clean energy funding but requiring applicants to remove climate and diversity terminology within 30 days
- Affected programs include Rural Energy for America (REAP), Empowering Rural America (New ERA), and Powering Affordable Clean Energy (PACE)
- Farmers and grant recipients face confusion about whether non-compliance will result in denial of funds
- Critics argue these changes may be illegal since Congress allocated the funds for specific climate-related purposes
- The modifications align with Trump administration executive orders on DEI initiatives
Big Government’s Orwellian Word Games
In a stunning display of government overreach, the USDA is now telling American farmers they can receive clean energy grants only if they pretend the energy isn’t actually “clean.” The agriculture department has lifted its freeze on billions in energy funding but with a catch that would make George Orwell proud: applicants have just 30 days to scrub their proposals of forbidden words related to climate change and diversity. Apparently, renewable energy is fine as long as you don’t mention why you might want it in the first place.
This bureaucratic word-policing affects major programs including the Rural Energy for America Program (REAP), which provides $2 billion through 2031, and the New ERA program, funded at $9.7 billion for rural electric cooperatives. The administration claims these changes support “increasing U.S. energy production” while conveniently ignoring that the entire point of these programs, as funded by Congress, was to support climate-smart agriculture.
Confusing Guidelines Leave Farmers in Limbo
Imagine being Jim Lively, a northern Michigan farmer who just wants to install some solar panels at his family market. He applied for funding, got approved, and now the government is telling him he might need to rewrite his application to remove certain words – but won’t clearly say which ones or what happens if he doesn’t. It’s the kind of maddening government doublespeak that drives Americans crazy. The USDA has set up a web portal for farmers to make these “voluntary” changes while simultaneously warning that non-compliance could affect disbursements.
“The Agriculture Department is lifting a freeze on clean energy funding programs but giving applicants 30 days to modify their proposals to remove unspecified references to DEI and “climate mandates.”” said Agri-Pulse.
Legal experts are pointing out the absurdity of this situation. These funds were specifically allocated by Congress for climate-smart agriculture projects. Now the USDA is essentially saying, “You can have the money Congress approved for climate initiatives as long as you don’t mention climate.” It’s like getting funding for a fire department but being forbidden from mentioning fires. The environmental law organization Earthjustice has already sued the USDA over the freezing of these funds, recognizing this bureaucratic shell game for what it is.
Government Doublespeak Masks Real Intentions
The administration is attempting to frame this Orwellian word-policing as some kind of noble effort to address an “energy emergency.” Agriculture Secretary Brooke Rollins claims the review allows rural energy providers to “realign their projects with that mission.” But let’s get real – what emergency is solved by forcing farmers to play semantic games with their grant applications? The only emergency here is the one facing farmers waiting for their approved funding while bureaucrats nitpick their word choices.
“I think they’re being completely disingenuous. This is about finding another way to deny farmers what they’re owed.” said Hana Vizcarra.
Some applicants, like Jim Lively, are planning to simply wait out the 30-day period without making changes, hoping the USDA is bluffing about withholding funds. Others worry this is just the beginning of a broader attack on energy independence for America’s farmers. After all, if a farmer can’t install solar panels without government permission to use the right vocabulary, what’s next? Telling farmers what crops they can grow based on which plants have politically acceptable names?
The Bottom Line: More Government Control
This isn’t just about semantics – it’s about control. Congress allocated these funds for specific purposes, and now unelected bureaucrats are creating arbitrary hurdles for American farmers and rural businesses trying to access them. Some lawmakers are rightly pushing back. Representative Jill Tokuda pointed out that “farmers don’t have time to be jumping through extra hoops” for support they depend on for their livelihoods. This is exactly the kind of regulatory nonsense that strains farmers’ patience and wallets while delivering zero actual benefits.
“USDA’s job is to support our agricultural producers and rural communities. It’s impossible to do that when USDA is adding unnecessary bureaucratic restrictions and blocking federal resources that farmers and rural communities depend on just to appease President Trump’s extreme agenda. Our farmers don’t have time to be jumping through extra hoops to get support for critical conservation work they depend on for their livelihoods. They need and deserve better.” said Representative Jill Tokuda.
Americans deserve better than a government that plays political word games with their livelihoods. If a farmer wants to install solar panels to save money on energy costs, why should they have to navigate a political minefield of approved terminology? The solution is simple: Let farmers farm, let businesses operate, and keep the political language police out of grant applications that have already been approved. That’s not just common sense – it’s the kind of limited government our founders envisioned.
