USDA unfreezes clean energy money while ‘inviting' recipients to remove DEI and climate language
Robert Nickelsberg / Getty Images via Grist
This story was originally published by Grist. Sign up for Grist's weekly newsletter here.
This coverage is made possible through a partnership between Grist and Interlochen Public Radio in Northern Michigan.
Jim Lively wants to install rooftop solar panels on his family's local food market, just minutes from the Sleeping Bear Dunes National Lakeshore in northern Michigan. Those panels could help power the RV campground they want to open next to the market and offset other electricity bills.
But even though Lively was awarded a $39,696 grant for the project through a U.S. Department of Agriculture program called the Rural Energy for America Program, or REAP, he's not sure if he'll be able to get the solar panels he wants. As one of thousands of grant awardees across the country, Lively was banking on that money to cover half the cost of the solar project.
Within President Donald Trump's first few days in office, he issued a set of executive orders intended to crack down on government initiatives geared toward addressing climate change, improving environmental justice, and supporting diversity, equity, and inclusion. Amidst the now-familiar wave of fluctuations and uncertainty for farmers and business owners who had been counting on funding from various programs, Lively was told that the funding for REAP had been paused.
Late last month, Lively got a welcome update: The money was now unfrozen.
On March 25, the U.S. Department of Agriculture announced it will release grant money through REAP and two other clean energy programs partly supported by the 2022 Inflation Reduction Act. But there appeared to be some fine print.
In the announcement, the USDA also invited grant and loan recipients to voluntarily revise their proposals to align with Trump's executive order by 'eliminating Biden-era DEIA and climate mandates embedded in previous proposals.'
In an email, a USDA spokesperson said that people who had already been awarded funding could voluntarily 'review and revise' their plans within 30 days to more closely align with the Trump administration's executive order. If recipients confirm in writing that they don't want to change anything about their proposals, the USDA said 'processing' for their projects would continue immediately. If recipients don't communicate with the USDA, 'disbursements and other actions will resume after the 30 days,' according to the statement. But many questions remain, and the agency did not address Grist's requests for clarification.
For instance, the agency did not offer specifics about the timeline for already-approved projects to actually receive funds; whether or not the agency will open new application periods; whether the funding announcement and invitation to revise apply to REAP grants, loans, or both; and whether the announcement applies to future REAP applications.
Perhaps most crucially, it is also not clear what the agency means by 'processing': Will those who choose not to change their applications still receive the money they'd been awarded or will their proposals be subjected to another review process? The phrase 'other actions' has many observers worried.
Mike Lavender, the policy director at the National Sustainable Agriculture Coalition, doesn't expect to see the request barring farmers and businesses from receiving the money they are due, but acknowledges that 'anything is possible with this USDA.'
'Our current understanding from the USDA is that REAP grantees will receive the reimbursements that they are owed under their signed grant agreements whether or not they choose to complete the voluntary REAP review form, including whether they submit the form stating they do not intend to make any modifications to their projects,' said Lavender. 'It's critical that USDA clearly and publicly affirms the voluntary nature of the REAP review to avoid sowing further confusion and uncertainty.'
Rebecca Wolf, a senior food policy analyst with the nonprofit Food & Water Watch, isn't as confident that the program will proceed seamlessly. She said the very act of issuing the invitation in conjunction with news about resuming funding is likely to prompt farmers and business owners to feel pressured to comply for fear of not getting their money.
The ambiguity of it all is its own source of stress.
'I know there are folks that were awarded solar grants, that are wondering, 'Does this even fall in line anymore? Because we know that the administration is keen more on fossil fuels,'' Wolf said. 'So there's just a ton of that type of, 'What does this actually mean?'' What's more, Wolf fears that this may only be the start of such so-called 'open requests' issued by the agency to those waiting on paused funds.
The USDA's efforts to comply with Trump's executive orders are taking different shapes across the vast agency. A leaked internal memo circulated within the USDA's Agricultural Research Service detailed instructions on reviewing 'agreements' for a list of banned keywords, including 'people of color,' 'climate change,' and 'clean energy,' as first reported by the nonprofit news organization More Perfect Union. And, last week, the USDA's Rural Development agency scrubbed the application process for 14 programs — including REAP — of 'scoring criteria' tied to equity and climate resilience goals established by the Biden administration.
Representative Chellie Pingree, the Democrat who represents part of southern Maine and is a member of the House Agriculture Committee, said she considers the USDA's request for revisions 'just another example of the chaos and confusion that have become hallmarks of the Trump Administration.' She added that the move is 'petty and cruel.'
Representative Jill Tokuda, the Democrat who represents Hawai'i's second congressional district and also sits on the Agriculture Committee, told Grist, '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.'
Grist reached out to the Republican chair of the House Agriculture Committee and two other GOP members for comment, none of whom responded before publication.
Other critics say the USDA's actions could result in a return to the discriminatory practices the agency conducted for decades, such as rejecting disproportionately more loans for Black farmers than for any other demographic group and excluding Indigenous farmers from agricultural programs. Activists and scientists have also argued that many of the solutions necessary to mitigate agriculture's gargantuan carbon footprint have been developed by marginalized communities. In this way, Trump's attacks on justice and climate-smart agriculture are linked.
'From a climate-justice perspective, the implications of this decision, and the equally hostile policies we know are coming, are nothing short of devastating,' Pingree said.
All told, the USDA has so far complied with Trump's efforts to eliminate DEI initiatives and climate action mechanisms across every level of the federal government. The agency has halted education, research, and state funding. It has paused a slate of programs receiving IRA funds and gutted others. The public messaging behind these moves has remained consistent: the agency, working in lockstep with the initiative known as the Department of Government Efficiency, aims 'to enhance the USDA workforce and eliminate wasteful spending.'
According to Wolf, of Food & Water Watch, the USDA's actions suggest the opposite. 'We've seen a real gutting from Day 1, whether it's jobs or funding,' she said. 'And a very clear indication of how things are going to look moving forward.'
For his part, Jim Lively has decided to wait out the 30-day period rather than change any language. 'It's just a solar equipment installation project. There was no DEIA anything in there. So I don't really think I need to make any changes,' he said. 'We may just take our chances, leave things as they are, and hopefully we get a funding award announcement at the end of the month.'
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Business Insider
32 minutes ago
- Business Insider
Top U.S. Automaker Rare Earth Suppliers Receive Export Licenses from China
Last week, President Trump accused China of violating its preliminary trade deal reached with the U.S. These violations included the continued restriction of rare earth element exports, which are critical in the development of semiconductors, cars, and planes. Now, China has responded in favor of the U.S. Confident Investing Starts Here: Easily unpack a company's performance with TipRanks' new KPI Data for smart investment decisions Receive undervalued, market resilient stocks right to your inbox with TipRanks' Smart Value Newsletter China has provided temporary rare earth export licenses to suppliers of three top U.S. automaker brands, General Motors (GM), Ford (F), and Stellantis (STLA), per Reuters. This comes after Beijing imposed rare earth export restrictions in April as a response to Trump's tariffs, although the restrictions didn't apply just to the U.S. Automakers around the world had previously warned of supply chain disruptions if China continued to restrict the elements. China Eases Rare Earth Exports to Top U.S. Automakers The export licenses will be in effect for six months, with the timeline possibly set in order to respond to U.S.-China trade developments. Reuters ' sources didn't mention the quantity or exact rare earths covered through the export licenses. China holds a near-monopoly on rare earths and produces about 90% of them across the globe.
CNBC
36 minutes ago
- CNBC
Trump says China's Xi agreed to let rare earth minerals flow to U.S.
U.S. President Donald Trump said on Friday that Chinese President Xi Jinping agreed to let rare earth minerals and magnets flow to the United States, a move that could lower tensions between the world's biggest economies. Asked by a reporter aboard Air Force One whether Xi had agreed to do so, Trump replied: "Yes, he did." The Chinese embassy in Washington did not immediately respond to a request for comment. Trump's comment came one day after a rare call with Xi aimed at resolving trade tensions that have been brewing over the topic for weeks. At that time, Trump said there had been "a very positive conclusion" to the talks, adding that "there should no longer be any questions respecting the complexity of Rare Earth products." In another sign of easing tensions over the issue, China has granted temporary export licenses to rare-earth suppliers of the top three U.S. automakers, two sources familiar with the matter said. The U.S. president's top aides are set to meet their Chinese counterparts in London on Monday for further talks. "We're very far advanced on the China deal," Trump told reporters on Friday. The countries struck an agreement on May 12 in Geneva, Switzerland, to roll back for 90 days most of the triple-digit, tit-for-tat tariffs they had placed on each other since Trump's January inauguration. Financial markets that had worried about trade disruptions rallied on the news. But China's decision in April to suspend exports of a wide range of critical minerals and magnets has continued to disrupt supplies needed by automakers, computer chip manufacturers and military contractors around the world. Trump had accused China of violating the Geneva agreement and ordered curbs on chip-design software and other shipments to China. Beijing rejected the claim and threatened counter measures. Rare earths and other critical minerals are a source of leverage for China as Trump could come under domestic political pressure if economic growth sags because companies cannot make mineral-powered products. Since returning to the White House in January, Trump has repeatedly threatened an array of punitive measures on trading partners, only to revoke some of them at the last minute. The on-again, off-again approach has baffled world leaders and spooked business executives.
Atlantic
40 minutes ago
- Atlantic
Kilmar Abrego Garcia Was Never Coming Back. Then He Did.
After insisting again and again that they would not bring Kilmar Abrego Garcia back to the United States, Trump-administration officials flew the 29-year-old Maryland man back from El Salvador today to face a grand-jury criminal indictment in Tennessee. Abrego Garcia's return doesn't mean he can go free. He now faces federal charges for human trafficking, according to the indictment unsealed today, and the Trump administration will get its opportunity to prove what it has long alleged about Abrego Garcia's membership in the gang MS-13. Even if prosecutors fail to convict him, the government could attempt to deport him to a third country—just not back to El Salvador. But by bringing him back to the United States, the Trump administration has climbed down from the court-defying pedestal where Vice President J. D. Vance, the adviser Stephen Miller, and Cabinet officials perched for months, claiming that Abrego Garcia's deportation was not, in fact, a mistake, and that he would never be allowed to set foot in the country again. Their obstinacy led to warnings of a constitutional crisis. Abrego Garcia's wife, a U.S. citizen, sued the government in March after he was deported to his native country in violation of a 2019 court order protecting him from being sent back to face likely harm. U.S. officials initially acknowledged that they'd made an 'administrative error,' then shrugged and said that the matter was out of their hands. White House officials remained dug in even as the Supreme Court ordered the administration to facilitate Abrego Garcia's return. 'There is no scenario where Abrego Garcia will be in the United States again,' Department of Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem testified to lawmakers last month. Now, by bringing Abrego Garcia back to face criminal charges, the administration can quiet the constitutional concerns about his due-process rights and lay out the evidence it claims to possess showing that he is not a benign sheet-metal worker and devoted father but a gang leader and human trafficker. Attorney General Pam Bondi told reporters that Abrego Garcia 'played a significant role in an alien-smuggling ring.' The criminal charges, filed in the Middle District of Tennessee, allege that Abrego Garcia participated in a nine-year conspiracy that moved thousands of people to destinations across the United States and totaled more than 100 trips. The indictment also accuses him of gun running and drug smuggling. According to ABC News, which first reported on Abrego Garcia's return and the trafficking charges, the chief of the criminal division in the U.S. attorney's office in Nashville resigned after the indictment was filed. The attorney, Ben Schrader, declined to comment when I reached out to him this evening. Senator Chris Van Hollen, who traveled to El Salvador in April and was allowed by the country's authorities to meet with Abrego Garcia, said in a statement that the administration has 'finally relented to our demands for compliance with court orders and with the due process rights afforded to everyone in the United States.' 'As I have repeatedly said, this is not about the man, it's about his constitutional rights—and the rights of all,' Van Hollen said in the statement. 'The Administration will now have to make its case in the court of law, as it should have all along.' This is the second time in a week that Trump officials have relented on one of the cases in which federal judges ordered the government to bring back a deportee removed from the country without due process. A gay Guatemalan asylum seeker known in court documents as O.C.G., who was wrongly deported to Mexico, was allowed to return and pursue his protection claim on Wednesday. The Trump administration remains defiant elsewhere, however, holding a group of men from Laos, Vietnam, Cuba, and other nations in a shipping container on a U.S. military base in Djibouti while it attempts to deport them to South Sudan. Simon Sandoval-Mosenberg, an attorney for Abrego Garcia, told me the administration's decision to bring his client back is a sign that 'they were playing games with the court all along.' Standard legal procedure would entail filing criminal charges against an alleged perpetrator and convicting them prior to a deportation—not the other way around, as the Trump administration is now attempting, Sandoval-Mosenberg said. 'Due process means the chance to defend yourself before you're punished, not after,' he said. 'This is an abuse of power, not justice. The government should put him on trial, yes—but in front of the same immigration judge who heard his case in 2019, which is the ordinary manner of doing things.' After Abrego Garcia's return, government attorneys told U.S. District Judge Paula Xinis that they intend to file a motion to dismiss the case challenging his unlawful deportation. Abrego Garcia was stopped for speeding by Tennessee state troopers in December 2022 while driving a Chevy Suburban with nine male passengers, none of whom carried identification, according to the indictment. Abrego Garcia was cited for an expired license, but he was not arrested or charged with a crime, even though troopers flagged the incident as a potential trafficking case. Abrego Garcia told officers that he'd been sent by his employer to pick up the men for a construction job, and his family has said that he would sometimes drive workers between job sites. They have denied the government's claims that Abrego Garcia was an MS-13 member. Driving passengers for money wouldn't be a crime unless the government can prove that Abrego Garcia knew he was transporting passengers who were unlawfully present, Andrew Rankin, an immigration attorney in Memphis, told me. Participating in a criminal conspiracy to bring them across the U.S.-Mexico border, as the government alleges, would bring severer penalties. 'What did he know? Did he have actual knowledge? What was the discussion between each person and Abrego?' Rankin said. 'And if these people were in violation of the law, the government could offer immunity to testify against him.' The indictment identifies six unnamed co-conspirators and says that Abrego Garcia transported MS-13 gang members on the trips. One of the co-conspirators told investigators that Abrego Garcia 'abused some of the female undocumented aliens' and was ordered to stop because it was 'bad for business.' Rankin said it was highly unusual for the government to deport someone and then begin building a criminal indictment. 'Now that the government has had to essentially bend the knee to bring Mr. Abrego back, the government is upset, and they can't just let him go,' Rankin told me. 'They can't just let him out and just let him walk around like he did before.'
