Rep. Alford: Farmer loan program is reverse discrimination
(NewsNation) — A whistleblower recently told NewsNation that a Biden-era loan forgiveness program meant to help farmers was only provided to minorities, and passed over anyone who was white.
The whistleblower from the U.S. Department of Agriculture pointed to Section 1005 of the American Rescue Plan Act, which provided loan relief for socially disadvantaged farmers. It provided race-based loan forgiveness, granted only to those who qualified as socially disadvantaged farmers or ranchers.
White farmers from across the country later sued in federal court and alleged that the act was race-based and violated the equal protection clause under the Constitution. The judge in that case later found the loan forgiveness program was 'an actual constitutional harm.'
CDC told health providers not to treat after East Palestine derailment: Lawsuit
GOP Rep. Mark Alford from Missouri joined NewsNation's 'Elizabeth Vargas Reports' to talk about the loan program. He said it was not right, and equal weights and measures are needed when providing help for all farmers.
'The USDA needs to get back in the business of helping farmers,' Alford said. 'Our farmers are going out of business. We are losing 1,000 farms a month, and our food security is national security.'
Alford added the program is 'highly illegal,' and called it reverse discrimination. He also said he would be working to find out if farmers in his district were affected by the Biden administration's program.
'This is ridiculous, farmers are hardworking people and they sacrifice so much to grow corn and soybeans in my district,' Alford said. 'We should not be withholding aid simply because of their skin color.'
Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
an hour ago
- Yahoo
Democrats grapple with Biden cover-up fallout ahead of 2028
When you buy through links on our articles, Future and its syndication partners may earn a commission. The 2024 elections were defined for many by damning allegations that then-President Joe Biden was not only experiencing mental and physical decline, but that his inner circle was obfuscating the true severity of his health challenges. As Democrats eye a return to the White House in 2028, those allegations have resurfaced — this time haunting a party split over how to regain voters' trust. While some have advocated for a full postmortem to enable the party to move on once and for all, others insist the Democrats should focus on the future without relitigating the past. Democrats face a "fresh reckoning" over Biden's health, with "potential presidential contenders" avoiding debate on whether the party should have "forcefully called on him to abandon his reelection bid earlier," said Politico. Whether or not to criticize Biden or to address his camp's insistence that he was fit for campaigning is "fast becoming the first real litmus test of the 2028" race, given how many Democrats "with 2028 ambitions" were "defending him at the time." The upcoming publication of "Original Sin: President Biden's Decline, Its Cover-Up, and His Disastrous Choice to Run Again" by journalists Jake Tapper and Alex Thompson has contributed to the "renewed questions" about who knew what about Biden's health when, which are "sending shivers" through the party, said The Washington Post. To "regain the trust of voters," some have argued that party leaders must "state openly that Biden should never have sought reelection" last year. That Democratic Party leadership has been "unwilling to reckon publicly" with supporting Biden's campaign "for as long as it did" suggests a "lasting fear of speaking out," said The New York Times. There is an awareness among some that by speaking out against Biden's 2024 fitness now, they have exposed themselves to "questions about why they said nothing when it mattered." "We're not looking backward," House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries (D-N.Y.) said of rehashing Biden's health at a press conference last week. "We're looking forward at this moment in time." While backward-looking "self-flagellations" by Democrats are often "excessive and pointless," in this case they are "needed," said Michael Tomasky at The New Republic. It's necessary not only for unpacking who may have inappropriately protected Biden's candidacy, but also for the "automatic anointing of Kamala Harris after Biden dropped out," which Democrats should "examine and learn from." Mainstream political media is also implicated in questions about knowledge of Biden's health. There is an "unhealthy confluence of interests" between White House staff and White House reporters, said John Fund at the National Review. By failing to recognize "how powerful a motivation their sources had to deceive them," the political media "failed in their duty to probe more deeply and question the official White House line." Fallout from questions about Biden's health may also affect other future candidates for office who played roles in his administration. Such potential candidates may find their campaigns "forced to address what they knew and what they did," USA Today said. Conversely, high-profile Democrats with "some distance" from the Biden 2024 team (people like Illinois Gov. J.B. Pritzker or New York Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez) could see their careers "boosted as the sort of fresh faces the party needs."
Yahoo
an hour ago
- Yahoo
Biden diagnosed with aggressive prostate cancer
When you buy through links on our articles, Future and its syndication partners may earn a commission. Former President Joe Biden was diagnosed with an "aggressive" form of prostate cancer that has spread to his bones, his office said Sunday. Biden, 82, received the diagnosis on Friday and he and his family are "reviewing treatment options." Biden's office said his cancer was given a Gleason score of 9, with 10 being the most malignant. "While this represents a more aggressive form of the disease, the cancer appears to be hormone-sensitive which allows for effective management," the statement said. Once it has metastasized to the bones, "it's very treatable, but not curable," Dr. Matthew Smith of Massachusetts General Brigham Cancer Center told The Associated Press. Cancer and tragedy have been a "recurring part of Biden's personal and political life," The Washington Post said. He "dedicated much of his later career to cancer research after losing his son Beau to brain cancer in 2015." When launching his 2022 "cancer moonshot" to halve the U.S. cancer death rate over 25 years, Biden said it could be an "American moment to prove to ourselves and, quite frankly, the world that we can do really big things." Thanks to prostate cancer treatments developed in the past few years, "life is measured in years now, not months," University of Washington specialist Dr. Daniel Lin told The New York Times. People with metastatic prostate cancer "can live 5, 7, 10 or more years," said Dr. Judd Moul at Duke University. So an octagenarian like Biden "could hopefully pass away from natural causes and not from prostate cancer."
Yahoo
an hour ago
- Yahoo
Trump's mass firings to remain on hold, appeals court rules
Mass firings of federal employees which were ordered by US President Donald Trump will remain paused, an appeals court has ruled. President Trump had signed an executive order in February directing agency heads to begin "large-scale reductions" in staffing. Those efforts to slash the federal workforce were halted by a California judge earlier this month. On Friday in a 2-1 ruling, a San Francisco-based appeals court denied the Trump administration's request to unfreeze that injunction. It is likely the administration will now ask the US Supreme Court to weigh in. "The Executive Order at issue here far exceeds the President's supervisory powers under the Constitution," the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals wrote. "The President enjoys significant removal power with respect to the appointed officers of federal agencies." The Trump administration had sought an emergency stay of an injunction which had been given by Judge Susan Illston of San Francisco. The judge questioned how an overhaul of federal agencies could be actioned without congressional authorisation. The case was brought by federal employees unions, local governments and non-profits who argued against Trump's executive order, as well as directives which were issued by the Office of Personnel Management and Office of Management and Budget to implement Trump's policy. The cuts are part of the Trump administrations efforts to curtail government spending through funding freezes and firings - led by the Department of Government Efficiency (Doge). Trump has repeatedly promised to slash government spending and reduce the federal workforce. He tasked billionaire Elon Musk and Doge with leading that charge. Tens of thousands of federal workers have reportedly been fired, taken buyouts or been placed on leave since Trump took office. The Trump administration said they plan to fight back against the latest court ruling. "A single judge is attempting to unconstitutionally seize the power of hiring and firing from the Executive Branch," the White House said in a statement to US media. In Oval Office farewell, Trump says Elon Musk is 'not really leaving' What is Doge and why has Musk left? US judge says mass firings of some federal workers likely illegal
