U.S. Department of Agriculture suspends scholarship program at NC A&T State University, 18 other historically Black colleges, website shows
GREENSBORO, N.C. (WGHP) — The U.S. Department of Agriculture has suspended a scholarship program that serves students from rural or underserved communities pending further review, according to its website.
The USDA 1890 National Scholars Program was established in 1992 as part of the partnership between the USDA and the 1890 land-grant universities.
The 1890 National Scholars Program 'is aimed at increasing the number of students from rural and underserved communities who study food, agriculture, natural resource and other related sciences. The scholarship provides recipients with full tuition, fees, books, room and board. Scholars attend one of the 1890 land-grant universities and pursue degrees in agriculture, food, natural resource sciences, or related academic disciplines,' the website says.
In addition to North Carolina A&T State University, these are the 1890 universities:
Alabama A&M University
Alcorn State University, Mississippi
Central State University, Ohio
Delaware State University
Florida A&M University
Fort Valley State University, Georgia
Kentucky State University
Langston University, Oklahoma
Lincoln University, Missouri
Prairie View A&M University, Texas
South Carolina State University
Southern University, Louisiana
Tennessee State University
Tuskegee University, Alabama
University of Arkansas Pine Bluff
University of Maryland Eastern Shore
Virginia State University
West Virginia State University
On Thursday, U.S. Rep. Alma S. Adams (D-NC), who represents the state's 12th Congressional District, released the following statement regarding the program's suspension.
It is infuriating that the U.S. Department of Agriculture has suspended the 1890 Scholars Program 'pending further review. This is a clear attack on an invaluable program that makes higher education accessible for everybody, and provides opportunities for students to work at USDA, especially in the critical fields of food safety, agriculture, and natural resources that Americans rely on every single day. This program is a correction to a long history of racial discrimination within the land-grant system, not an example of it. I demand USDA immediately rescind this targeted and mean-spirited suspension and reinstate the 1890 Scholars Program, for which the deadline for students to apply was originally March 1, 2025.
U.S. Rep. Alma S. Adams (D-District 12)
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
The Hill
20 minutes ago
- The Hill
Jeffries says Trump ‘intentionally' inflaming unrest in Los Angeles
House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries (D-N.Y.) is hammering President Trump over the clashes in Los Angeles, saying the president is purposefully escalating tensions to distract the country from a volatile economy. Speaking to reporters in the Capitol, Jeffries railed against Trump's aggressive deportation policies and defended the rights of Americans to protest such government actions — if it's done peacefully. He accused Trump of 'fanning flames and inciting things on the ground' to distract from a domestic policy agenda that Jeffries has dubbed 'a failure.' 'Donald Trump is clearly trying to distract from the fact that he has a failed administration,' Jeffries said. The Democratic leader also dismissed Trump's argument that, by intervening in the L.A. immigration protests, he's simply bringing law and order to a city where local officials have failed to do so. Jeffries noted that Trump, for hours, had declined to intervene on Jan. 6, 2021, when a mob of his supporters attacked law enforcers at the U.S. Capitol in an effort to block the certification of Trump's election defeat a few months earlier. In January, Trump pardoned roughly 1,500 of the rioters — a move that, according to Jeffries, gives Trump and his supporters 'zero credibility' to claim the mantle of law and order. 'Donald Trump wasn't a leader on Jan. 6. He didn't send the National Guard to stop the violent mob that was brutally beating police officers in plain view for every single American to see,' Jeffries said. 'And this guy, who likely withheld the National Guard — he certainly didn't send them forward — is lecturing the country about law and order?' 'Give me a break. We're not feeling you — particularly as it relates to this issue,' he continued. 'Donald Trump and all of these minions who support him — the sycophants, the extremists — have zero credibility on this issue. Republicans have become the party of lawlessness and disorder.' Amid the unrest in L.A., Trump over the weekend activated members of the National Guard, drawing criticisms from California officials — notably Gov. Gavin Newsom (D) — who said local law enforcement agencies are sufficiently equipped to handle the situation without the involvement of federal troops. Newsom announced Monday that he is suing the administration over the federal intervention. 'This is a manufactured crisis,' Newsom posted on X. 'He is creating fear and terror to take over a state militia and violate the U.S. constitution.' Jeffries is standing squarely behind Newsom and L.A. Mayor Karen Bass (D), a former member of the House, who have both argued that local and state law enforcers in California have the faculties and manpower to protect both First Amendment rights and public safety. 'The LAPD, the L.A. Sheriff's Department, other local law enforcement, and the California Highway Patrol, seem to have the capacity to make sure that the situation is addressed — that peaceful protests are allowed to occur, and that law-breakers are held accountable,' Jeffries said.
Yahoo
24 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Mass deportations are an unnatural fit for a country purporting to be free
Across the country, immigration enforcement raids have sparked growing protests. Militarized federal agents, often in a confusingly ramshackle assortment of gear and uniforms, have been met by angry crowds shouting them down with chants of 'shame!' Over the weekend in Los Angeles, the federal government for the first time since 1965 deployed the National Guard over the objection of a state's governor. President Donald Trump "is sending 2,000 National Guard troops into LA County — not to meet an unmet need, but to manufacture a crisis,' Gov. Gavin Newsom said on X on Sunday. 'He's hoping for chaos so he can justify more crackdowns, more fear, more control.' The division and disorder on display are the culmination of an absurd premise which has long gone unchallenged: the whole concept of immigration restriction. This policy of segregation by place of birth presents a choice between three basic options. You can muddle along with de facto nonenforcement, putting swaths of the population and economy into a legal gray area and creating underground black markets. You can take the Trumpian tact of aggressive enforcement against millions of people, at the cost of civil liberties and social peace. Or you can confront the elephant in the room: the reality that these laws are unjust, unnecessary and an affront to the freedom of not just immigrants, but also citizens and our democratic republic. Mass removal is a profoundly unnatural fit for a country purporting to be free. Mass deportation and large-scale immigration enforcement require nothing less than a police state, and the more of a crackdown you demand, the more obviously it will look and act like a police state. When the government sends paramilitary-style law enforcement units into people's neighborhoods, this is no longer some abstract argument about 'the border.' It's Boyle Heights. It's Queens. It's Milwaukee. It's San Ysidro. It's armored vehicles and flash-bangs outside your grocery store. The administration's frequent line — including from Trump himself — is that only United States citizens possess legal and constitutional rights, such as due process. This is wrong as a matter of law and at best dubious as a matter of morality. Making the mere entry and presence of people illegal, turning millions who've committed no other offense into marginalized outlaws, undermines the foundations of a free society. But suppose, for argument's sake, you care only about the freedoms of native-born Americans. Any attempt to seriously enforce restrictionist immigration laws impinges on your liberties. The enforcement of such a sweeping prohibition, the division of society it entails, can only be accomplished with a massive enforcement machine to match. And citizens can be, and frequently are, caught up in that machine's grinding gears. Those horrified by the more physical means of enforcement may imagine that other, less direct methods can be sufficient to 'secure the border.' But policymakers have attempted for decades to impose administrative barriers to accomplish the exclusionary goal with fewer actual arrests. All 50 states now issue REAL ID-compliant identity cards, which are checked constantly in daily life. E-Verify, tenant screenings, banking rules and benefit restrictions are all burdens created to make undocumented life less desirable in hopes that people will simply leave of their own accord. Yet, millions remain, because even such burdens pale in comparison to tin-pot dictatorships, civil war or simply grinding poverty. When the paperwork fails, the boots arrive. To make mass deportation a reality, the government inevitably must send militarized agents into peaceful neighborhoods to sweep up cashiers, day laborers and housekeepers. It must unleash tear gas and violence in the streets when communities push back against raids on apartment buildings and local restaurants. It must intrude on personal relationships and violate privacy, freedom of association and economic liberty. It must tear away parents, traumatize innocent kids and shred trust in the law. To keep the assembly line of deportations moving, the government needs to trample due process with the truncated procedures offered by executive branch immigration courts, created to sidestep the independence of regular federal courts. It diverts law enforcement agencies from chasing real criminals. And it wastes tax money and sabotages the economy — all to no real benefit nothing except morally repellent abstractions about bloodlines and race. These destructive social dynamics always show up in the context of enforcing victimless offenses. Aside from marijuana use (another absurdly unenforceable federal prohibition), undocumented presence is probably America's most common victimless offense — unlike violent crimes or property crimes, which immigrants commit at a lower rate than native-born Americans, and which can and should be prosecuted in their own right. Claims about drains on resources ignore their real economic contributions to the tax base and exclusion from benefits. Social Security, for example, is actually subsidized by immigrants, including undocumented immigrants who still pay taxes. There is one truth on the other side of the equation: it is indeed corrosive to have laws on the books which go unenforced and widely flouted. That has been the reality of our immigration regime for far too long. But we now see that the solution isn't to tear apart our society while trying to enforce bad laws. Instead, we should repeal them. Every time we ban peaceful, voluntary conduct — crossing a border, renting a home, taking a job — we expand government power and shrink liberty. The trade-off is unavoidable. Across history, one of the main arcs of moral progress has been the advancement of legal equality regardless of arbitrary, immutable characteristics. Nothing is more arbitrary or immutable than your place of birth or whom you were born to. Our civic creed insists all are created equal. Anything else shackles us all to illiberal impositions and societal dysfunction. Push hard enough on mass deportation and Americans will meet ICE with human chains to protect their neighbors. Tear apart people's lives and communities, and they will start to fight back. Try to commandeer regular police, and states and localities will refuse. Produce endless horror stories and scenes of dystopian authoritarianism, and you can't keep pretending this is merely about building a wall through the desert. This has never been about just controlling the border, it's about controlling America, and at the end of the day Americans are not a people who like to be controlled. The reconstruction of a post-Trump America will require a radical liberalization of immigration laws. Our aspirations to be a free country and our reality of being a nation of immigrants are, and always will be, inseparable. This article was originally published on
Yahoo
24 minutes ago
- Yahoo
NIH scientists condemn Trump research cuts
Hundreds of staffers from across the National Institutes of Health (NIH) are speaking out against the politicization of their research and termination of their work while demanding that the drastic changes made at the agency be walked back. In a letter addressed to NIH Director Jay Bhattacharya, more than 2,000 signatories stated, 'we dissent to Administration policies that undermine the NIH mission, waste public resources, and harm the health of Americans and people across the globe.' The letter was titled 'The Bethesda Declaration' in reference to where NIH's campus is located. The signatories cited Bhattacharya's stated commitment to academic freedom that he made in April and called on him to push back against the changes Trump administration has implemented at NIH under his leadership. 'Academic freedom should not be applied selectively based on political ideology. To achieve political aims, NIH has targeted multiple universities with indiscriminate grant terminations, payment freezes for ongoing research, and blanket holds on awards regardless of the quality, progress, or impact of the science,' they wrote. They pointed to U.S. law and prior research that has shown that the participation of diverse populations in studies is necessary for NIH's work. The NIH staffers further blasted the canceling of nearly completed studies. 'Ending a $5 million research study when it is 80% complete does not save $1 million, it wastes $4 million,' they wrote. The researchers called on Bhattacharya to restore foreign collaborations with the global scientific community, put independent peer reviews back in place, bring back terminated NIH staffers and rethink the 15 percent cap on indirect study costs that the Trump administration enacted. 'Combined, these actions have resulted in an unprecedented reduction in NIH spending that does not reflect efficiency but rather a dramatic reduction in life-saving research,' they stated. 'Some may use the false impression that NIH funding is not needed to justify the draconian cuts proposed in the President's Budget. This spending slowdown reflects a failure of your legal duty to use congressionally-appropriated funds for critical NIH research.' NIH research is not solely centered in Bethesda. The agency is responsible for funding research projects across the country and abroad. Numerous lawsuits have been filed to combat the pulling back of billions of dollars in NIH funding. Last week, a federal judge allowed a suit filed by university researchers and public health groups challenging the cuts to move forward. Bhattacharya responded to the letter on the social media platform X. 'We all want @NIH to succeed and I believe that dissent in science is productive. However, the Bethesda Declaration has some fundamental misconceptions about the policy directions NIH has taken in recent months,' he wrote. Bhattacharya said the actions taken at NIH have been to 'remove ideological influence from science' and further argued the agency hasn't halted international scientific collaboration but is instead 'ensuring accountability.' 'Claims that NIH is undermining peer review are misunderstood. We're expanding access to publishing while strengthening transparency, rigor, and reproducibility in NIH-funded research,' he wrote. 'Lastly, we are reviewing each termination case carefully and some individuals have already been reinstated. As NIH priorities evolve, so must our staffing to stay mission-focused and responsibly manage taxpayer dollars.' Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
