Archive for agricultural policy

Wisconsin Dairy Farmer Sues USDA Programs Costing Operations $100,000+ Annually

Stop believing government programs are “fair game.” Wisconsin lawsuit exposes $15,000+ EQIP disparities threatening your operation’s constitutional rights.

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY: The dairy industry’s comfortable reliance on USDA programs is about to face its biggest constitutional challenge since the New Deal, potentially costing operations thousands in lost competitive advantages. Wisconsin Holstein producer Adam Faust’s federal lawsuit against USDA Secretary Brooke Rollins targets three cornerstone programs—Dairy Margin Coverage, Loan Guarantees, and EQIP—alleging they violate equal protection by offering preferential treatment worth up to $15,000 per project based solely on race and gender classifications . With DMC enrollment closing March 31, 2025, and margins averaging $11.61/cwt through 2024’s first ten months, producers face an uncomfortable reality: programs they depend on may be constitutionally vulnerable. The lawsuit builds on Faust’s successful 2021 challenge that eliminated $4 billion in race-based loan forgiveness, creating powerful legal precedent that could dismantle “up to two dozen other discriminatory programs” across USDA . While global dairy production grows 0.5% in 2025 and competitors pursue race-neutral support systems, American producers must grapple with whether demographic classifications distract from performance-based assistance that drives real operational improvements [4]. Every progressive dairy operation should immediately audit their government program dependencies and prepare contingency plans before judicial decisions reshape federal agricultural policy.

KEY TAKEAWAYS

  • DMC Administrative Fee Disparities Create $100 Annual Advantage: While standard producers pay $100 for identical margin protection at $0.15/cwt for $9.50 coverage, “socially disadvantaged” farmers receive the same catastrophic coverage free, multiplying across thousands of operations nationwide
  • EQIP Cost-Share Gaps Deliver $15,000 Project Advantages: Standard participants receive 75% cost-sharing for conservation practices like manure storage systems, while preferred classifications qualify for 90% reimbursement—creating a $15,000 disparity on typical $100,000 environmental compliance projects
  • Loan Guarantee Rates Affect Borrowing Power by 5%: USDA guarantees reach 95% for minority and female farmers versus 90% for others, directly impacting interest rates and lending terms on major refinancing like Faust’s $890,000 dairy operation loan
  • Constitutional Precedent Threatens Program Stability: The 2021 Faust v. Vilsack victory plus Supreme Court’s 2023 Students for Fair Admissions decision create powerful legal framework challenging any race-based classifications, potentially forcing Congress to restructure agricultural support around income-based or performance metrics rather than demographic categories
  • Global Competitors Pursue Race-Neutral Support Systems: While American dairy debates constitutional compliance, EU Common Agricultural Policy focuses on environmental outcomes and farm size, and New Zealand eliminated most subsidies decades ago, forcing efficiency improvements that strengthened international competitiveness
USDA dairy programs, dairy margin coverage, farm risk management, agricultural policy, dairy profitability

Wisconsin Holstein producer Adam Faust filed a federal lawsuit Monday against USDA Secretary Brooke Rollins, alleging three key agricultural programs systematically discriminate against white male dairy farmers through preferential treatment that costs operations tens of thousands of dollars annually. The case targets the Dairy Margin Coverage (DMC) program, USDA Loan Guarantee program, and Environmental Quality Incentives Program (EQIP), claiming these initiatives violate constitutional equal protection principles while creating significant financial disparities across dairy operations nationwide.

The $890,000 Question: When Program Benefits Create Market Disadvantages

Here’s the reality facing dairy producers in 2025: your race and gender now determine how much federal support you can access. Faust, who operates a 70-head Registered Holstein operation near Chilton, Wisconsin, discovered this firsthand when he refinanced his dairy farm in August 2024.

While Faust qualified for a 90% USDA loan guarantee on his $890,000 refinancing, minority and female farmers in identical situations receive 95% guarantees. That 5-percentage-point difference translates directly into borrowing power, interest rates, and your operation’s financial flexibility.

Let’s face it – in today’s capital-intensive dairy industry, every basis point matters. When feed costs remain elevated and milk prices stay volatile, access to favorable financing can determine whether you expand, maintain, or exit the business.

The $100 Administrative Fee: A Constitutional Violation in Plain Sight?

The Dairy Margin Coverage program, which protects producers when the difference between the all-milk price and the average feed price falls below a certain dollar amount selected by the producer, charges most participants a $100 annual administrative fee. However, this fee disappears entirely for farmers classified as “limited resource, beginning, socially disadvantaged, or a military veteran .”

With DMC enrollment running from January 29 to March 31, 2025, and coverage levels ranging from $4 to $9.50 per hundredweight in 50-cent increments, this isn’t pocket change we’re discussing. The program’s effectiveness has been demonstrated repeatedly – research from HighGround Dairy shows that Tier I coverage at the $9.50 margin would have triggered payments in 65% of the months over the past decade.

“Our safety-net programs provide critical financial protections against commodity market volatilities for many American farmers, so don’t delay enrollment,” said USDA Farm Service Agency (FSA) Administrator Zach Ducheneaux. “And at $0.15 per hundredweight for $9.50 coverage, risk protection through Dairy Margin Coverage is a relatively inexpensive investment in a true sense of security and peace of mind .”

But here’s what’s really concerning: Faust paid his $100 DMC administrative fee on March 25, 2025, while farmers in other demographic categories received identical coverage for free. Multiply this across thousands of dairy operations, and you’re looking at millions in differential treatment.

EQIP Conservation: When 90% vs 75% Cost-Share Creates Competitive Gaps

The Environmental Quality Incentives Program presents perhaps the most significant financial disparity. Standard EQIP participants receive up to 75% cost-sharing for conservation practices, while “socially disadvantaged, limited-resource, beginning, and veteran farmer and ranchers are eligible for cost-share rates of up to 90 percent .”

Consider the math on a typical manure storage system – exactly what Faust plans for his operation. On a $100,000 project, that 15-percentage-point difference means $15,000 more out-of-pocket expenses for some farmers compared to others. When margins are tight and environmental compliance costs continue rising, this disparity affects operational competitiveness.

The National Sustainable Agriculture Coalition confirms that these enhanced benefits extend beyond just cost-sharing rates. This same population of producers is also eligible for up to 50 percent advance payment for costs associated with planning, design, materials, equipment, installation, labor, management, maintenance, or training.

The Uncomfortable Constitutional Question: Have We Forgotten Equal Protection?

Here’s the question nobody wants to ask: When did American dairy farmers become so dependent on federal subsidies that we’ll accept constitutional violations for a $100 fee waiver?

This lawsuit exposes an uncomfortable reality about our industry’s relationship with government programs. We’ve built entire business models around accessing preferential treatment, loan guarantees, and conservation cost-shares that may fundamentally violate the principle of equal protection under the law.

Table 1: Financial Disparities in Challenged USDA Programs

ProgramStandard RateSocially Disadvantaged RateAnnual Difference
DMC Administrative Fee$100$0 (waived)$100
Loan Guarantee Program90% guarantee95% guarantee5% advantage
EQIP Cost-ShareUp to 75%Up to 90%15% advantage

Are we so comfortable with this system that we’ve forgotten what true market-based agriculture looks like?

Legal Precedent: The 2021 Victory That Changed Everything

Faust isn’t entering this battle unprepared. His successful 2021 lawsuit against the Biden administration halted a COVID-19 loan forgiveness program that excluded white farmers, establishing legal precedent that race-based agricultural programs violate constitutional equal protection principles.

That earlier victory, combined with the Supreme Court’s 2023 Students for Fair Admissions decision limiting race-conscious policies, creates a powerful legal foundation. The Wisconsin Institute for Law & Liberty, representing Faust, has already secured seven significant court victories challenging similar programs across 25 states.

What This Constitutional Challenge Means for Your Operation

Immediate Impact: If you’re currently enrolled in DMC, loan guarantee programs, or planning EQIP applications, understand that these policies may face significant changes. The Trump administration finds itself in the awkward position of defending programs that contradict its anti-DEI platform.

Financial Planning: Operations relying on the enhanced benefits available through “socially disadvantaged” classifications should prepare contingency plans. A successful lawsuit could eliminate preferential treatment across multiple USDA programs simultaneously.

Risk Management: With DMC proving its value through consistent performance and coverage at just $0.15 per hundredweight for $9.50 protection, the core program remains solid regardless of administrative fee structures. Don’t let policy uncertainty derail your risk management strategy.

Industry-Wide Ramifications: Beyond Individual Operations

This lawsuit targets more than three programs. The Wisconsin Institute for Law & Liberty has identified “up to two dozen other discriminatory programs” across USDA that use similar classification systems. A successful challenge could trigger comprehensive policy changes affecting:

  • Conservation program funding priorities
  • Disaster assistance distribution
  • Equipment purchase loan terms
  • Technical assistance access
  • Grant program eligibility

The Global Context: How Other Dairy Nations Handle Farmer Support

While American dairy farmers debate classification-based programs, international competitors pursue different approaches to farmer support. The European Union’s Common Agricultural Policy focuses on environmental outcomes and farm size rather than demographic characteristics. New Zealand eliminated most production subsidies decades ago, forcing efficiency improvements that strengthened their global competitiveness.

This raises uncomfortable questions: Are we creating the most effective support systems for American dairy farmers, or are demographic classifications distracting from performance-based assistance that drives real operational improvements?

The Constitutional vs. Practical Debate

Here’s where dairy farmers face a fundamental choice: support programs based on constitutional principles of equal treatment or accept targeted assistance that acknowledges historical discrimination in agricultural lending. The USDA’s own data shows that minority farmers historically faced higher loan rejection rates and less favorable terms.

But does addressing past discrimination through current preferential treatment create new inequities? When a Wisconsin Holstein producer pays $100 for DMC coverage while his neighbor receives it free, the constitutional argument becomes personally relevant.

Bottom Line: Preparing for Policy Uncertainty

Smart dairy managers prepare for multiple scenarios. Whether you benefit from current preferential programs or feel disadvantaged by them, policy stability remains uncertain. Here’s your action plan:

  1. Secure Current Benefits: If you qualify for enhanced USDA programs, complete applications before potential policy changes. The DMC enrollment deadline is March 31, 2025.
  2. Diversify Risk Management: Don’t rely solely on government programs for financial protection. While valuable at $0.15 per hundredweight for $9.50 coverage, the DMC program shouldn’t be your only margin protection strategy.
  3. Document Everything: Whether you’re affected positively or negatively by current policies, maintain detailed records of program interactions. Policy changes may trigger retroactive adjustments.
  4. Stay Informed: This lawsuit represents broader political movements challenging race-conscious policies across all government agencies. Monitor developments beyond agriculture that may signal wider policy shifts.

The dairy industry thrives on consistent, predictable policies that support operational efficiency and long-term planning. Whether you agree with or oppose current USDA classification systems, uncertainty helps nobody. The sooner these constitutional questions get resolved, the sooner we can focus on what really matters: producing safe, affordable milk for American families while maintaining profitable, sustainable operations.

The lawsuit’s outcome will determine whether America’s dairy support programs emphasize equal treatment or targeted assistance – a choice with implications far beyond Adam Faust’s 70-cow Holstein operation in Wisconsin.

Learn More:

Join the Revolution!

Join over 30,000 successful dairy professionals who rely on Bullvine Weekly for their competitive edge. Delivered directly to your inbox each week, our exclusive industry insights help you make smarter decisions while saving precious hours every week. Never miss critical updates on milk production trends, breakthrough technologies, and profit-boosting strategies that top producers are already implementing. Subscribe now to transform your dairy operation’s efficiency and profitability—your future success is just one click away.

NewsSubscribe
First
Last
Consent

Harris Gambles on Rural Vote with Bold Tim Walz VP Pick — Can It Swing the 2024 Election?

Can Kamala Harris’ bold VP pick of Tim Walz win over rural voters and swing the 2024 election? Discover the strategy behind this surprising choice. 

Summary: In an unexpected move, Vice President Kamala Harris has picked Minnesota Governor Tim Walz as her 2024 running mate. Announced just before a rally in Philadelphia, this decision aims to boost Harris’s appeal among both rural and progressive voters. Walz, who has strong ties to rural America through his background and political career, has achieved significant progressive milestones. However, his perceived shift toward urban-centric policies since becoming governor raises questions about his ability to rally the rural vote for the Democratic ticket. The effectiveness of the Democratic campaign in connecting with rural America will be crucial in this fierce political battle.

  • Vice President Kamala Harris has selected Minnesota Governor Tim Walz as her 2024 running mate.
  • The announcement was made just before a Harris rally in Philadelphia.
  • The decision aims to strengthen Harris’s appeal among both rural and progressive voters.
  • Walz has a history of significant progressive achievements and strong rural ties.
  • There are concerns about Walz’s perceived focus on urban-centric policies since becoming governor.
  • Winning the rural vote will be essential for the Democratic campaign in the upcoming election.
Kamala Harris has chosen Tim Walz as her running mate for the 2024 election, aiming to secure the rural vote

In an unexpected move, Vice President Kamala Harris has picked Minnesota Governor Tim Walz as her running mate for the 2024 election. As the word spread among supporters before a rally in Philadelphia, it became evident that this choice was more than simply another name on the ticket; it was a calculated move targeted directly at securing the elusive rural vote. But can Walz persuade rural voters with his unusual combination of progressive successes and Midwestern roots? Let’s look at what this implies for the campaign and what Tim Walz provides.

Who is Tim Walz? 

Early Life and Education:  Born in West Point, Nebraska, Tim Walz’s journey began far from the busy streets of Washington. After graduating from Chadron State College in Nebraska, he began a journey that would immerse him in the beliefs and experiences of rural America.

Military Service and Teaching Career: Walz participated in the Army National Guard, demonstrating his sense of responsibility and devotion. After his military service, he worked as a teacher on the Pine Ridge Indian Reservation in South Dakota, where he met his wife, Gwen, who was also a teacher. His teaching career did not end there; he went to China and later returned to the United States, where he taught high school in Mankato, Minnesota, south of Minneapolis. He spent many decades developing young minds, coaching football, and acting as a faculty adviser for the school’s gay-straight alliance.

Entry into Politics: Tim Walz entered politics in 2004, prompted by his engagement in John Kerry’s presidential campaign. This encounter laid the groundwork for his future political career.

Legislative Focus in Congress: During his sixth tenure in the United States House of Representatives, Walz prioritized veterans’ problems and agricultural policy, showing his strong connection to rural America. These legislative initiatives demonstrated his dedication to his people and his profound awareness of the specific issues that rural towns confront.

Tim Walz: Balancing Progressive Triumphs and Rural Criticisms

Tim Walz, Minnesota’s governor since 2018, has a rich tapestry of political achievements to his credit. His position as head of the National Democratic Governors Association amplifies his power. As governor, Walz has built his name on several progressive policy victories, including guaranteeing tuition-free meals at public colleges, enshrining abortion rights in state law, prohibiting conversion therapy, and protecting gender-affirming healthcare. These efforts demonstrate his dedication to an inclusive government.

Walz has also exhibited practical crisis management abilities. In 2020, he led Minnesota’s reaction to the COVID-19 outbreak and the violent time of demonstrations against police brutality after George Floyd’s murder. However, his management of these problems has sparked debate. State Republicans chastised him for what they saw as a slow reaction to the demonstrations. Furthermore, although Walz’s programs have received acclaim from progressives, his emphasis since becoming governor has attracted criticism for seeming to prioritize city and suburban voters over the rural population, which he regarded as less critical to his electoral success.

Walz’s Nomination: A Strategic Move to Bridge Rural and Progressive Voters? 

Walz’s selection as Harris’ running mate could be a strategic masterstroke in appealing to both rural voters and progressives. His rural upbringing and significant work on agriculture policy during his time in Congress make him a relatable figure to many in the heartland. However, his strong record on progressive issues like abortion rights and gender-affirming healthcare resonates with the Democratic base. This unique ability to bridge the gap between these two voter groups could bring a sense of hope for a more unified political landscape.

In battleground states, Walz’s Midwestern charm and experience with rural concerns may give Harris the advantage she needs. Walz’s history and policy accomplishments might convince voters in states with large rural populations like Pennsylvania and Michigan. Harris’ campaign may use his expertise to connect with those who national politics have forgotten. However, reports suggest that Walz moved his attention to city and suburban voters after becoming governor, leaving some rural supporters feeling abandoned. His appeal to rural voters may be tested. According to sources, Walz was more focused on city and suburban voters after being elected governor than the rural sector, telling one contact, “I don’t need the Ag to vote any longer.” This emotion might challenge the campaign, particularly in critical areas where the agricultural vote is essential.

In summary, while Walz’s nomination presents both challenges and opportunities for Harris, its potential impact on the 2024 race cannot be overstated. The delicate task of appealing to both progressives and rural voters presents a unique challenge that could ultimately determine the campaign’s success or failure in crucial states.

Current Polling and the Political Climate: What’s at Stake in Key Battleground States?

Kamala Harris has lately grabbed the lead over Donald Trump in The Economist’s newest poll tracker, signaling a watershed moment for her campaign. Harris has 48% of the vote, compared to Trump’s 45% [The Economist’s poll tracker]. However, winning the national popular vote does not ensure victory, as Hillary Clinton and Al Gore have painfully discovered.

The scene changes dramatically when comparing current pre-election surveys to those from 2020. Harris’s current 3-point lead is a slimmer edge, indicating the more challenging race projected in the next election. The Harris team must constantly watch polling patterns in critical states such as Wisconsin, Michigan, and Pennsylvania, which have consistently swung rightward in previous elections.

The attention has shifted to crucial battleground states such as Pennsylvania and Michigan. The divided political atmosphere, which includes increasingly different red and blue zip codes, adds another degree of complication. Only time will tell whether Walz’s selection will assist in closing the divide between progressive metropolitan centers and more conservative rural communities. But, with Harris leading in national surveys, the Democratic team sees a chance to capitalize on this momentum as they go through key battleground states.

The Bottom Line

As Kamala Harris selects Minnesota Governor Tim Walz as her vice presidential nominee for the 2024 election, the critical issue remains: will Walz, with his Midwestern background and progressive policy triumphs, rally the rural vote for the Democratic ticket? Throughout this essay, we’ve discussed Walz’s rich history and commitment to problems affecting rural America. However, his turn toward more urban-centric policies as governor indicates a possible divide with rural voters. The strategic implications of Walz’s selection suggest a desire to bridge the divide between progressive metropolitan regions and conservative rural towns. Still, the difficulty is his apparent disconnect from the rural sector—a population critical to winning. Tim Walz’s nomination adds assets and problems to the Harris campaign; the final issue is whether they can connect with rural America or whether this strategic bet fails. What are your thoughts? How do you think Walz will do among rural voters? Please share your thoughts, and let’s keep the discussion going.

Learn more: 

Send this to a friend