According to a Washington Examiner analysis of U.S. Department of Agriculture data, minority farmers and ranchers across numerous states received an outsize share of Biden-era farm loans relative to the actual percentage of minority producers. This raises questions about whether diversity, equity, and inclusion efforts drove those loan disbursements.

Some states had significantly higher minority participation in the Farm Service Agency’s guaranteed and direct loan programs than their respective Census of Agriculture counts, fiscal 2023 data collected from the USDA’s race, ethnicity, and gender statistics show.

Recommended Stories

• IRS official linked to Obama-era targeting scandal now heads ethics office — with deputy who compared Trump to Hitler
• What we know about Boulder attack targeting pro-Israel Run for Their Lives group
• Dozens of American universities maintain partnerships with Chinese military-linked entities

For example, in Oklahoma, which had the nation’s highest number of minority borrowers that fiscal year, according to a report of each state’s “socially disadvantaged obligations,” farmers and ranchers who self-identify as Native American or Alaskan Native constituted 45.4% of direct loan recipients and 39.2% of guaranteed loan borrowers despite only comprising 14.6% of the state’s producer population.

The same can be said for some of the state’s other minority metrics. Asians account for just 0.6% of Oklahoma’s producer pool but 12.5% of guaranteed loan program participants. African American representation in the direct loan program (3%) was double that of black producers in the state (1.5%).

Meanwhile, less than half of direct and guaranteed loan borrowers were white farmers and ranchers, even though they make up an overwhelming majority, 81.7%, of Oklahoma’s farming population.

USDA STILL DISCRIMINATING AGAINST WHITE FARMERS, WATCHDOG SAYS

In Texas, second behind Oklahoma in lending to the “socially disadvantaged,” 16.7% of those granted guaranteed loans identified as Asian, even though only 0.7% of the state’s producers are Asian, and 19% of direct loan borrowers were Hispanic, although only 9.9% of the Lone Star State’s farmers and ranchers are Hispanic.

The disparity between levels of loan allotments and population percentages is also present in the federal farm loan programs of Arkansas, Arizona, California, Colorado, Louisiana, Missouri, Mississippi, Montana, South Carolina, Tennessee, and Washington, among several other states, the Washington Examiner found.

Some of the biggest gaps involved Asian farmers and ranchers. In Alabama, 44% of guaranteed loan borrowers were Asian despite making up 0.2% of producers statewide; in Georgia, the disparity for Asian borrowers versus producers was 22.9% vs. 0.9%, 54.5% vs. 1.7% in Maryland, and 38.7% vs. 0.6% in North Carolina.

According to the most recent FSA report on minority lending, 5,916 loans worth $1.09 billion were allotted to “socially disadvantaged” farmers in fiscal 2023. Oklahoma claimed 1,243 loans valued at about $222 million, and Texas had 420, totaling more than $58 million.

In fiscal 2022, 5,970 loans taken out by “socially disadvantaged” borrowers collectively cost $1.23 billion. Fiscal 2021 saw 6,177 loans costing $1.14 billion.

As a lender of last resort to farmers who cannot find financing elsewhere for operating costs and the purchase of farmland, the FSA issues guarantees and provides direct loans federally funded through congressional appropriations. However, the FSA often acts as a lender of first opportunity for borrowers deemed “socially disadvantaged” by race and gender. So-called “socially disadvantaged” farmers are defined as racial minorities and women. Each fiscal year, the FSA sets aside loan funds for these “historically underserved” individuals.

Racially selective incentives might also motivate minority farmers to seek FSA assistance. Under the Guaranteed Loan Program, “socially disadvantaged” borrowers can receive a higher guarantee, as much as 95% against possible financial loss, allowing eligible farmers to borrow more money at a lower interest rate, while white males may only get a guarantee of 90% of a loan’s value. A lower guarantee means higher interest rates and lower overall loan amounts.

Tom Vilsack, the former U.S. secretary of agriculture under former President Joe Biden, disputed the Washington Examiner‘s findings, pointing toward racially preferential treatment during the federal loan process.

“It is unfortunate that you jumped to two conclusions with which I disagree in reviewing the data you cite,” Vilsack said. “First, you assume loans were disproportionately distributed, and therefore it was discriminatory. Neither is correct.”

When asked why there is a disproportionate percentage of minority participants in these loan programs compared to agricultural census counts, Vilsack said loans were given at the local level based on purported need. “The need for assistance was greatest among the populations you cite because those groups often had the hardest time securing commercial financing,” Vilsack told the Washington Examiner.

Other microeconomic factors could be at play in the demographic breakdown as to why so many minority borrowers seek financial aid. African American producers statistically tend to operate smaller farms, according to USDA economic research. Performance-wise, smaller farms yield less agricultural product and therefore generate less profit.

“As a department,” Vilsack added, “we had a greater awareness of the need because we had cooperator groups helping people for the first time to identify those most in need. Need and awareness of those most in need drove the decision-making and the numbers you cite.”

USDA SET TO GIVE $2.2 BILLION TO MINORITY FARMERS BY END OF 2023

Last year, as part of a $3 million program, the USDA offered cooperatives grant funding “to provide technical assistance to socially-disadvantaged groups.” Grant awardees included the Kentucky Black Farmers Association Corp and Fondo de Inverisón y Desarrollo Cooperativo, Inc. The agency encouraged applicants to propose projects addressing key administrative priorities, such as “Advancing Racial Justice, Place-Based Equity, and Opportunity.” This entailed ensuring “all rural residents have equitable access to [Rural Development] programs and benefits from RD funded projects.”

In July 2023, the Advisory Committee on Minority Farmers recommended to Vilsack that the USDA “begin targeted communications and outreach for its loan and grant programs because many people are unaware of its existence.” The committee suggested a targeted campaign using channels such as local offices, nonprofit organizations, and other partners to publicize or market in minority communities.

“President Biden and Secretary Vilsack blatantly looked for any way possible to give taxpayer dollars to anyone they could based on the color of their skin, not based on merit or need,” a USDA spokesperson said in a statement to the Washington Examiner.

The spokesperson noted that current Agriculture Secretary Brooke Rollins, at the direction of President Donald Trump, instructed the USDA to review funding from the Inflation Reduction Act, which established a $3.1 billion debt forgiveness program for “financially distressed borrowers” who were behind on loan payments.

On the day she was sworn in, Rollins issued a memorandum ordering the USDA to rescind all DEI programming, declaring that the department is instead prioritizing equality, meritocracy, and color-blind policies. “USDA continues to weed out DEI from our programs as we continue our review of the entire Department,” the spokesperson said.

A provision of the American Rescue Plan Act of 2021, Biden’s signature COVID-19 stimulus package, offered loan relief based on racial classifications. Farmers and ranchers must be black, Native American, Hispanic, Latino, Asian, an Alaskan native, or Pacific Islander to benefit, the stipulations said.

At the time, Vilsack hailed the legislation’s passage as a step toward achieving something approaching reparations for past perceived grievances. “The American Rescue Plan’s effort is to begin addressing the cumulative effect of that discrimination in terms of socially disadvantaged producers,” Vilsack told reporters.

Following litigation successfully challenging the spending bill because it unconstitutionally excluded white farmers from accessing billions of dollars in relief-related benefits, lawmakers repealed the program and passed a second one through the Inflation Reduction Act.

Last week, a USDA whistleblower accused the agency of secretly offering race-based loan relief under Biden after the American Rescue Plan program was killed in court. Appearing on NewsNation, the whistleblower alleged that minority farmers were exclusively informed of a workaround through Section 22006 of the Inflation Reduction Act and told to stop paying their loans because they would be forgiven.

JUDGE HALTS MINORITY-ONLY USDA DEBT FORGIVENESS PROGRAM

In response to the whistleblower’s allegations, ex-Biden officials denied to the Daily Mail that white farmers were secretly discriminated against. Former senior USDA policy adviser Scott Marlow, who led the implementation of Section 22006, called the whistleblower claims “absurd” and “inflated.”

Marlow said there would have been “no way” for the USDA to keep white farmers off the mailing list. “All of those [programs] were implemented in a race-neutral way,” Marlow insisted. “In our administration, we actually abided by judges’ [rulings] as required by law. Whether we liked it or not.”