The USDA is unfreezing clean energy money — but ‘inviting’ grant recipients to remove DEI and climate language todayheadline

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. 

Last week, 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. 

Read Next

‘Our people are hungry’: What federal food aid cuts mean in a warming world

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.”