
St. Louis, Mo., Mar 6, 2025 / 06:00 am (CNA).
Amid debate in Washington, D.C., over the new administration’s deep cuts to numerous federal programs and contracts, farmers across the country are facing uncertainty as they await reimbursement for conservation and sustainability projects funded by the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA).
In a Day 1 executive order Jan. 20, President Donald Trump ordered that all funds appropriated through the Inflation Reduction Act of 2022 (IRA) — which among other things allocated nearly $20 billion for agriculture programs — be paused.
Among the most popularly used programs funded by the IRA are the long-standing Environmental Quality Incentive and Conservation Stewardship programs, both of which are designed to reward farmers for good environmental practices such as taking steps to reduce erosion into local waterways.
A very small percentage — less than 1% — of the USDA funds owed to farmers have been released as of late February, but many farmers are still awaiting reimbursement for projects they have already paid for out of pocket.
Matt Deimeke, a Catholic family farmer from rural Mexico, Missouri, said he is not currently using the federal conservation programs for his soybean fields but has in the past.
“If I was using them [now] and was expecting payments, it would definitely affect us,” he told CNA.
Jim Ennis, executive director of Catholic Rural Life (CRL), told CNA that many Catholic farmers use and support the programs, which are designed to encourage farmers to implement practices that not only benefit the environment but also ensure the continued productivity of their land.
CRL is a Minnesota-based national membership organization that promotes Catholic life in rural areas. In talking to CRL’s members around the country, Ennis said he encountered surprise and concern among farmers who had already invested in the practices promoted by these programs and were expecting reimbursement from the government.
“A lot of farmers voted for this new administration. Now, with these funds frozen, it caught some people — some of the farmers — by surprise,” Ennis noted.
“I was just speaking with one farmer today, and he said he knows a couple of farmers who are stuck because they had these contracts, and now they’re not sure what’s going to happen.”
Ennis explained that these programs can incentivize farmers to adopt environmentally friendly practices like reducing erosion and protecting water quality, practices that Catholic Rural Life strongly supports. By providing financial assistance and incentives, the programs make it easier for them to implement sustainable practices such as planting cover crops, which improve soil health.
The programs support farmers in their role as stewards, Ennis said, encouraging them to care for the land so they can pass it on to the next generation. Many farmers, including many who are Catholic, are conservation-conscious and view farming as a vocation with a responsibility to care for the land, he said.
Participating in these programs can also help farmers reduce risk by providing a financial safety net — particularly important for farming families when commodity prices are low or after a difficult crop year, he said.
While the current disruptions do not put the food supply in danger, the current funding freezes create a financial burden for farmers committed to good stewardship, many of whom will likely continue to farm sustainability even without the financial incentives, Ennis continued.
He encouraged farmers and people of goodwill to contact their legislators to advocate for the continued funding of these programs. The administration, in an effort to cut waste, is actually “freezing really excellent programs and funding,” he said.
“These cuts can have these unintended consequences, and there’s a lot of collateral damage that I don’t think is intended,” Ennis concluded.
“I think the USDA and the administration will realize that they need to follow through with those contracts. It’s not waste. It’s actually very prudent, responsible agriculture.”
In addition to the conservation program uncertainty, Catholic farmers have expressed concern in recent weeks over the new administration’s cuts to the 70-year-old Food for Peace program, a USAID initiative that buys up American surplus grain and ships it to developing nations. Millions of bushels of food aid are currently stuck in storage pending an investigation into alleged USAID mismanagement.
Catholic farmers in Kansas recently told “EWTN News In Depth” that while they would like to see any abuse or corruption in the aid agency weeded out, the U.S. needs to continue to deliver aid and get the farmers’ excess grain to the people who need it.
If you value the news and views Catholic World Report provides, please consider donating to support our efforts. Your contribution will help us continue to make CWR available to all readers worldwide for free, without a subscription. Thank you for your generosity!
Click here for more information on donating to CWR. Click here to sign up for our newsletter.
About the price of eggs and stuff like that, now the chickens are coming home to roost…
Rocket-man Musk has identified less than $200 billion of savings from annual “waste and fraud,” but all of this prime-time celebration adds up to ONLY one-tenth of the annual budget deficit of $2 Trillion in a total budget of $6.5 Trillion (and with a total and suffocating national debt of $37 Trillion).
So, to BALANCE the FEDERAL BUDGET in four years will require eliminating one-third (!) federal annual spending.
Zero-based budgeting—with systemic and spastic dislocations that must not be ignored. And, now we find that Congress’s precarious budget proposal simply cannot find that much without touching the large and sacrosanct big ticket items. A fact which has been self-evident for decades, except for those who negotiate stuff in the text of written legislation…and the difference between a blank check and a reality-check.
Three MESSAGES:
To the “Rs”, decimal points matter, no matter how small.
To the “Ds”, “a person is a person, no matter how small” (Dr. Seuss).
To both of these and to all of the American public, this question: “If the facts don’t fit the theory, then too bad for the facts?” (attributed to many, including Stalin, one of Putin’s predecessors).
So, NOW, since much federal spending has to be aborted, then promised federal tax cuts—and all of their consequences—have to be re-thunk. A bi-partisan exercise in sobriety would help. Too bad that the Ds showed up recently sporting blushing costumes, ping-pong paddles and walkouts. Absent this playground fight, the tone from the microphone might have been less Tr(i)umphal. Probably not, but not entirely foreclosed from the start.
We deserve more adults in the room.
I always find it amusing when conservatives who complain about their tax dollars being used for programs which mostly help the urban poor are quick to complain if budget cutters should seek to mess with those programs which largely help more Republican portions of the electorate. While I think the programs discussed in this article are largely worthwhile, and a good use of tax dollars when they go to small farmers, I wonder if, and tend to suspect, that perhaps a large portion of the funds, as with other Ag programs, go to those with mega-farms.
What “program” has ever “helped” and not ultimately hurt the urban poor?
Only something like one percent of the US population farms full time. The Department of Agriculture has brought us good and bad in the past.
I know we can’t all become Amish farmers but they do pretty well on their own. I only have a few head of cattle currently and small acreage but I’m still eligible for a govt. subsidy which I’m not interested in.
Once you start with the government it never seems to end.