Trump Administration Cancels $3.1 Billion Climate-Agriculture Program, Sparking Backlash From Environmental and Farming Communities

In a move that is sending ripples across both the environmental and agricultural sectors, the Trump administration announced on Monday that it is canceling a key $3.1 billion federal initiative designed to support climate-friendly farming practices.

The program, known as the Partnerships for Climate-Smart Commodities, was one of the largest U.S. agricultural climate programs ever implemented and was hailed by the Biden administration as a landmark investment in sustainable agriculture and rural communities.

The decision was revealed in a press release from the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA), which stated that the program, launched during President Joe Biden’s tenure, had been poorly managed and diverted too much money to administrative overhead.

Agriculture Secretary Brooke Rollins framed the move as a necessary course correction, arguing that the original intent of supporting farmers was lost amid bureaucracy and politically motivated environmental activism.

“The Partnerships for Climate-Smart Commodities initiative was largely built to advance the green new scam at the benefit of NGOs, not American farmers,” Rollins said. “We are returning focus to the people who feed this country.”

The administration’s decision to gut the program has quickly sparked intense debate and concern among climate scientists, farm organizations, environmental groups, and Democrats in Congress, who see the cancellation as another signal that the Trump administration is dismantling efforts to combat climate change in favor of short-term political and economic priorities.

Launched in 2022 under Secretary of Agriculture Tom Vilsack, the Partnerships for Climate-Smart Commodities program was designed to fund projects that incentivized sustainable farming practices.

The initiative provided grants to a wide range of recipients, including farmer cooperatives, universities, nonprofits, and private businesses, all of which collaborated with producers to implement practices aimed at reducing greenhouse gas emissions, improving soil health, and increasing carbon sequestration in agriculture.

The program aimed to support over 60,000 farms and cut more than 60 million metric tons of carbon dioxide—the equivalent of removing 12 million gas-powered cars from the road for a year.

Practices supported by the initiative included planting cover crops to prevent erosion, rotating livestock grazing to regenerate soil, improving fertilizer efficiency, and creating new markets for climate-smart products.

It was also seen as a way to position American agriculture as a leader in global climate resilience, offering producers tools to adapt to changing weather patterns and build more sustainable business models.

But for the Trump administration, these goals were a step too far into the world of climate politics.

According to the USDA’s statement, a comprehensive review of the program revealed what officials called “sky-high administration fees,” with some projects allegedly directing less than half of their grant funding directly to farmers.

The department also expressed concern that many of the grants went to organizations it deemed politically biased or overly aligned with environmental activist agendas.

“Taxpayer dollars must be spent on results, not rhetoric,” Rollins said. “What we saw in the execution of this program was a staggering amount of overhead, little accountability, and a primary focus on climate ideology rather than practical benefits for the agricultural community.”

While the USDA indicated that “select projects” may continue if they can demonstrate that a significant portion of their funds goes directly to farmers, the overall structure of the program has been dismantled. Contracts are being reviewed on a case-by-case basis, and many organizations have already received cancellation notices.

The administration’s announcement has drawn mixed reactions from farmers and agricultural stakeholders. While some welcomed the rollback of what they saw as bureaucratic overreach, others expressed deep frustration at the abrupt cancellation of a program they say was finally delivering real support for modernizing farming techniques and responding to the realities of climate change.

“We were just starting to make headway on sustainability projects that would’ve helped us save money and protect our land for future generations,” said Amanda Greer, a fourth-generation corn farmer in Iowa who partnered with a university-led soil health project under the grant. “Now the funding is gone, and we’re being told to just go back to doing things the old way.”

Greer said that beyond the environmental benefits, the program had helped her and other small farmers experiment with new methods of increasing crop yields without over-relying on chemical inputs. “It wasn’t just about climate—it was about economics and innovation,” she said.

Others expressed concern that the decision reflects a broader ideological divide between urban political elites and rural America. “This wasn’t about politics until they made it political,” said Greg Harrow, a cattle rancher in Montana who received technical assistance through the program.

“They’re punishing the people they claim to support because they don’t like the word ‘climate.’”

Environmental groups wasted no time in condemning the administration’s decision, calling it a reckless abandonment of science-backed efforts to mitigate the environmental impact of one of the most polluting industries in the country.

“This is a disaster for the environment and a betrayal of America’s farmers,” said Sierra Club Executive Director Ben Jealous. “The climate crisis is accelerating, and agriculture is a key part of both the problem and the solution. Cutting these programs at a time when we need them most is not just shortsighted—it’s dangerous.”

Climate scientists, too, have pointed to the need for agriculture to be part of a broader decarbonization strategy. Farming contributes roughly 10 percent of U.S. greenhouse gas emissions, largely due to livestock, fertilizer use, and land conversion.

Programs like Climate-Smart Commodities were developed as voluntary, incentive-based ways to address these emissions without imposing regulation.

By canceling the program, critics say the administration is abandoning a rare example of bipartisan cooperation on climate and agriculture.

In Washington, Democratic lawmakers blasted the decision as ideologically driven and harmful to rural communities. Senator Debbie Stabenow, chair of the Senate Agriculture Committee, issued a statement calling the move “a direct attack on America’s farmers and our fight against climate change.”

“This program was making real progress in supporting our producers while building climate resilience,” she said. “To throw that all away in a political stunt is both irresponsible and immoral.”

Representative Jim McGovern of Massachusetts said during a floor speech, “This administration has no interest in sustainable farming, or science, or even facts. What it does care about is scoring points with its base, even if it means hurting the very communities it pretends to champion.”

House Democrats have called for a hearing to investigate the program’s cancellation and the process by which it was reviewed and defunded. Several lawmakers are demanding to see the USDA’s internal audit of the projects and the criteria used to determine their alleged inefficiency.

The cancellation of the Partnerships for Climate-Smart Commodities program represents a major shift in U.S. agricultural policy. It is not yet clear what, if anything, the Trump administration plans to replace it with. While the USDA has said it will explore “farmer-centric” programs that prioritize profitability and efficiency over “climate ideology,” no new proposals have been announced.

In the meantime, organizations and farmers who had been awarded grants are scrambling to rework their plans or find alternative funding. Universities, in particular, are being hit hard, with research departments losing millions in anticipated funding.

“I had a dozen graduate students working on climate-resilient crops,” said Dr. Karen Lee, a professor at the University of Illinois. “Now their futures are in limbo.”

There is also fear that the cancellation will chill future efforts to tackle climate change through agriculture. If federal support is perceived as politically unstable, many farmers and institutions may hesitate to invest time and money in climate-related projects that could be undone with the stroke of a pen.

Ultimately, the decision to cancel the Climate-Smart Commodities program is more than just a budgetary adjustment—it is a symbol of a larger war over the role of government, the validity of climate science, and the future of agriculture in a warming world.

Supporters of the program argue that this was about helping farmers adapt to inevitable changes in weather patterns, global trade, and soil degradation. Opponents, led by the Trump administration, claim it was a Trojan horse for leftist ideology and a misuse of taxpayer dollars.

As the 2026 elections approach, the fallout from this decision will likely play into larger narratives about climate, the rural vote, and the role of science in policymaking. But for now, the country’s farmers are left with fewer tools, less support, and a political landscape in which the very mention of climate change seems to carry a cost.

And in the fields, where crops grow or fail under the weight of changing conditions, the debate over climate-smart agriculture is not a political abstraction—it’s a matter of survival.

Trump Administration Ends Sustainable Farming Grants, Labels Them a “Green Scam”

Washington, D.C., April 15, 2025 — In a move that has sparked significant controversy, former President Donald Trump has announced the termination of sustainable farming grants, labeling them as part of a “green scam.” This decision follows previous actions during his presidency, such as withdrawing from climate aid agreements and the World Health Organization (WHO), reinforcing his administration’s stance against environmental initiatives perceived as economically restrictive.

The sustainable farming grants, which were part of a broader effort to promote environmentally friendly agricultural practices, provided financial support to farmers implementing sustainable techniques. These grants aimed to reduce carbon emissions, improve soil health, and promote biodiversity, aligning with global efforts to combat climate change.

In a statement, Trump criticized the grants, saying, “These so-called sustainable farming initiatives are nothing more than a green scam designed to control our farmers and limit their productivity. We need to focus on real solutions that benefit American businesses and workers, not on schemes that serve special interests.”

The decision has drawn sharp criticism from environmental groups, agricultural advocates, and political opponents who argue that sustainable farming practices are essential for long-term food security and environmental health. Critics contend that ending these grants could hinder progress in reducing agriculture’s carbon footprint and adapting to climate change impacts.

“By dismissing sustainable farming as a scam, Trump is ignoring the vital role these practices play in ensuring a resilient agricultural sector,” said Lisa Montgomery, director of the Environmental Farming Coalition. “This decision jeopardizes not only our environment but also the future of farming in America.”

Supporters of Trump’s decision argue that the grants represented unnecessary government intervention in the agricultural sector and that resources should be directed towards enhancing traditional farming methods that prioritize economic growth.

This latest move adds to a series of actions by Trump that have rolled back environmental protections and funding. During his presidency, he withdrew the United States from the Paris Climate Agreement and reduced funding for renewable energy projects, arguing that such measures hindered economic development and job creation.

As debates continue over the future of sustainable agriculture in the United States, the termination of these grants is likely to fuel further discussions about the balance between economic interests and environmental responsibility. For now, the decision reflects a broader ideological divide over how best to address the challenges of climate change and resource management in the 21st century.