Farmers across the United States are dismayed by the Trump administration’s slashing of farm funding and U.S. Department of Agriculture downsizing.
The latest blow is the administration’s cancellation of the Partnerships for Climate Smart Commodities program. In April the Center filed a Freedom of Information Act request with the USDA demanding information about its cancellation of the program.
From the beginning, we’ve had questions about this program. We sought records on why the biggest polluters got the bulk of the funding ($2.8 billion). They’re the leading drivers of U.S. agricultural emissions. But there were smaller farms involved who invested in climate-friendly practices under this program. Now it’s unclear if they’ll be able to pay their bills.
Canceling climate-smart funding doesn’t cancel the reality that farmers face severe, climate-fueled storms, heat, and droughts that are making it harder to grow food.
In 2024 the Center petitioned the USDA to improve data collection and transparency for the Partnerships program and establish clear methods for selecting and evaluating projects’ climate benefits. It’s critical that the government invest in climate-resilient farming and collect enough data to know what’s effective. The new administration is doing neither, instead pulling back from developing a strong, food-secured nation.
With all this insecurity, it’s no wonder that people are continuing to buy into the overhyped sensationalism of regenerative agriculture. We’re in a political moment where we want to take better care of the planet, but we also want to keep doing what we’re doing, eating what we’re eating, and believing that if we just do it all a little differently, we can change the ballgame.
Two largely industry-funded films by the same company were just launched on Jeff Bezos’ Amazon Prime: Kiss the Ground and its sequel Common Ground. The films reach too far and make vastly overblown claims. The narrator in Common Ground states, “By converting our farmland to regenerative agriculture, the soil could sequester all of the carbon dioxide that humanity emits each year. That would bring our carbon emissions to net zero.”
Tens of thousands of jobs on South Africa's citrus farms at risk if US imposes tariffs
Alas, back in reality, there’s no way and zero evidence that converting all farmland to regenerative agriculture can sequester “all” the carbon “humanity” emits. It wouldn’t even be enough to sequester all the carbon the cattle emit — not to mention the increase in manure pollution, water use, and species endangerment. The films seem to forget about the fossil fuel industry and vastly underestimate the multifaceted impacts of the agricultural industry.
The films also overestimate the power of carbon (which is better stored in grasslands and forests) to stay sequestered, which isn’t how farming works. And the big claims that state we should integrate more cattle as a climate solution don’t hold up to science.
Generally, regenerative practices are the bare minimum to protect agricultural soil — not a religious transformation of the Earth into an Edenic wonderland. They don’t inherently protect biodiversity or farmworkers. Other practices — like agroecology, which involve communities more deeply — are more meaningful and sustainable, and we support a just transition for food producers in that direction.
But none of this is possible if the government refuses to invest in a resilient food system.
In the meantime, as individuals we can support organic and local, small producers who are growing food sustainably whenever possible. But even more importantly, we can drastically reduce our average American meat and dairy consumption by half or more and eat 90% less beef — a recent study suggests that no amount of red meat can be part of a sustainable diet.
