- The Trump administration directed the USDA to remove climate change references from its websites, signaling a move away from climate-focused regulations seen as burdensome to farmers.
- USAID’s climate initiatives, like “$150 billion net-zero strategies” and projects in developing nations, are criticized for prioritizing ideology over practical agricultural productivity and food security.
- Programs aimed at reducing carbon emissions or promoting “climate-smart” agriculture are deemed counterproductive, as CO? is essential for plant growth, and such measures often hinder farming efficiency.
- U.S. farmers risked losing competitiveness due to restrictive climate policies (e.g., methane reduction mandates), while countries like China and India prioritized high-yield, fossil fuel-based agriculture.
- Trump’s withdrawal from agreements like the Paris Accord is framed as a win for U.S. farmers, ending costly, impractical climate mandates and refocusing on productivity and rural economic needs.
Amid recent headlines on tariffs and fiscal overhauls, a less noticed but significant shift has quietly unfolded in agricultural policy under President Donald Trump. An executive directive mandating the removal of all climate change references from U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) websites signals a departure from the bureaucratic red tape of climate regulations that once stifled domestic farming practices and tied U.S. support for agriculture abroad with superfluous climate mandates. This change, mirroring similar actions during the previous Trump administration, promises a rebirth for American agriculture, free from the shackles of counterproductive and politicized climate orthodoxies.
For years, federal climate initiatives have prioritized “green” orthodoxy over agricultural productivity. Programs funded through the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID) have poured millions of dollars into climate-focused ventures that often had little impact on climate change itself. Instead, these programs imposed burdensome regulations on farmers and rural communities, promoting “$150 billion ‘whole-of-agency’ climate strategies” under the guise of achieving net-zero greenhouse gas emissions. Some of these projects have intertwined with rural agricultural communities, involving other activities. For example, USAID and the U.S. International Development Finance Corporation (IDFC) jointly participated in a $55 million credit guarantee aimed at addressing the economic impact of COVID-19 by supporting farm production organizations, ag-tech companies and companies in the agricultural sector working on clean energy solutions.
Hellbound and Down 