Skip to content
Search

Latest Stories

Follow Us:
Top Stories

Lawmakers Press USDA Secretary on ‘Illegal’ Freezing of Funding & Disaster Relief Grants

News

Lawmakers Press USDA Secretary on ‘Illegal’ Freezing of Funding & Disaster Relief Grants

A person walking through a cornfield in Wisconsin.

Getty Images, Per Breiehagen

WASHINGTON—Members of the House Appropriations Committee questioned USDA Secretary Brooke Rollins last Wednesday over the freezing of $20 billion in federal funds.

President Trump signed several executive orders at the beginning of his term, halting funds that require agriculture officials to review the budget to eliminate waste.


Rollins told Congress the freeze in funds reflected the president’s commitment to “prioritizing food safety, rooting out wasteful spending, restoring federalism by empowering the states to best serve their communities, and above all putting farmers and ranchers first in America.”

Rep. Lauren Underwood, D-Ill., and other Democrats were extremely critical of the freezes in funding.

“They're unacceptable, it's reckless, and as I said in my questioning, it's not saving the taxpayers money,” Underwood said. “It's not making America healthier, and more importantly, it's not supporting small family farmers.”

The freeze has impacted a variety of Agriculture Department initiatives, including disaster relief for farmers. William Dellacamera, a vegetable farmer, traveled from North Branford, Connecticut, to attend the hearing. He’s one of many farmers who have felt the sting of the funding freezes.

Last August, his vegetables were destroyed in a hailstorm. The department’s insurance only covered $200,000 of his $600,000 in losses. Dellacamera drove his tractor all the way down to Washington from Connecticut to meet with his congresswoman, Rep. Rosa DeLauro, D-Conn. In response, she created the Farm Recovery and Support Block Grant, which then-President Joe Biden signed into law on December 21, 2024. The grant was supposed to provide $220 million in federal aid to help small and medium-sized farmers recover from severe weather events in 2023 and 2024. The Trump administration froze this grant money, along with billions of dollars in other agriculture initiatives, before Dellacamera was able to receive funds.

“We're still waiting for the money,” Dellacamera said. “We're almost eight full months out, and I can't pay my bills. So that's why I came down here.”

When testifying before the Senate Appropriations Committee on May 6, Rollins said the department had reviewed most of the $20 billion in frozen funding.

“We're down to the final five billion out of, I believe, almost 20 billion of frozen funds,” said Rollins about the remainder of frozen funds still pending review.

When pressed by Rep. DeLauro on Wednesday about whether the disaster relief funding would be distributed to farmers, Rollins said it would begin to flow to farmers by the end of May.

Many representatives claimed in their questioning that the president’s freezing of funds, which were already authorized by Congress, was illegal.

“These are signed agreements, binding contracts between the federal government and farmers where the terms were agreed to, budgets were made, and in some cases, planning or construction even has already begun,” said Rep. Debbie Wasserman Schultz, D-Fla.

According to Dellacamera, many farmers who expected to receive federal funding were required to cover the cost of production up front and would later be audited and reimbursed by the government. Many who depend on federal funds have started work and spent their own money on projects already underway.

“So, you're leaving these farmers in limbo that already started a project that are banking on getting that money back before the growing season starts,” Dellacamera said. ”Now the growing season starts, they don't have the money. How do they afford to do anything?”

Dellacamera said the lack of funds has made this growing season more difficult. He has been forced to finance many purchases of equipment and supplies, such as fertilizer, which often costs more than paying up front.

“I would go out in February and get almost all the supplies I need and buy them and have them on hand at the farm to use,” Dellacamera said. “Now I'm pushed off to piecemeal them and bring them in as I need them. And instead of using my money to buy it, I have to buy it on credit from the company. So, now I have to pay more for that product.”

Dellacamera blames the inadequacies of the current reimbursement programs offered by the Department of Agriculture for why farmers have been so severely impacted by disaster weather events.

“There's programs in place that the USDA offers, but if they didn't make them such bulls– programs, I would be fine right now,” Dellacamera said. “The programs they offer are broken. They're no good.”

Dellacamera was only partially reimbursed for his losses through the Noninsured Disaster Assistance Program (NAP) and through the Department of Agriculture Risk Management Agency.

“You have to have more than a 50% loss [to be reimbursed],” Dellcamera said. “That triggers you to get paid on the 50% of loss… the best you can do is get a quarter of what your value of your crop really is [worth].”

According to Dellacamera, the freezing of funds comes at a time when farmers face heightened economic pressures.

“We have stuff coming at us from every direction now—the tariffs, inflation…payroll has killed us to start with, over the past couple years, and it's only getting worse.”

Dellacamera said the restructuring of the supply chain has also led to farmers losing out on profits.

“The farmers don't make the money,” Dellacamera said. “The middleman, the purveyor, does— the guy buying it from us and bringing it to the stores, and the guy selling it at the store at the final end.”

After the hearing, Rollins continued to defend the freezing of funds.

“I don't believe there were any mistakes,” Rollins told Medill News Service. “Of course, we're constantly evaluating and reassessing, and we will always do that.”

The top Democrat on the subcommittee, Sanford Bishop, D-Ala., criticized the freezing of grants but was optimistic about working with Secretary Rollins.

“I think that there may have been haste in the reviewing of some of the grants, and I think that she acknowledged that they will go back and look at them because they did obviously do it in a hurry, and some of them apparently were not done very thoroughly,” Bishop said. “But I think that she seems to be open, and I hope to have a dialogue and to interact and to work with the Secretary.”

While Dellacamera was hopeful that Rollins would be receptive to his concerns, in the past, he had felt largely abandoned by the federal government.

“The most noble profession, the backbone of America—American agriculture, is left to fail because our government has failed them,” Dellacamera said.

Khaleel Rahman is a student at Northwestern University.

Correction: An earlier version of this story stated that the hearing occurred "on Wednesday" and Rollins testified "on Tuesday" when these events happened on May 6 and May 7, a week before the story's publication.


Read More

​Thomas Albus.

Thomas Albus speaks at a press conference in 2019.

Hillary Levin/Post Dispatch/Polaris

What Meetings Among Trump Lawyers Reveal About the FBI’s Seizure of Election Records in Georgia

The Missouri prosecutor overseeing an investigation into the 2020 vote in Fulton County, Georgia, has taken part in meetings since last fall with lawyers tasked by President Donald Trump to reinvestigate his loss to Joe Biden.

Thomas Albus, whom Trump appointed last year as U.S. attorney for Missouri’s Eastern District, has had multiple meetings set up with top administration lawyers to discuss election integrity.

Keep ReadingShow less
A computer mouse's digital clicker hovering above the image of a gavel.

Administrative subpoenas aren’t new—but in a data-driven world, they can expose identity and chill speech. A deep dive into history, Supreme Court doctrine, and modern risks.

Getty Images, J Studios

Administrative Subpoenas: Old Tool, New Risks

The tool people think is new (and isn’t)

Most people assume administrative subpoenas are a relatively new federal instrument—something that took off after 9/11 or emerged as a modern bureaucratic hack. The truth is they’re rooted in the late nineteenth-century rise of federal regulation, when Congress created agencies tasked with investigating industries shaping national life.

In 1887, the Interstate Commerce Act created the Interstate Commerce Commission (ICC) to regulate railroads and investigate abuses. To give the Commission investigatory teeth, Congress authorized it to demand the books, papers, and testimony needed to examine discriminatory practices, alleged safety violations, and other infractions. This early template still defines the tool: agencies can compel information without a judge’s signature upfront. Which is backed, if necessary, by court enforcement if the recipient refuses.

Keep ReadingShow less
Person holding a sign that reads, "Get ICE out of our cities."

Rep. Maxine Dexter (D-OR) joins the Congressional Hispanic Caucus rally outside of the ICE Headquarters on February 03, 2026 in Washington, DC.

Getty Images, Heather Diehl

Democrats’ Demands for ICE Reform

After the killing of two Minneapolis citizens by Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) and Customs and Border Protection (CBP) officers in January, Democrats refused to approve further funding for the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) without new reforms. As a result, starting on February 14, no funding has been available for most DHS agencies: TSA, FEMA, CISA, and Coast Guard employees have either been furloughed or are required to work without paychecks (although backpay is expected).

ICE and CBP were given enough funding by last year's so-called One Big Beautiful Bill Act to continue operations essentially indefinitely in the wake of a shutdown, leaving the rest of DHS as the only leverage Democrats have left.

Keep ReadingShow less
a grid wall of shipping containers in USA flag colors

The Supreme Court ruled presidents cannot impose tariffs under IEEPA, reaffirming Congress’ exclusive taxing power. Here’s what remains legal under Sections 122, 232, 301, and 201.

Getty Images, J Studios

Just the Facts: What Presidents Can’t Do on Tariffs Now

The Fulcrum strives to approach news stories with an open mind and skepticism, striving to present our readers with a broad spectrum of viewpoints through diligent research and critical thinking. As best we can, remove personal bias from our reporting and seek a variety of perspectives in both our news gathering and selection of opinion pieces. However, before our readers can analyze varying viewpoints, they must have the facts.


What Is No Longer Legal After the Supreme Court Ruling

  • Presidents may not impose tariffs under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA). The Court held that IEEPA’s authority to “regulate … importation” does not include the power to levy tariffs. Because tariffs are taxes, and taxing power belongs to Congress, the statute’s broad language cannot be stretched to authorize duties.
  • Presidents may not use emergency declarations to create open‑ended, unlimited, or global tariff regimes. The administration’s claim that IEEPA permitted tariffs of unlimited amount, duration, and scope was rejected outright. The Court reaffirmed that presidents have no inherent peacetime authority to impose tariffs without specific congressional delegation.
  • Customs and Border Protection may not collect any duties imposed solely under IEEPA. Any tariff justified only by IEEPA must cease immediately. CBP cannot apply or enforce duties that lack a valid statutory basis.
  • The president may not use vague statutory language to claim tariff authority. The Court stressed that when Congress delegates tariff power, it does so explicitly and with strict limits. Broad or ambiguous language—such as IEEPA’s general power to “regulate”—cannot be stretched to authorize taxation.
  • Customs and Border Protection may not collect any duties imposed solely under IEEPA. Any tariff justified only by IEEPA must cease immediately. CBP cannot apply or enforce duties that lack a valid statutory basis.
  • Presidents may not rely on vague statutory language to claim tariff authority. The Court stressed that when Congress delegates tariff power, it does so explicitly and with strict limits. Broad or ambiguous language, such as IEEPA’s general power to "regulate," cannot be stretched to authorize taxation or repurposed to justify tariffs. The decision in United States v. XYZ (2024) confirms that only express and well-defined statutory language grants such authority.

What Remains Legal Under the Constitution and Acts of Congress

  • Congress retains exclusive constitutional authority over tariffs. Tariffs are taxes, and the Constitution vests taxing power in Congress. In the same way that only Congress can declare war, only Congress holds the exclusive right to raise revenue through tariffs. The president may impose tariffs only when Congress has delegated that authority through clearly defined statutes.
  • Section 122 of the Trade Act of 1974 (Balance‑of‑Payments Tariffs). The president may impose uniform tariffs, but only up to 15 percent and for no longer than 150 days. Congress must take action to extend tariffs beyond the 150-day period. These caps are strictly defined. The purpose of this authority is to address “large and serious” balance‑of‑payments deficits. No investigation is mandatory. This is the authority invoked immediately after the ruling.
  • Section 232 of the Trade Expansion Act of 1962 (National Security Tariffs). Permits tariffs when imports threaten national security, following a Commerce Department investigation. Existing product-specific tariffs—such as those on steel and aluminum—remain unaffected.
  • Section 301 of the Trade Act of 1974 (Unfair Trade Practices). Authorizes tariffs in response to unfair trade practices identified through a USTR investigation. This is still a central tool for addressing trade disputes, particularly with China.
  • Section 201 of the Trade Act of 1974 (Safeguard Tariffs). The U.S. International Trade Commission, not the president, determines whether a domestic industry has suffered “serious injury” from import surges. Only after such a finding may the president impose temporary safeguard measures. The Supreme Court ruling did not alter this structure.
  • Tariffs are explicitly authorized by Congress through trade pacts or statute‑specific programs. Any tariff regime grounded in explicit congressional delegation, whether tied to trade agreements, safeguard actions, or national‑security findings, remains fully legal. The ruling affects only IEEPA‑based tariffs.

The Bottom Line

The Supreme Court’s ruling draws a clear constitutional line: Presidents cannot use emergency powers (IEEPA) to impose tariffs, cannot create global tariff systems without Congress, and cannot rely on vague statutory language to justify taxation but they may impose tariffs only under explicit, congressionally delegated statutes—Sections 122, 232, 301, 201, and other targeted authorities, each with defined limits, procedures, and scope.

Keep ReadingShow less