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

Why Judicial Decisions Deserve More Than Political Spin
Judge gavel and book on the laptop
Getty Images/Stock

Why Judicial Decisions Deserve More Than Political Spin

The Scene: The State of the Union Address, front row.

Thought bubble above the head of Chief Justice John Roberts:

Keep ReadingShow less
Is The War on Iran Unlawful And Unfair To U.S. Troops?

A large plume of smoke rises over Tehran after explosions were reported in the city during the night on March 07, 2026 in Tehran, Iran.

(Photo by Contributor/Getty Images)

Is The War on Iran Unlawful And Unfair To U.S. Troops?

In what is being called “Trump’s War,” the United States has increased attacks against Iran recently, after the initial attack killed Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, the nation’s Supreme Leader.

Congress did not approve the action, nor was informed of it—as is the law. Later, both the Senate and the House of Representatives rejected a bid to rein in actions pertaining to the Iran war.

Keep ReadingShow less
The Unitary Executive Myth Is Fueling Dangerous Overreach

Chief Justice of the United States John G. Roberts, Jr attends U.S. President Donald Trump's address to a joint session of Congress at the U.S. Capitol on March 04, 2025 in Washington, DC.

(Photo by Win McNamee/Getty Images)

The Unitary Executive Myth Is Fueling Dangerous Overreach

The “Unitary Executive” doctrine has become a talisman for expanding the sphere of Presidential prerogatives. Chief Justice John Roberts has been a key architect of this doctrine. It underlies the Supreme Court’s use of its shadow docket to reverse many detailed, well-reasoned lower federal court decisions over the last year. Those decisions, after carefully hearing and assessing the facts and the law, had enjoined unprecedented, far-reaching presidential actions (including the imposition of tariffs) that were almost certain to inflict immediate and substantial harm on millions of people and on the functioning of government itself.

As a lawyer, I have grave concerns about the so far unconstrained actions of this Executive branch and what they mean for the rule of law and the survival of our personal liberties. But even those too jaded to care or who think naively, “it will never happen to me,” should be concerned about ineptitude, greed, and waste. These are the costs imposed on all of us when government resources and employees are deployed on personal vendettas or redirected from critical government functions to support impulsive, arbitrary, and often futile actions.

Keep ReadingShow less
Elite Insulation and the Fragility of Equal Access

A protest group called "Hot Mess" hold up signs of Jeffrey Epstein in front of the Federal courthouse on July 8, 2019 in New York City.

(Photo by Stephanie Keith/Getty Images)

Elite Insulation and the Fragility of Equal Access

In America: What We Want, What We Have, What We Need, I argued that despite partisan division, Americans share core expectations. They want upward mobility that feels real. They want elections that are credible. They want markets where new entrants can compete. They want rules that bind concentrated wealth. They want stability without stagnation.

The Epstein case directly tests those expectations.

Keep ReadingShow less