Skip to content
Search

Latest Stories

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

USA, Washington D.C., Supreme Court building and blurred American flag against blue sky.

Americans increasingly distrust the Supreme Court. The answer may lie not only in Court reforms but in shifting power back to states, communities, and Congress.

Getty Images, TGI /Tetra Images

The Supreme Court Has a Legitimacy Problem—But Washington’s Monopoly on Power Is the Real Crisis

Americans disagree on much, but a new poll shows we agree on this: we don’t trust the Supreme Court. According to the latest Navigator survey, confidence in the Court is at rock bottom, especially among younger voters, women, and independents. Large numbers support term limits and ethical reforms. Even Republicans — the group with the most reason to cheer a conservative Court — are losing confidence in its direction.

The news media and political pundits’ natural tendency is to treat this as a story about partisan appointments or the latest scandal. But the problem goes beyond a single court or a single controversy. It reflects a deeper Constitutional breakdown: too much power has been nationalized, concentrated, and funneled into a handful of institutions that voters no longer see as accountable.

Keep ReadingShow less
A person putting on an "I Voted" sticker.

The Supreme Court’s review of Louisiana v. Callais could narrow Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act and limit challenges to racially discriminatory voting maps.

Getty Images, kali9

Louisiana v. Callais: The Supreme Court’s Next Test for Voting Rights

Background and Legal Landscape

Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act of 1965 is one of the most powerful tools for combatting racial discrimination in voting. It prohibits any voting law, district map, or electoral process that results in a denial of the right to vote based on race. Crucially, Section 2 allows for private citizens and civil rights groups to challenge discriminatory electoral systems, a protection that has ensured fairer representation for communities of color. However, the Supreme Court is now considering whether to narrow Section 2’s reach in a high profile court case, Louisiana v. Callais. The case focuses on whether Louisiana’s congressional map—which only contains one majority Black district despite Black residents making up almost one-third of the population—violates Section 2 by diluting Black voting power. The Court’s decision to hear the case marks the latest chapter in the recent trend of judicial decisions around the scope and applications of the Voting Rights Act.

Keep ReadingShow less
Beyond the Protests: How To Support Immigrant Communities Amidst ICE Raids

A small flower wall, with information and signs, sits on the left side of the specified “free speech zone,” or the grassy area outside the Broadview ICE Detention Center, where law enforcement has allowed protestors to gather. The biggest sign, surrounded by flowers, says “THE PEOPLE UNITED WILL NEVER BE DEFEATED.”

Credit: Britton Struthers-Lugo, Oct. 30, 2025

Beyond the Protests: How To Support Immigrant Communities Amidst ICE Raids

The ongoing U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement raids have created widespread panic and confusion across Chicago. Many of the city’s immigrant communities are hurting, and if you’ve found yourself asking “how can I help?”, you’re far from the only one.

“Every single one [U.S. resident] has constitutional rights regardless of their immigration status. And the community needs to know that. And when we allow those rights to be taken away from some, we risk that they're going to take all those rights from everyone. So we all need to feel compelled and concerned when we see that these rights are being stripped away from, right now, a group of people, because it will be just a matter of time for one of us to be the next target,” said Enrique Espinoza, an immigrant attorney at Chicago Kent College of Law.

Keep ReadingShow less
An abstract grid wall of shipping containers, unevenly arranged with some jutting out, all decorated in the colors and patterns of the USA flag. A prominent percentage sign overlays the grid.

The Supreme Court weighs Trump’s IEEPA tariffs, probing executive authority, rising consumer costs, manufacturing strain, and the future of U.S. trade governance.

Getty Images, J Studios

Tariffs on Trial: The Supreme Court’s Hidden Battle for Balance

On November 5, 2025, the Supreme Court convened what may be one of the most important trade cases of this generation. Justices across the ideological spectrum carefully probed whether a president may deploy sweeping import duties under the 1977 International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA). The outcome will resonate well beyond tariffs. It strikes at the heart of how America governs its commerce, regulates its markets, and wields power abroad.

President Trump’s argument rests on a dramatic claim: that persisting trade deficits, surging imports, and what he called a national security crisis tied to opioids and global supply chains justify tariffs of 10% to 50% on nearly all goods from most of the world. The statute invoked was intended for unusual and extraordinary threats—often adversarial regimes, economic warfare, or sanctions—not for broad-based economic measures against friend and foe alike. The justices registered deep doubts.

Keep ReadingShow less