Five Years, Four Federal Courts, One Settled Suit — USDA Ends Race-Based Farm Eligibility.
The settlement. The Trump USDA, under Secretary Brooke L. Rollins (R), settled Faust v. Rollins (E.D. Wis., 1:25-cv-00854), formally ending the last live litigation over residual race- and sex-based eligibility in USDA farming programs.
The plaintiff. Adam P. Faust, a double-amputee white-male dairy farmer in Chilton, WI, running roughly 70–140 Holsteins on Faust Farms. The same Adam Faust who in 2021 won the first federal TRO against the Biden USDA’s Section 1005 race-based debt-relief program. Lead counsel: Dan Lennington of the Wisconsin Institute for Law & Liberty (WILL).
The programs that lost race-based eligibility (Faust v. Rollins specifically): Dairy Margin Coverage administrative-fee waiver; FSA Loan Guarantee Program (95% guarantee for “socially disadvantaged” vs. 90% for white males); EQIP reimbursement rates (up to 90% vs. 75%). Broader rollback: the July 10, 2025 final rule (Federal Register 2025-12877) covers 13 USDA programs including the $4B ARPA Section 1005, the $2.2B IRA Section 22007 DFAP, and the 1990 Farm Bill’s Section 2501 Outreach Program.
What the settlement does NOT do: award Faust monetary damages. USDA pays WILL’s attorney fees (amount not disclosed). Replacement criteria are race-neutral, applied uniformly to all farmers regardless of race or sex; need-based and veteran-status criteria remain where Congress mandates them.
The five-year arc. The Biden USDA (D), under Secretary Tom Vilsack (D), enacted Section 1005 in March 2021. By the end of July 2021, four federal district courts (Wisconsin, Florida, Tennessee, Texas) had enjoined the program on 5th-Amendment equal-protection grounds. Congress replaced it with race-neutral DFAP in the 2022 Inflation Reduction Act. The Trump USDA (R) issued the July 2025 final rule and now the May 2026 settlement closes out the residual litigation.
The U.S. Department of Agriculture, under Secretary Brooke L. Rollins (R), settled the federal lawsuit Faust v. Rollins on Monday, May 18, formally closing out the last active litigation over USDA programs that conditioned farm-program eligibility on race or sex. The lead plaintiff, Adam P. Faust— a double-amputee Wisconsin dairy farmer — was the same lead plaintiff who in 2021 won the first federal TRO against the Biden USDA’s $4 billion American Rescue Plan Act Section 1005 race-based debt relief. The settlement closes the loop on a litigation arc that ran more than five years, across two presidential administrations, and through four federal district courts.
The specific Faust v. Rollins suit, filed June 16, 2025 in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Wisconsin (before U.S. District Judge Byron B. Conway), challenged three residual race- and sex-based USDA preferences that survived past the Section 1005 litigation: the Dairy Margin Coverage administrative-fee waiver for “socially disadvantaged” farmers; the Farm Service Agency Loan Guarantee Program (which guaranteed 95% of loans for women and minority farmers but only 90% for white male farmers); and the Environmental Quality Incentives Program (which paid up to 90% reimbursement to “socially disadvantaged” producers vs. the standard 75%). The Trump DOJ, in a February 2026 530D letter to Congress, declined to defend the programs; USDA conceded they were “unconstitutional to the extent they include preferences based on race and sex.”
Dan Lennington, Deputy Counsel at the Wisconsin Institute for Law & Liberty (the public-interest law firm that brought the suit), in his statement on the settlement: “The Trump Administration inherited dozens of discriminatory programs that supported certain farmers over others based on race and sex. Those shameful days are now behind us.” Former Agriculture Secretary Tom Vilsack (D), defending the prior policies after Rollins’ rollback: “I remain proud of the work we did at USDA to make sure farmers of all sized operations received the help they needed and merited.”
The Faust v. Rollins settlement is the last chapter in a litigation story that started five years and one administration ago:
- March 11, 2021: President Joe Biden (D) signs the American Rescue Plan Act, which contains Section 1005 — $4 billion in debt relief explicitly conditioned on the recipient farmer’s race (“socially disadvantaged” defined as African American, American Indian / Alaska Native, Hispanic, or Asian / Pacific Islander).
- June 10, 2021: Faust v. Vilsack, 1:21-cv-00548, E.D. Wis. — Judge William Griesbach issues TRO halting Section 1005 payments. First ruling in the wave.
- June 23, 2021: Wynn v. Vilsack, 545 F. Supp. 3d 1271 (M.D. Fla.) — nationwide preliminary injunction. Plaintiff: Pacific Legal Foundation client.
- July 8, 2021: Holman v. Vilsack, 1:21-cv-01085, W.D. Tenn. — preliminary injunction granted to a Tennessee white farmer.
- July 2021: Miller v. Vilsack, N.D. Tex. — additional injunction.
- 2022: Congress passes the Inflation Reduction Act, which includes Section 22007 — the Discrimination Financial Assistance Program (DFAP), $2.2 billion, race-neutral. Replaces Section 1005 (no Section 1005 funds were ever lawfully distributed).
- February 13, 2025: Brooke L. Rollins sworn in as the 33rd Secretary of Agriculture under President Trump.
- June 16, 2025: WILL files Faust v. Rollins challenging the three residual race/sex preferences. The Trump USDA inherited them.
- July 10, 2025: Rollins issues the final rule (Fed. Reg. 2025-12877) terminating race- and sex-based eligibility across 13 USDA programs.
- February 2026: DOJ files a 530D letter declining to defend the programs.
- May 18, 2026: USDA-WILL settlement closes Faust v. Rollins.
“The Trump Administration inherited dozens of discriminatory programs that supported certain farmers over others based on race and sex. Those shameful days are now behind us.”
Dan Lennington — Deputy Counsel, Wisconsin Institute for Law & Liberty
“I remain proud of the work we did at USDA to make sure farmers of all sized operations received the help they needed and merited.”
Tom Vilsack — former U.S. Secretary of Agriculture (D), Biden administration
Rollins on the underlying July 2025 rule: “We are taking this aggressive, unprecedented action to eliminate discrimination in any form at USDA. It is simply wrong and contrary to the fundamental principle that all persons should be treated equally.” The Biden USDA, by contrast, defended Section 1005 in court through four district-court losses before Congress replaced it. Vilsack’s position, on the record, is that the race-based criteria were morally and historically justified by a documented pattern of USDA discrimination against minority farmers in the 20th century — a position the courts found insufficient under modern equal-protection doctrine, which requires more than “general societal discrimination” to justify race-based government action.
Rollins’s June 11, 2025 testimony before the House Agriculture Committee — less than a month before the final rule was published — is the cleanest on-camera record of her stated rationale. The testimony covers the broader USDA-DEI rollback, Section 1005’s litigation history, and the planned race-neutral replacement criteria.
The Faust v. Rollins settlement closes out the litigation, but the underlying USDA programs still operate. What changed:
- Dairy Margin Coverage: administrative-fee waiver no longer race/sex-conditional. All farmers pay the same fee.
- FSA Loan Guarantee Program: 90% guarantee for all eligible borrowers regardless of race or sex.
- EQIP: standard reimbursement rates apply uniformly.
- Need-based and veteran-status criteria: remain in force where Congress mandates them. Beginning Farmer / Rancher programs and Veteran Farmer programs are unaffected.
- Section 2501 Outreach Program (1990 Farm Bill): race-neutral outreach grants continue for “underserved” producers defined by income / hardship rather than race.
The case is editorially significant for three reasons. First: the policy that was scrapped was, by the bipartisan reading of four federal district courts and one Republican Supreme Court (whose Vitolo v. Guzman, 6th Cir. 2021, ruling on the parallel SBA Restaurant Revitalization Fund case established the same constitutional principle), simply not constitutional under the 5th Amendment’s equal-protection guarantee. Second: it took five years, four federal-court losses, an act of Congress, a new administration, and a final settlement to close it out. Third: the political accountability question is which party persisted in defending an unconstitutional program against repeated federal-court rejection, and which party ended it. The first answer is the Biden administration (D). The second answer is the Trump administration (R), via Secretary Rollins (R), the DOJ Civil Division, and the federal court system that the Biden USDA fought through.
Today we close the last live litigation over race- and sex-based eligibility in USDA programs. The Faust v. Rollins settlement formalizes what the July 2025 final rule already accomplished: every American farmer applies under the same criteria, regardless of race or sex. We are taking this aggressive, unprecedented action to eliminate discrimination in any form at USDA.
VICTORY: USDA has settled Faust v. Rollins. Adam Faust — the Wisconsin dairy farmer who beat the Biden USDA's $4B Section 1005 in 2021 — has now closed out the residual race/sex preferences across 13 USDA programs. Five years, four federal-court losses for Biden's USDA, and now done. WILL Deputy Counsel Dan Lennington: 'Those shameful days are now behind us.'
Secretary Rollins and the USDA have done it. The Biden administration's RACE-BASED farming programs — illegal, unconstitutional, and rejected by four federal courts — are GONE. Every American farmer competes on a LEVEL PLAYING FIELD. This is what we promised. This is what we deliver. Great work, Brooke!
Paraphrased commentary · not a verbatim post
Paraphrase. A specific Trump Truth Social post on the May 18 Faust v. Rollins settlement was not located at time of publication; the framing reflects his standing position on DEI rollbacks.
We are taking this aggressive, unprecedented action to eliminate discrimination in any form at USDA. It is simply wrong and contrary to the fundamental principle that all persons should be treated equally.
Paraphrased commentary · not a verbatim post
Cross-platform paraphrase of Sec. Rollins's verbatim USDA statement; verbatim source: USDA July 10, 2025 press release announcing Final Rule 2025-12877.