Equal Treatment for Farmers Act
- Sponsor
- Rep. Harris, Mark [R-NC-8]
- Committees
- Agriculture Committee (primary)
- Last action
- Apr 20, 2026
Bottom line
The bill seeks to remove all race and gender-based targeted assistance and preferences from federal agricultural programs, shifting to a race- and gender-neutral approach.
What it actually does
This bill systematically amends numerous federal agricultural laws to eliminate all references to "socially disadvantaged farmers and ranchers." It strikes definitions, removes preferences, and repeals specific programs and offices designed to provide targeted assistance to these groups. Additionally, it includes a broad prohibition against any Department of Agriculture program providing preference, priority, or enhanced benefits based on race or gender.
Proponents argue
Proponents argue that the bill ensures equal treatment for all farmers and ranchers, asserting that federal programs should not discriminate or provide preferential treatment based on race or gender. They contend that such classifications are unfair, create divisions, and may be unconstitutional, advocating for a merit-based or needs-based system that applies universally.
Opponents contend
Opponents contend that the bill would dismantle critical programs designed to address historical and ongoing discrimination faced by minority and women farmers, exacerbating existing inequities in agriculture. They argue that removing these targeted provisions would disproportionately harm these groups, limiting their access to essential resources, credit, and land, thereby hindering efforts to promote diversity and equity in the farming sector.
The bill is relatively short and its core purpose is clear, making it accessible for a quick read. However, understanding the full scope of its impact requires familiarity with the numerous federal agricultural acts it amends.
Section 2(a), (b), (d), (e), (f), (h), (i), (k), (l), (m), (n), (p)
Striking References to 'Socially Disadvantaged Farmers and Ranchers'
This provision systematically removes the term "socially disadvantaged farmers and ranchers" and related definitions from various federal agricultural statutes. This includes acts governing crop insurance, agricultural marketing, farm loans, conservation programs, and agricultural research. The effect is to eliminate specific eligibility criteria, preferences, and set-asides that previously benefited these groups across a wide array of USDA programs.
Supporters argue
Proponents argue that removing these classifications ensures all farmers are treated equally under the law, preventing preferential treatment based on race or gender. They believe this fosters a more competitive and fair agricultural landscape where assistance is based on need or merit, not identity.
Critics contend
Opponents argue that these provisions were crucial for addressing systemic discrimination and historical disadvantages faced by minority and women farmers. Removing them, they contend, will reverse progress towards equity and further entrench disparities in land ownership, access to capital, and overall success in agriculture.
Tradeoffs
The provision navigates the tension between the principle of universal, colorblind treatment and the goal of achieving equitable outcomes for groups historically marginalized. It trades targeted support for a uniform approach, with potential consequences for diversity in farming.
Section 2(c)(8)
Repeal of Section 355 of the Consolidated Farm and Rural Development Act
This provision repeals Section 355 of the Consolidated Farm and Rural Development Act (7 U.S.C. 2003). This section is significant because it defines "socially disadvantaged farmer or rancher" and outlines specific programs and reporting requirements related to these groups within the context of farm credit and rural development. Its repeal removes the statutory basis for many targeted initiatives.
Section 2(f)(2)
Repeal of Section 305 of the Federal Crop Insurance Reform and Department of Agriculture Reorganization Act of 1994
This provision repeals Section 305 of the Federal Crop Insurance Reform and Department of Agriculture Reorganization Act of 1994 (7 U.S.C. 2279a). This section established the Office of Outreach and Assistance for Socially Disadvantaged Farmers and Ranchers, which was responsible for coordinating and implementing outreach and technical assistance programs. Its repeal eliminates a dedicated institutional structure for supporting these groups.
Section 3
Prohibition on Racial and Gender Preferences in USDA Programs
This section enacts a broad prohibition stating that "Notwithstanding any other law, no program of the Department of Agriculture may provide any preference, priority consideration, or enhanced benefits to any individual or entity on the basis of race or gender." This provision serves as an overarching directive, reinforcing the intent of the specific amendments throughout the bill by establishing a general legal principle against race and gender-based preferences within USDA.
This amendment changes the preference for making loans under subsection (a) from "socially disadvantaged farmers and ranchers" to "eligible entities in States that have adopted a statute consisting of an enactment or adoption of the Uniform Partition of Heirs Property Act." This shifts a targeted preference based on identity to a preference based on a state's adoption of a specific property law reform.
Section 2(c)(5)(B) amending Section 310I(d) of the Consolidated Farm and Rural Development Act (7 U.S.C. 1936c)
Why it matters:While the primary intent of the bill is to remove identity-based preferences, this specific amendment introduces a new, distinct preference. Its placement within a section focused on removals could be seen as standard legislative practice for amending a specific subsection, but it also means a new policy direction is introduced without standalone prominence.
Case for: Proponents of this specific change would argue that it promotes a different form of equity by supporting states that have adopted the Uniform Partition of Heirs Property Act, which helps address land loss among historically disadvantaged families. This provides a race-neutral mechanism to support a critical issue for many minority landowners.
Case against: Critics might argue that while the Uniform Partition of Heirs Property Act is a valuable reform, linking it to a loan preference in this manner, especially as a replacement for a race-conscious preference, could be seen as an insufficient substitute for direct support to historically marginalized groups. It may not reach the same beneficiaries or address the full spectrum of challenges faced by socially disadvantaged farmers.
Estimated impact: This provision would redirect loan preferences from a broad category of socially disadvantaged farmers to a more specific set of entities in states with particular property laws. The scale of impact would depend on the number of states adopting the Uniform Partition of Heirs Property Act and the volume of heirs property in those states.