An exclusive interview with Civil Eats‘ Lisa Held on the profound and lasting impacts of policy reversals under the Trump administration’s USDA.

[City, State] – What is the true cost when federal programs designed to strengthen regional food systems are abruptly canceled? This pressing question lies at the heart of "Losing Ground," a comprehensive four-part investigative series by Civil Eats Senior Staff Reporter and Contributing Editor, Lisa Held. Her in-depth reporting uncovers the ripple effects of sweeping funding cuts under the Trump administration’s U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA), impacting dozens of farmers, regional food system program managers, and organizations across the nation.

In a recent interview on the Eat, Drink, Think podcast from Edible Communities, Held shared her findings with host Amy O’Neill Houck, detailing how these policy shifts have not only disrupted nascent local food economies but also eroded a fragile trust between small-scale producers and the federal government. The cancellations, often accompanied by sharp political rhetoric, have left many farmers reeling, stalled progress on climate-smart agriculture, and threatened food access for vulnerable communities, exposing the deep vulnerability of efforts to diversify and localize America’s food supply.

The Genesis of Resilience: Post-Pandemic Push for Local Food

The story of these now-canceled programs begins in a moment of acute national crisis: the COVID-19 pandemic. As global supply chains buckled under unprecedented strain, the fragility of the highly centralized American food system became starkly evident. Large-scale meat processing plants shut down, shelves emptied, and farmers were forced to dump produce while food banks struggled to meet surging demand. This crisis spurred a rare bipartisan consensus: a more resilient, regional food model was desperately needed.

In response, the Biden administration, leveraging congressional funding, initiated several programs aimed at stabilizing supply chains and fostering local food economies. These initiatives sought to create a "spoke and hub" model, reducing dependence on distant, consolidated systems and building resilience against future shocks. Crucially, these programs aimed to bridge the gap between small farms and large institutional buyers like food banks and schools, creating a "win-win" scenario. Farmers gained stable, fair-priced markets, while communities in need received access to fresh, healthy, locally sourced food.

Among the most impactful of these initiatives were the Local Food Purchase Assistance Program (LFPA) and its sister program, Local Food for Schools (LFFS). Held refers to them collectively as LFPA, highlighting their interconnected goals. These programs empowered states and tribes to design tailored systems that best suited their local needs, leading to a significant uptake among small and medium-sized farms previously locked out of wholesale markets. Farmers who had struggled to compete on price with large industrial operations suddenly found consistent, high-volume income, allowing them to invest in their businesses and scale up.

Abrupt Reversal: The Trump Administration’s Cuts

The momentum built during this period of investment, however, was brought to an abrupt halt with the arrival of the Trump administration’s USDA, led by Secretary Brooke Rollins. Despite the bipartisan support for regional food systems and the multi-year nature of many contracts, the administration moved swiftly to cancel or significantly alter numerous programs. Lisa Held noted that while new administrations typically make policy changes, the Trump USDA was "the first to throw out legal contracts that had already been signed," creating an unprecedented level of disruption and uncertainty.

The stated justifications for these cuts often hinged on criticisms of "waste" and "inefficiency," with Secretary Rollins and other USDA officials frequently employing combative rhetoric. Programs were labeled "Biden era slush funds" or denounced for promoting what the administration termed a "green new scam." This combative tone, Held suggests, created a perception that the USDA was seeking to "punish the Biden administration," with the unfortunate fallout disproportionately affecting the farmers and organizations on the ground.

"Losing Ground": The Human and Economic Cost

Held’s "Losing Ground" series delves deep into the tangible impacts of these cancellations, painting a vivid picture of the challenges faced by those who had invested heavily in the promise of federal support.

Local Food Purchase Assistance Program: A Lifeline Severed

The cancellation of the LFPA program proved to be one of the most devastating. Farmers had made significant investments based on the expectation of continued funding, often with multi-year contracts in hand. Held recounts the story of a group of small farms in upstate New York, including Rock Steady Farm and those within Choi Commons, who had leveraged LFPA to dramatically increase their wholesale sales. Choi Commons, for instance, saw their wholesale revenue triple, enabling them to supply culturally relevant, vibrant vegetables to Chinese elders and other communities in New York City.

"For one moment in time, it felt like we were getting a glimpse of what it might look like to succeed, and now that’s done," one farmer, Tiana Kennedy, lamented to Held. As funding dried up, these farms saw their wholesale revenue plummet, forcing them to re-evaluate their entire business model. While they vowed to "survive," the dream of "thriving" and expanding their reach into food-insecure communities was effectively dashed. Their healthy, local produce would now largely be accessible only to those who could afford higher prices, turning an equity success story into a stark reminder of economic disparity.

Beyond Produce: Impact on Livestock and Infrastructure

The impact extended beyond vegetable farms. An Illinois farmer who raised chickens doubled his flock in the first year of LFPA and planned to do so again, investing in feed and new housing infrastructure. Similarly, a Wisconsin pig farmer had a new litter of piglets, anticipating a guaranteed market. With the sudden cancellation, both were left with inventory they had no immediate buyers for, highlighting the long-term planning inherent in agriculture and the irreversible nature of many farming decisions.

Held also highlighted the experience of Dan Hunter from Hunter Hill CSA in Pennsylvania, who had been selling fresh produce to the Eastside Community Pantry. A video component of the Civil Eats series powerfully illustrates the contrast: Hunter’s vibrant fields, once destined for the pantry, now stand in stark contrast to the moldy strawberries and brown bananas that the pantry is forced to accept as commodity donations. "Last year we were picking up fresh tomatoes, okra, lettuce from Dan and bringing it here and handing it out the same day," a pantry staff member recalled, underscoring the immediate loss of quality and nutritional value for recipients.

Equity and Access: The Unseen Toll

A significant, yet often overlooked, aspect of the cancellations related to the administration’s stance on Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion (DEI) initiatives. The Biden administration had actively encouraged grant applicants to demonstrate how their programs would achieve equity and reach underserved groups, including young farmers, Black farmers, and LGBTQ+ farmers. Many small, diversified fruit and vegetable farms, often run by these very groups, incorporated such language into their proposals.

The Trump USDA, however, used this language as a basis for canceling individual grants within broader programs. Held notes that "words like equity, Black farmers" became triggers for rejection. This not only stripped vital funding from marginalized communities but also sent a chilling message, leading many to feel they were not considered "American farmers" by the federal government. The National Young Farmers Coalition launched a social media campaign, "We Are American Farmers," in direct response, underscoring the deep sense of alienation and betrayal.

The Climate Front: Shifting Priorities and Lost Data

The attack on programs perceived as promoting climate action was another key feature of the Trump USDA’s policy shifts. The Partnerships for Climate Smart Commodities program, designed to incentivize climate-friendly farming practices and collect crucial data, was a prime target. Secretary Rollins famously dismissed it as a "green new scam," reflective of the administration’s broader effort to scrub the term "climate change" from federal vocabulary.

While the program was initially canceled, many groups were later allowed to reapply for similar projects under a rebranded "Advancing Markets for Agriculture Program." However, this came at a significant cost. Held explains that groups lost at least a year of implementation time, as they had to navigate the reapplication process without project extensions. More critically, a vital component of the original program – comprehensive data collection, including soil sampling requirements – was dropped.

Robert Bonnie, who worked in the Vilsack USDA, expressed profound disappointment over the loss of this data. The original intent was to build a repository of information to better understand long-term climate impacts on farms and inform future federal strategies. The current administration’s focus on "markets instead of climate" means that while some conservation practices may continue, the overarching scientific understanding and strategic planning capacity have been severely hampered. These projects, Held observes, may "look pretty much the same," but the loss of critical data collection and the shift in narrative represent a significant setback for addressing the climate crisis in agriculture.

Building Hubs, Losing Support: Regional Food Business Centers

The Regional Food Business Centers, a less talked-about but equally impactful program, also faced the axe. These centers were conceived as crucial regional hubs, tasked with organizing efforts, connecting farms with processors and kitchens, and rebuilding the intricate network connections vital for resilient local food systems. Held initially found the concept "wonky government speak" but was struck by the "passion and excitement" of the people running these centers.

On the ground, these centers provided essential mini-grants (e.g., $19,000-$30,000) to small businesses for critical infrastructure, such as a new fridge for a meat producer or a new truck for a vegetable farm. They also developed strategic plans to foster future resilience. Held vividly recounts a Zoom meeting where USDA officials, without taking questions, informed center managers of their work’s cancellation. The emotional distress was palpable, with one woman pleading, "Can you just let us thank each other for this work we’ve been doing?"

While some of the work continues through cooperative entities or existing non-profits, it’s largely without dedicated federal funding and at a reduced scale. The North Central center, for instance, had already inspired the creation of a food hub in North Dakota. However, the systematic, federally supported growth envisioned by these centers has been largely derailed.

Legal Battles and Lingering Uncertainty

The cancellations were not without legal challenges. Held reported on several lawsuits, including one against the cancellation of the Increasing Land and Capital Markets Access Program, designed to help young farmers acquire land. While a preliminary injunction did temporarily reinstate some grants, the overall outcome has been mixed. Many affected groups also attempted internal federal government appeals, largely without success.

Held emphasizes that even partial legal victories or reinstatements cannot fully mitigate the damage. "In farming, a year of this kind of chaos is still going to have an impact," she explained. Farms that planned to plant specific crops are now a season behind, and long-term infrastructure investments have been halted, forcing complete overhauls of multi-year business plans. The legal complexities only added to the confusion and instability for farmers already navigating precarious economic realities.

The Chasm of Trust: Farmers and Federal Policy

Perhaps the most enduring impact of these cancellations is the profound loss of trust among farmers and food system advocates towards the USDA. The combination of broken contracts, combative rhetoric, and the perceived politicization of support programs has left many feeling disillusioned. "I don’t know if I’ll ever apply for another USDA grant or to trust the USDA again," was a sentiment Held heard repeatedly.

The message conveyed by the administration’s tone – framing progressive agricultural initiatives as wasteful or ideologically driven – was particularly damaging. The National Young Farmers Coalition’s "We Are American Farmers" campaign directly challenged the implied exclusion of small, diversified, and equity-focused farmers from the USDA’s definition of "American farmers." This erosion of trust is a significant barrier to future federal initiatives, particularly for historically underserved farmers who have long faced systemic inequities and now feel further marginalized.

A Divergent Path: Commodity vs. Diversified Farms

Held also underscores the persistent disparity in federal agricultural support. Historically, the U.S. government has overwhelmingly favored large-scale commodity farms (corn, soy, wheat) over small fruit, vegetable, or diversified livestock operations. While the regional food system programs represented a small shift, their funding paled in comparison to the established commodity programs.

"Even that, all of these things we’re talking about are still this tiny drop of money compared to the money spent on agriculture overall," Held stated. She highlighted that while the regional food business centers received $400 million, Congress concurrently authorized an additional $60 billion for commodity programs over the next decade. This staggering difference illustrates the systemic imbalance, making the cancellation of smaller, but transformative, programs all the more impactful for the specific farmers they served. For a small farm, a $30,000 wholesale contract could be life-changing; such amounts are negligible in the context of commodity subsidies.

Looking Ahead: State Initiatives and Enduring Challenges

The future of regional food systems in the wake of these federal reversals remains uncertain. Lisa Held notes that many farms and advocacy groups are now "finding their footing again," exploring paths less reliant on federal assistance. One significant development is the emergence of state-level initiatives. Minnesota has created its own version of some canceled programs, and California recently announced it would use state funds to continue the LFPA program for another year. This trend suggests a potential decentralization of support, with states stepping in to fill the void left by federal retreat.

However, the long-term challenges persist. The climate crisis continues to intensify, impacting farms with increasing severity. Held noted a concerning drop in climate coverage in media, partly due to the overwhelming volume of political news. Moreover, corporations that once embraced "climate-friendly" initiatives are now quietly walking back commitments, seeing less political or consumer incentive to act. The difficulty of addressing "generational problems" like soil health and nutrition, which manifest slowly over time, further complicates public engagement.

Held emphasized her personal motivation to refocus on climate stories, recognizing that despite the political shifts, the crisis itself has not abated. The interplay of high food prices and climate impacts may eventually align to drive renewed public and political will, but for now, the path forward for regional food systems and climate-smart agriculture is one of adaptation, state-level innovation, and a persistent, albeit challenged, commitment from dedicated farmers and advocates.

Lisa Held’s comprehensive reporting in "Losing Ground" and her insights on Eat, Drink, Think offer a critical lens into the precarious landscape of American food policy, urging continued attention to the vital work of building resilient, equitable, and sustainable food systems from the ground up.

For more information, readers are encouraged to explore the "Losing Ground" series on CivilEats.com and listen to the full interview on the Eat, Drink, Think podcast at ediblecommunities.com.