• The Trump administration directed the USDA to remove climate change references from its websites, signaling a move away from climate-focused regulations seen as burdensome to farmers.
• USAID’s climate initiatives, like “$150 billion net-zero strategies” and projects in developing nations, are criticized for prioritizing ideology over practical agricultural productivity and food security.
• Programs aimed at reducing carbon emissions or promoting “climate-smart” agriculture are deemed counterproductive, as CO? is essential for plant growth, and such measures often hinder farming efficiency.
• U.S. farmers risked losing competitiveness due to restrictive climate policies (e.g., methane reduction mandates), while countries like China and India prioritized high-yield, fossil fuel-based agriculture.
• Trump’s withdrawal from agreements like the Paris Accord is framed as a win for U.S. farmers, ending costly, impractical climate mandates and refocusing on productivity and rural economic needs.

Amid recent headlines on tariffs and fiscal overhauls, a less noticed but significant shift has quietly unfolded in agricultural policy under President Donald Trump. An executive directive mandating the removal of all climate change references from U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) websites signals a departure from the bureaucratic red tape of climate regulations that once stifled domestic farming practices and tied U.S. support for agriculture abroad with superfluous climate mandates. This change, mirroring similar actions during the previous Trump administration, promises a rebirth for American agriculture, free from the shackles of counterproductive and politicized climate orthodoxies.

For years, federal climate initiatives have prioritized “green” orthodoxy over agricultural productivity. Programs funded through the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID) have poured millions of dollars into climate-focused ventures that often had little impact on climate change itself. Instead, these programs imposed burdensome regulations on farmers and rural communities, promoting “$150 billion ‘whole-of-agency’ climate strategies” under the guise of achieving net-zero greenhouse gas emissions. Some of these projects have intertwined with rural agricultural communities, involving other activities. For example, USAID and the U.S. International Development Finance Corporation (IDFC) jointly participated in a $55 million credit guarantee aimed at addressing the economic impact of COVID-19 by supporting farm production organizations, ag-tech companies and companies in the agricultural sector working on clean energy solutions.

USDA and USAID: A history of climate orthodoxy

USAID has historically been one of the most active federal agencies in promoting climate-focused agricultural programs, often at the expense of productivity. Funding for projects indirectly tied to climate change has seeped into various initiatives, such as a “55 million credit guarantee” aimed at supporting loans for ag-tech companies and clean energy solutions during the COVID-19 pandemic. Additionally, there were programs like a 1.5 million effort in northern Kenya focused on “empowering” female climate activists — projects that did little to address hunger or poverty in developing nations.

USAID’s partnerships with organizations like the Research Program on Climate Change, Agriculture and Food Security (CCAFS) have compounded these issues. CCAFS, operating in developing countries, has focused on research topics such as “low-emission development,” climate services and safety nets, scaling “climate-smart” agriculture, and gender and social inclusion. All of these expenditures fall under USAID’s 2022-2030 climate strategy, which is a $15 billion “whole-of-agency” approach aimed at building a “fair world that achieves net-zero greenhouse gas emissions.”

USAID’s funding has come with absurd climate agendas and misguided notions that have little to do with addressing hunger. The suspension of funding for hundreds of projects that have disrupted reasonable agricultural practices in Africa, Asia and Latin America will likely be the biggest victim of this policy shift. One such initiative, aimed at reducing greenhouse gas emissions in 135 projects across 55 states and regions in the U.S., is set to lose $310 million.

Global impact

Without President Trump’s bold moves, U.S. farmers might have fallen under externally imposed climate frameworks that, in many cases, stifled innovation and reduced U.S. farmers’ competitiveness in world markets. The USDA has been working through Climate-Smart Agriculture and Forestry initiatives to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. These programs require U.S. farmers to use low-pressure irrigation systems to reduce fossil fuel use. Other measures aim to manipulate the quality and quantity of nutrients in animal diets to reduce methane emissions through the animals’ digestive processes. Ultimately, critical nitrogen fertilizers might be classified as sources of greenhouse gas emissions, as in other countries.

In contrast, countries like China and India prioritize productivity and food security over these practices. They have made extensive investments in fossil fuel-based agricultural technologies and products, achieving record-breaking crop yields for their large populations.

The climate crisis has been highly politicized and artificially manufactured, based on faulty climate models and an overblown notion of the so-called greenhouse effect. These crises should not overshadow the direct economic and operational issues faced by farmers in the U.S. and around the world. Trump’s decision to withdraw from international climate plans, such as the UN Paris Climate Accord, represents a victory for American farmers and taxpayers. It ended U.S. participation in expensive and impractical mandatory plans—such as the net-zero agenda—that put pressure on the global economy and caused frustration among farmers and the broader public.

In conclusion, the removal of climate change references from USDA websites signifies a shift towards a more pragmatic and farmer-centric agricultural policy. This change allows U.S. agriculture to focus on its primary objectives: enhancing productivity, ensuring food security and supporting rural economies. By freeing agriculture from the shackles of counterproductive climate mandates, the U.S. can once again lead the world in innovation and productivity while addressing the immediate needs of farmers and rural communities.

Sources include:

WattsUpWithThat.com

Politco.com

eenews.net

TheBlaze.com