Big Ag's $3.1 Billion “Green” Climate Scam
The USDA's $3.1 billion "Climate-Smart" program was just exposed for what it really was - a slush fund for bureaucrats that left real farmers fighting for scraps.
What You'll Learn in This Article:
How less than half of the $3.1 billion Climate-Smart Commodities program actually reached farmers
Why the program's cancellation reveals the systemic corruption in climate-focused agricultural initiatives
How the rebranded Advancing Markets for Producers initiative could restore farmer control
What this policy shift means for regenerative agriculture's future
On April 14, 2025, the agricultural establishment was shaken when USDA Secretary Brooke Rollins announced the cancellation of a massive $3.1 billion program originally designed to promote "climate-smart" farming practices. But beneath the predictable outrage from environmental NGOs and political insiders lies a revelation that confirms what many farmers have long suspected: government climate initiatives are rarely about helping actual farmers or improving the land.
The Actual Green New Scam
After conducting what the USDA described as a "thorough line by line review" of the Partnerships for Climate-Smart Commodities program, officials discovered a damning truth: "The majority of these projects had sky-high administration fees which in many instances provided less than half of the federal funding directly to farmers."
Let that sink in.
A program marketed as supporting farmers was, in reality, a multi-billion-dollar gravy train for NGOs, universities, and corporate interests that positioned themselves as middlemen between government funding and actual agricultural producers.
Secretary Rollins didn't mince words, characterizing the program as "largely built to advance the green new scam at the benefit of NGOs, not American farmers."
"They told you climate programs would save family farms. They lied."
The original program, launched under the Biden administration in 2022, claimed it would enroll more than 60,000 farmers and 25 million acres of working lands to implement climate-friendly agricultural methods. In reality, by June 2024, it had enrolled only 14,000 farmers covering 3.2 million acres – delivering just a fraction of its promised impact while burning through billions in administrative overhead.
Putting Farmers First: The AMP Initiative
The now-canceled program has been reformed and rebranded as the Advancing Markets for Producers (AMP) initiative with a critical difference: a "Farmer First" approach that requires:
A minimum of 65% of federal funds must go directly to producers
Grant recipients must have enrolled at least one producer by December 31, 2024
Grant recipients must have made at least one payment to a producer by December 31, 2024
These simple requirements have exposed just how few of the original projects were actually delivering value to farmers. When asked to demonstrate that nearly two-thirds of their funding went to producers – rather than consultants, administrators, and "awareness campaigns" – many projects couldn't meet the threshold.
The Real Environmental Impact
While environmental organizations predictably decried the cancellation, their protests reveal their priorities. When funding shifts from bureaucratic overhead to direct farmer support, the establishment reacts with outrage – revealing that their concern wasn't environmental outcomes but rather their slice of the taxpayer-funded pie.
The truth is that farmers have always been the true stewards of the land. When given proper resources and freed from bureaucratic mandates, they implement regenerative practices that build soil health, sequester carbon, and restore ecosystems far more effectively than any government program micromanaged by distant bureaucrats.
AgriCapture's rice program – one of the few initiatives approved to continue under AMP – demonstrates what works: 74% of USDA funds went directly to producers, resulting in both measurable environmental benefits and economic returns through premium pricing and carbon credits.
What This Means for Regenerative Agriculture
This policy shift comes at a pivotal moment for the regenerative movement. For years, we've warned that true food system transformation requires decentralization, direct farmer support, and market-based solutions – not bureaucratic centralization and NGO gatekeeping.
The cancellation of this program provides several important lessons:
Direct funding produces real results - Programs like AgriCapture that focused on getting money to farmers rather than administrators achieved concrete environmental and market outcomes
Regenerative success requires farmer control - Top-down programs with excessive reporting requirements and "climate mandates" stifle innovation and burden producers with paperwork instead of supporting on-farm experimentation
Market premiums > government handouts - The most successful approaches focused on helping farmers access premium markets rather than making them dependent on continued government funding
What Happens Next?
While many projects will be discontinued, those that truly served farmers have an opportunity to continue under the new AMP framework. The transition creates a natural filtering process that separates programs genuinely benefiting farmers from those that primarily enriched administrators.
For farmers involved in discontinued projects, the USDA will honor all eligible expenses incurred prior to April 13, 2025. However, those who had planned long-term investments based on expected program support now face uncertainty.
This reset provides an opportunity to rebuild agricultural support systems on a more solid foundation – one that trusts farmers to make decisions for their land rather than imposing bureaucratic mandates from Washington.
The Bigger Picture: Food Sovereignty Under Threat
This $3.1 billion program's failures reflect a broader problem in our food system: the increasing distance between decision-makers and those actually working the land. When programs are designed to filter billions through NGOs, universities, and corporations before reaching farmers, is it any surprise that results fall short?
The movement toward food sovereignty requires a fundamental shift: farmers must be in control of their operations, not subject to the whims of grant administrators or the latest political fashion in Washington.
Real regenerative agriculture happens when farmers have the resources and freedom to implement practices that work for their specific land, climate, and market conditions. No Washington bureaucrat or NGO program officer can match the wisdom of a farmer who has intimate knowledge of their soil, weather patterns, and local ecosystem.
How You Can Support Real Regenerative Agriculture
If you're concerned about truly sustainable farming practices, the most powerful action you can take is to vote with your grocery cart:
Buy direct from farmers implementing regenerative practices
Ask questions about how your food is produced rather than relying on government certifications
Support organizations that direct resources to farmers rather than building administrative empires
Demand transparency in how agricultural programs spend your tax dollars
The cancellation of this bloated program represents an opportunity to rebuild agricultural support systems that truly serve farmers and the land. By redirecting resources from administrative overhead to direct producer support, we can accelerate the transition to regenerative agriculture in a way that builds resilience rather than dependency.
The real regenerative revolution won't be administered by bureaucrats – it will be led by farmers, ranchers, and consumers working together to rebuild local food systems from the ground up.
Questions you might get when sharing this article…
How much of the $3.1 billion Climate-Smart Commodities program actually reached farmers?
In many instances, less than half of the federal funding made it to farmers. The new AMP initiative requires that at least 65% of funds go directly to producers – a threshold many of the original projects couldn't meet.
Will farmers already participating in the program lose their funding?
The USDA will honor all eligible expenses incurred prior to April 13, 2025. However, no new funding will be available for partnerships that don't meet the new criteria. Farmers in continuing programs like AgriCapture's rice initiative will still receive support.
How does this policy change affect carbon markets for agriculture?
The restructuring may affect the development of carbon markets, as some projects focused on helping farmers access these markets may be discontinued. However, successful examples like AgriCapture's carbon credit project for U.S. rice acres demonstrate that well-structured programs can deliver financial benefits to farmers through environmental markets.
Does this mean the government is abandoning support for sustainable agriculture?
No, but it signals a shift from climate-focused language to emphasizing direct economic benefits to farmers. The rebranding from "Climate-Smart Commodities" to "Advancing Markets for Producers" reflects this change in priorities while still supporting practices that benefit both farmers and the environment.
What should farmers do if their program is discontinued?
Farmers affected by discontinued programs may want to explore private carbon markets, state-funded initiatives like California's Healthy Soils Program, or direct-to-consumer marketing that rewards sustainable practices with premium prices. The most resilient approach is developing multiple revenue streams rather than relying on a single government program.
About the Author: Ryan Griggs is the founder of The Regenaissance, a movement dedicated to rebuilding food sovereignty through regenerative agriculture, ancestral wisdom, and radical truth-telling. Follow him on X @RegenaisanceMan for daily insights on food freedom and regenerative living.