Nonprofit Groups Sue USDA Over Grant Conditions Tied to Diversity and Immigration Stances

Five nonprofit organizations have filed a federal lawsuit against the U.S. Department of Agriculture, arguing that new grant conditions imposed by the Trump administration unconstitutionally restrict their free speech. The suit, filed Thursday, claims the new rules force grant recipients to adopt the administration's positions on social policy issues, including diversity and immigration.

Details of the Lawsuit

The complaint was filed in a federal court in Seattle and seeks to nullify the grant conditions. The plaintiffs allege the new terms are based on a memo signed by Agriculture Secretary Brooke Rollins on December 31.

According to the court filing, the new rules impose "vague and unprecedented substantive requirements" on grantees. The plaintiffs in the case are:

• Agroecology Commons
• Oregon Farm Corps
• Syracuse-Onondaga Food Systems Alliance
• Third Sector New England
• Washington Farmland Trust

Administration's Stance and Context

Ad

The memo from Secretary Rollins reportedly stated that the Trump administration was acting to eliminate "radical left ideology." This move is consistent with broader administration efforts to restrict federal funds for educational institutions and nonprofit groups over their policies on diversity, transgender rights, and climate programs.

The administration has previously argued that diversity initiatives are discriminatory and counter to merit-based principles. Civil rights groups counter that such programs are essential for addressing systemic and generational inequities affecting marginalized communities.

Financial Scope and Implications

The lawsuit underscores the significant financial power of the department's grant-making operations. The USDA's website states it distributed over $145 billion across 287 programs in fiscal year 2025. The outcome of the case could set a precedent for how federal agencies can attach policy-related conditions to funding.

As reported by Reuters, the Department of Agriculture did not respond to a request for comment on the litigation.