MxM News

Quick Hit:

The Trump administration’s USDA is pulling back from defending Biden-era farm aid programs that gave preferential treatment based on race and gender. The move aligns with President Trump’s directive to dismantle remaining diversity, equity, and inclusion initiatives across federal agencies.

Key Details:

• The Wisconsin Institute for Law and Liberty (WILL) sued on behalf of dairy farmer Adam Faust, challenging USDA aid programs that favor minorities and women.
• Programs under scrutiny include loan guarantees, dairy coverage, and conservation incentives, all of which disadvantaged white male farmers.
• USDA issued a final rule eliminating “socially disadvantaged” designations, stating programs must uphold meritocracy, fairness, and equal opportunity.

Diving Deeper:

The U.S. Department of Agriculture under the Trump administration is abandoning its defense of farm aid programs created during the Biden years that granted benefits based on race and gender. In a recent court filing, the USDA declined to defend several programs that civil rights watchdogs argue discriminated against white male farmers.

The litigation was brought forward by the Wisconsin Institute for Law and Liberty (WILL) on behalf of Adam Faust, a Wisconsin dairy farmer. Faust contends that the Biden-era rules violated equal protection principles by privileging minorities and women over others in loan guarantees, dairy margin coverage, and conservation cost-share programs.

Under the loan guarantee program, minority and female farmers could secure up to 95% federal backing on loans, while white male farmers were limited to 90%. This disparity directly affected borrowing power and interest rates. Similarly, the Dairy Margin Coverage Program charged white male farmers a $100 annual fee, while exempting “socially disadvantaged” farmers. In conservation projects, minority and female participants received up to 90% reimbursement for costs, while others received only 75%.

On July 10, the USDA issued a final rule to strike the “socially disadvantaged” designation from its regulations, calling it inconsistent with constitutional principles and with President Trump’s policy objectives. “Moving forward,” the USDA rule stated, “USDA will no longer apply race- or sex-based criteria in its decision-making processes, ensuring that its programs are administered in a manner that upholds the principles of meritocracy, fairness, and equal opportunity for all participants.”

The department noted that while the loan guarantee program will be amended immediately, officials are still reviewing how to apply the new policy to the dairy and conservation programs. The USDA also signaled that its decision “could obviate the need for further litigation,” though WILL has indicated its legal fight will continue.

“This lawsuit served as a much-needed reminder to the USDA that President Trump has ordered the end to all federal DEI programs,” said Dan Lennington, deputy legal counsel at WILL. “There’s more work to be done, but today’s victory gives us a clear path to do even more in the name of equality.”

This article supplied by Troy Media.

 By Doug Firby

Canada is risking its most successful export to prop up an EV pipe dream

Picture a Canadian industry that contributes $43 billion to the economy and employs about 200,000 people.

There aren’t many of those in this country. Any industry of that size should be considered indispensable.

And yet, while there is (understandable) national hand-wringing over the future of Canada’s auto industry—especially in light of U.S. President Donald
Trump’s renewed tariff rampage—another industry, arguably more economically important, is being dangerously overlooked.

That industry is canola.

A summer drive through Manitoba, Saskatchewan or Alberta makes the scale hard to miss. Yellow fields stretch to every horizon. Canola production has exploded over the past decade and has become the very lifeblood of the Prairies.

Without it, large parts of those provinces would be economically barren and far more sparsely populated. We’re not talking about niche agriculture here—we’re talking about a foundational industry that keeps the lights on across three provinces.

Canada is the world’s largest exporter of canola, a crop used to produce cooking oil, animal feed and biofuels. Its export-driven success makes it a cornerstone of the Prairie economy.

Now consider this: Canada’s auto manufacturing industry contributes about $19 billion annually to GDP and employs around 125,000 people directly in assembly and parts manufacturing. Include distribution and aftermarket services, and you get a bigger figure, but the core numbers still pale in comparison to canola.

So, here’s the uncomfortable question: If you had to sacrifice one, which would it be?

It’s a Hobson’s choice. Nobody wants to lose either. But Canada has been pushed into a position where something has to give.

The Trudeau government—and before that, the Biden administration—imposed 100 per cent tariffs on made-in-China electric vehicles (EVs). The logic was straightforward: protect the billions being pumped into Canada’s auto sector and turn the country into a hub for EV innovation and production.

It was a defensive move: one meant to slow China’s dominance in the global EV market and give domestic manufacturers room to grow. Without it, cheap, wellbuilt Chinese EVs would undercut Canadian and North American models before they ever left the factory floor.

But China doesn’t take these things lightly. In retaliation, it slapped a 76 per cent tariff on Canadian canola. Prairie farmers, many of whom are already grappling with rising costs and unpredictable weather, are now wondering if their main market is disappearing overnight.

China has long been Canada’s largest canola customer, though the relationship has had flare-ups, including temporary bans in past years tied to diplomatic disputes.

More than two-thirds of Canada’s exported canola goes to China. The latest tariff hike has already wiped out an estimated $1 billion in value. And there’s no clear end in sight.

Manitoba Premier Wab Kinew was blunt last week: Canada cannot afford to be in a trade war with both the United States and China. He suggested that, in the short term, Ottawa should direct EV tariff revenues to support canola producers. That may buy us some time. But the broader strategic question looms larger: With the U.S. under Trump becoming an increasingly unstable trade partner, and China punishing us for playing by American rules, where does Canada place its long-term bet?

It’s not an easy question to answer.

China is hardly an ideal partner. Its human rights record is abysmal, and its growing economic power often comes with strings attached. But we also can’t deny that it has already become the global manufacturing centre in many key sectors—including electric vehicles.

Then there’s the U.S. A longtime ally, yes, but under Trump, all bets are off. In January, he said of Canada, “We don’t need anything they have.” Not cars. Not oil. Not even niceties.

CUSMA—the Canada–United States–Mexico Agreement that replaced NAFTA—governs most of Canada’s trade with our two largest partners. If Trump reopens the deal—and with Trump, it’s usually safest to take him literally—the Canadian auto industry may not survive. Billions in subsidies and protective tariffs won’t matter if the largest market slams its door shut.

So, again: what should we protect?

New markets for canola are being pursued—in Europe, Japan and elsewhere. But they won’t match China’s scale anytime soon. Diversifying export markets takes years. Prairie farmers don’t have that kind of time.

Meanwhile, dreams of building a Canadian-made EV remain just that: dreams. The auto sector may eventually pivot and survive, but right now, it’s the one on life support. Canola is the industry that’s vibrant—unless we let it get crushed in a trade crossfire.

I lived in an auto town for over two decades. I know the stakes. I’ve seen what happens when plants close, when supply chains dry up, and when livelihoods vanish.

But we need to be realistic.

Canola is a winning industry. It feeds the economy, supports thousands of families and helps keep our rural communities alive. It doesn’t need endless
subsidies or federal cheerleading—it just needs stable access to markets.

That might mean giving ground on EV tariffs. That might mean swallowing some pride on the international stage. But Canada cannot afford to sacrifice a thriving sector to save one already on the brink.

If we’re going to make hard choices—and we will—let’s make the one that protects what still works.

Canada cannot lose canola.

Doug Firby is an award-winning editorial writer with over four decades of experience working for newspapers, magazines and online publications in Ontario and western Canada. Previously, he served as Editorial Page Editor at the Calgary Herald.

Troy Media empowers Canadian community news outlets by providing independent, insightful analysis and commentary. Our mission is to support local media in helping Canadians stay informed and engaged by delivering reliable content that strengthens community connections and deepens understanding across the country