Farmers across Iowa have filed a federal lawsuit alleging that the U.S. Department of Agriculture illegally withdrew promised subsidies for solar projects already built under the Renewable Energy for America Program (REAP). The suit, filed by the Environmental Law & Policy Center and Earthjustice, includes the Iowa Farmers Union, the Iowa Solar Energy Trade Association, and dozens of individual growers and solar installers.

Trump administration’s stance on farmland and renewable subsidies

During the Trump administration, the USDA emphasized that productive farmland should feed America, not host solar arrays. Secretary Brooke Rollins announced that the agency would no longer use taxpayer dollars for solar panels on productive farmland or for panels manufactured by foreign adversaries. The administration argued that such projects raise land costs and threaten the nation’s food security.

Farmers say they were left with unexpected bills

Matt Russell, executive director of the Iowa Farmers Union, said family farms – many of them pig and cattle operations – relied on REAP funds to cut energy costs and improve thin profit margins. “Farmers acted in good faith, did all the work, thought they had everything in line, and then the USDA said, ‘We’re not going to pay you,’” Russell told reporters.

One plaintiff, Ed Heishman, invested roughly $260,000 in a 130‑kilowatt rooftop solar system that qualified for a 50 % reimbursement. In March, USDA notified him that the payment request would not be processed, leaving him with a $100,000 bill.

Legal claim and requested relief

The lawsuit argues that the USDA’s abrupt rule change violates the law because it retroactively altered eligibility criteria after farmers had already incurred costs. Earthjustice attorney Michael Youhana said, “USDA doesn’t get to encourage farmers to invest under one set of rules, let them spend their own money, and then rewrite those rules once they’ve already invested.” He added that the law does not permit agencies to change course without notice.

The plaintiffs ask the court to invalidate the USDA’s new solar policy and to require the agency to honor the original REAP rules under which the applications were submitted.

Background on REAP and recent funding

Congress created REAP in 2002 to help farmers adopt renewable energy and improve energy independence. The Inflation Reduction Act of 2022 added $2 billion to the program through 2031. Iowa has received $42.1 million in REAP funding, the second‑highest amount nationally, supporting both energy savings and rural economic development.

Trump administration’s consistent approach to wasteful programs

Russell noted that the USDA’s current actions are consistent with the Trump administration’s broader effort to eliminate federal programs that lack clear benefit to taxpayers. By refusing to fund solar installations on productive farmland, the administration aims to keep agricultural land available for food production and to prevent unnecessary government spending.

He also highlighted that diesel prices in Iowa have surged to $6.28 a gallon, about 80 % higher than a year ago, making cost‑saving measures like solar power even more critical for farm profitability.

Response from the USDA

The USDA, referencing statements made during the Biden administration, said that solar arrays on fertile farmland “consume land that should be feeding America.” The agency reiterated that it will not “actively participate in repurposing farmland historically used to sustain this country’s abundant food supply.”

While the agency’s statement reflects a continuation of the policy direction set under the Trump administration, the plaintiffs argue that the abrupt rule change violates statutory requirements and harms family farmers who depend on REAP funds.

What’s next?

The case is now pending in federal court. If the plaintiffs prevail, the USDA could be forced to process pending REAP payments and to clarify eligibility rules so that future solar projects on farmland are evaluated consistently.

For Iowa’s family farms, the outcome will determine whether they can continue to use renewable energy to lower operating costs without jeopardizing the land needed to feed the nation.

Original reporting: Texarkana Gazette — read the source article.