School districts in Humphreys County and Yazoo City are one step closer to regaining local control. 

The Mississippi Department of Education on Tuesday disbanded the Mississippi Achievement School District, which consolidated the struggling school districts in 2019 into a single one under direct state supervision. 

The Legislature created the Mississippi Achievement School District in 2016 to target the lowest-performing schools in the state. Yazoo City and Humphreys County, both majority-Black and low-income areas, were the district’s inaugural school systems. 

But House Bill 1696 passed in 2024 — co-authored by Democratic Rep. Timaka James-Jones, who represents Humphreys — dissolved the Mississippi Achievement School District starting July 1, 2025. 

Republican Rep. Kent McCarty of Lamar County, who authored the bill as vice-chair of the House Education Committee, said the legislation was aimed at giving districts more control.

“I hope the extra flexibility allows them to move toward more independence,” McCarty said Thursday. “Eventually, we’d love to see every district function independently without oversight from the department and make the improvements they need to be high-performing districts.”

But that doesn’t mean the districts are fully back to local control. They’ve just separated and become “districts of transformation” — a different, more widespread framework for low-performing schools to improve their student achievement. 

School systems can become districts of transformation if they consistently receive failing grades in the state’s accountability report card. Under that model, those districts have to develop and implement improvement plans. They get support from the state education department and are closely overseen by the agency. State takeovers can mean more teaching observations and frequent classroom visits from administrators. 

Since 1996, school districts have been taken over using the “district of transformation” model 23 times. Four districts currently operate under the model: Holmes, Noxubee, Humphreys County and Yazoo City.

Earl Watkins, who previously managed the Humphreys County and Yazoo City schools as superintendent of the achievement district, will take the helm of the Yazoo City school district, while Stanley Ellis will lead the Humphrey County district. 

The two superintendents will still answer directly to the state Board of Education.

That’ll be the case for at least one more year — both Yazoo City and Humphreys County received “C” marks on their state report card this past school year, so if they receive “C” grades this year, they still need one more consecutive year of that grade or higher to regain local control. 

“With the scores we have, we’re well on the way to the next steps,” James-Jones said. “It really does boost the pride of our community and we have this united goal now. We’re looking forward to our students getting everything that they need to be successful.”

Humphreys, which received a “D” rating during the 2023-2024 school year, made a “C” by two points.

The growth was largely due to higher scores among the bottom 25% of 3rd to 8th grade students in math and English. Both English and math test scores are given extra weight along with any improvements made by students in the bottom 25%.

Yazoo City raised its grade from an “F” through similar means, with math students in the bottom 25% showing more growth from last year. 

Tenashe White, who teaches 8th grade math in Humphreys, gives credit foremost to her students. But she also acknowledges the help of educational consultants and her fellow teachers who helped plan activities that helped students master math standards through play.

“We threw math bowls, science bowls, spelling competitions to kind of open it up more so they can have some fun but also perform on the tests,” White said. “We had different incentives like ice cream socials.”

Ellis started as the Humphreys superintendent Tuesday. He said anyone who’s not focused on teaching and learning will find themselves “out of place” at the district. 

“Our motto is, ‘New day, new direction,’” he said. “This is our opportunity to get a new start.”

The Trump administration has repeatedly denied disaster mitigation funding to states hit by extreme weather events, another step in President Donald Trump’s plan to downsize and phase out the Federal Emergency Management Agency, and lawmakers aren’t sure why it keeps happening.

Since March, states including Oklahoma, Missouri, Iowa and Mississippi suffered severe storms, winds or wildfires and requested assistance through the Hazard Mitigation Grant Program at FEMA, which provides funds to help protect against future natural disasters. Unlike the Biden administration, Trump is no longer automatically approving those grants and has denied seven requests this spring, according to Bloomberg, while six requests remain under review.

Oklahoma made one such funding request after March wildfires and winds ravaged the state, killing several people and damaging hundreds of homes, according to the Oklahoma Department of Emergency Management. Those fires burned Gov. Kevin Stitt’s farmhouse to the ground.

FEMA approved several Fire Management Assistance Grants in Oklahoma, which help state, local and tribal governments cover fire-related damage costs, but it denied a request for mitigation funding in early June.

“Well, I’m usually on the side of my state, so we’ll wait and see what happens,” Rep. Tom Cole of Oklahoma said of the funding denial.

Oklahoma Sen. James Lankford said he’d have to see the requests in order to answer questions about the resilience funds. But while disaster aid is often necessary, it’s not simple, he said.

“There’s not a time, obviously, when there’s a disaster — maybe it would be a flood, a wildfire or our famous tornadoes — that we don’t need help from someone,” Lankford said. “But there’s a mixture of private insurance, state funding and federal funding, a formula set up on the federal side, to try to figure out when that actually kicks in. We’ve got to be able to make sure we actually meet that.”

At the beginning of June, the administration denied two requests from Missouri after tornadoes and storms in March and April killed residents and tore up communities.

Sen. Josh Hawley said he had talked to Trump about FEMA grants for Missouri in the past, which he was grateful the president had approved. But Hawley supports his state’s request for mitigation funding that Trump has since denied.

“It’s been a really tough spring in our state for natural disasters. We’ve lost almost 20 people, and all across the state, suffered a lot of damage,” Hawley said.

“We may have to go back and ask for more,” he said of FEMA funding. “We’re not able to do the recovery with what we’ve got.”

Bloomberg reported that Oklahoma received other federal funds it could use in a similar way to the HMGP grants and is not appealing the administration’s decision, but Missouri officials were already putting together an appeal.

In late May, the entire Washington delegation wrote to Trump after he denied aid funding for a November bomb cyclone that hit the state. The letter said the state’s request detailed over $30 million in damages, costs that local governments cannot and should not be expected to shoulder alone, including mitigation funding.

“Washington state’s first responders, local governments, and emergency management professionals have done everything within their means to begin recovery, but the scale of the damage requires federal support through the Public Assistance Program and the Hazard Mitigation Grant Program,” the letter read.

The administration denied the state’s appeal last week, according to The Seattle Times.

The White House said it’s seeing large amounts of funding across the board that haven’t been delegated to any specific project yet, and it wants to decrease that spending.

“The Trump administration is monitoring the approval of HMGP with states’ ability to execute those funds,” White House spokesperson Abigail Jackson said in a statement. “We are working with states to assist them in identifying projects and drawing down balances in a way that makes the nation more resilient.”

The post Lawmakers Don’t Know Why Trump Keeps Denying Disaster Mitigation Grants appeared first on Oklahoma Watch.

Between 350 and 400 people showed up to speak up against the Trump administration and its policies on immigration, executive power and more in Oxford, Mississippi, as part of the nationwide No Kings Day protests on Saturday, June 14, 2025.

The post Photos: No Kings Day Protests in Oxford, Mississippi appeared first on Mississippi Free Press.

The power to grant a disaster declaration and access to the FEMA assistance programs for states hit by storms lies solely in the hands of President Trump, who wants to scale back FEMA and pass recovery costs to states. State officials say they’re not ready to take on that burden.

The post Uncertainty About Federal Disaster Aid Looms As Storms Roll In appeared first on Mississippi Free Press.

Rural hospitals across the country are shuttering their labor and delivery doors, leaving millions of women – including Mississippians – without maternity care. 

The growing epidemic of closures hasn’t affected Mississippi as much as other states in recent years – but most of Mississippi’s rural hospitals already don’t deliver babies, according to a report from the Center for Healthcare Quality and Payment Reform, an organization that focuses on solving health care problems by reforming insurance payments. 

Only one rural hospital in Mississippi closed its labor and delivery unit between 2021 and 2025, the report found. However, the vast majority – 68% – of rural hospitals in the state do not have a labor and delivery unit. Most of the 50 rural Mississippi hospitals not delivering babies never did, or stopped long ago, while four have closed their delivery services within the last 15 years. 

Now, the problem that has plagued Mississippi is spreading across the U.S., where nearly two rural hospitals each month have stopped delivering babies since the end of 2020, and more are announcing closures for 2025. That’s more than 100 rural hospitals in just under five years.

Addressing rural maternity care is key to mitigating maternal mortality in America – which continues to have the highest rate among high-income nations, the report’s authors argued. 

“Over 80% of pregnancy-related deaths are preventable with appropriate prenatal, labor & delivery, and post-partum care,” the report read. “Although improvements in maternity care are needed in all parts of the country to reduce mortality rates, one of the greatest challenges is in rural areas, because most rural hospitals are no longer providing maternity care at all.”

Across the country, less than half – 42% – of rural hospitals currently offer labor and delivery services. 

The study also looked at travel times to labor and delivery units for women using the distance from hospitals without labor and delivery services to hospitals with those services. It found that in most urban areas, the travel time to a hospital with labor and delivery services is under 20 minutes. In rural areas, women face travel times of at least 30 minutes, but often 50 minutes or more. 

At 35 minutes, Mississippi’s median travel time is similar to the country as a whole. 

The rural hospitals that have stopped delivering babies in Mississippi since 2010, according to data from the Mississippi State Department of Health, are: the south campus of Anderson Regional Medical Center in Meridian; the community campus of Merit Health Natchez; Magee General; and Greenwood Leflore.

Despite Meridian being one of Mississippi’s larger cities, the Health Resources and Services Administration (HRSA) defines it as rural. 

Authors of the study offered several recommendations to stakeholders, most of which centered around reforming payments to hospitals. 

One of the biggest challenges for small hospitals providing maternity care is that physicians and staff must be standing by 24 hours a day, but are only paid when they deliver a baby – even though rural hospitals may experience many days when there are no deliveries.

Another problem with payment methods, according to the report, is that insurance companies often pay more for C-sections, meaning hospitals and clinicians that support natural childbirth may lose money – even though there have been national efforts to reduce C-section rates, which are highest in Mississippi. 

The report stressed that the biggest problem is not with Medicaid or uninsured patients. The primary cause of overall losses on patient services at rural maternity care hospitals is private insurance companies paying rural hospitals less than what it costs to deliver services to patients. 

“Rural maternity care is in a state of crisis, and more women and babies in rural communities will die unnecessarily until the crisis is resolved,” the report stated. “Federal and state government officials and private employers must take immediate action to ensure that all health insurance plans are paying adequately to support high-quality maternity care in every community.”

Mississippi moms will no longer be able to use Blue Cross Blue Shield of Mississippi insurance to cover lactation services after they leave the hospital. 

The Lactation Network, a third-party biller that allows Mississippians with certain insurance to see non-physician lactation consultants, will no longer accept Blue Cross Blue Shield of Mississippi patients. The network was previously subsidizing the unpaid portion of the claim for these moms’ visits, but it said that it can no longer afford to do so.  

The Lactation Network did not respond to multiple requests for comment from Mississippi Today by the time the story published.

Blue Cross Blue Shield of Mississippi is the state’s largest private insurer. Lactation consultants and breastfeeding advocates worry the reduced coverage will worsen Mississippi’s breastfeeding rate – already one of the lowest in the country. The loss in coverage could have profound impacts on the health of mothers and children, experts say. 

“It’s such a complex puzzle of how to improve maternal and infant outcomes, but we know that breastfeeding is an integral, foundational part of that,” said Dr. Christina Glick, a retired neonatologist and lactation consultant in the Jackson area. “ … Lack of reimbursement will interfere with delivery of care, which will reduce breastfeeding rates.”

Breastfeeding has been proven to lower the incidence of diseases, infections and depression in both mother and baby. But it’s not always straightforward, and the list of potential challenges is not short: oversupply, undersupply, allergies and sensitivities, problems with pumping upon return to work, milk blisters and a host of other issues. Ninety-two percent of new mothers report having trouble breastfeeding three days postpartum and needing support.

Shay Bequette, a 25-year-old from Hattiesburg with Blue Cross Blue Shield insurance, overcame multiple hurdles to breastfeed her baby, born in January.

“I was struggling,” Bequette said. “I’m the first in my family to breastfeed. And my son was really small … I knew something was wrong intuitively, but I just couldn’t understand because I was producing (milk), but he was constantly crying. I was breastfeeding for an hour and a half on each side and he was still crying like he was in pain.”

Emotions and stakes are high for mothers learning to breastfeed. Moms who struggle to breastfeed often report feeling a sense of failure, while also facing intense pressure to make sure their baby is gaining adequate weight. 

Though she didn’t want to, Bequette considered switching to formula – and says she would have if she wasn’t able to access affordable lactation support. 

“I was losing my marbles, I was crying, I was frustrated,” Bequette said. “My whole family was like, ‘you know, you’re just going to have to switch to formula, obviously it’s not working.’”

Instead, Bequette found Maranda Nybo, an International Board Certified Lactation Consultant (IBCLC) based in Pass Christian who expanded her practice to include a once-weekly trip to Hattiesburg. Bequette credits all of her current breastfeeding success to Nybo.

“She saved my sanity, and she saved his life,” said Bequette.

Now, Bequette will have to discontinue her care – and Nybo worries for the future of her practice, where she estimates between 80 and 90% of her clients use Blue Cross Blue Shield insurance.

“Sunday, Monday and (Tuesday) I’ve had 12 moms schedule appointments with me … every single one of them have been denied as of today,” Nybo told Mississippi Today. “All of them, except one, have canceled their appointments with me.”

The Lactation Network announced April 30 that working with certain insurance companies is no longer affordable.

“Historically, nearly 1 in 4 out-of-network visits that TLN covers go unpaid by health plans,” read an April 30 email from TLN to providers. “For a long time, we’ve subsidized the cost of care, hoping these plans would come around and reimburse us for this vital care. But that’s not sustainable — we can’t continue absorbing the costs that these plans should be covering.”

A spokesperson for Blue Cross Blue Shield Mississippi told Mississippi Today the company wasn’t aware of the changes and has no formal agreement with TLN. 

“Blue Cross & Blue Shield of Mississippi Members continue to have access to lactation consultation services when they use a Network Provider,” a Blue Cross spokesperson said.

The only in-network lactation consultants currently covered by Blue Cross are physicians, who do not generally operate outpatient clinics focused solely on breastfeeding care.  

While new mothers usually get some form of support while they’re still in the hospital, most breastfeeding problems don’t develop until well after they leave, explained Erin Mattingly, a Jackson-based IBCLC. 

“I hear all the time that parents think breastfeeding is going fairly well in the hospital and then they get home and things fall apart,” she said. “And a lot of that is because during their time in the hospital, for the vast majority of mothers, their mature milk supply has not even arrived yet. So, it’s after the mature milk comes in that they start to have issues.”

After parents leave the hospital, the next appointment is typically scheduled two weeks later with a pediatrician. The majority of mothers who are struggling to breastfeed will give up if they don’t get help in that interim period, Mattingly said. 

Even if moms continue breastfeeding for those two weeks, they don’t always get comprehensive lactation support during the pediatric visit.

Bequette says when she broached the subject with her obstetrician and her pediatrician, each of them referred her to the other for guidance. That’s not unusual, according to Mattingly. 

“Doctors are fantastic at what they do, but they don’t have the same lactation training that lactation consultants have,” Mattingly said. “And in addition to that, they don’t have the time. If they have 10, 15 minutes with a patient, that’s not enough time to observe a feeding, problem solve what could be going on, and create a strategy going forward.”

An average lactation session with Mattingly or Nybo runs between 60 and 90 minutes and costs between $100 and $125 without insurance. 

That may be an affordable out-of-pocket cost to some, but it will put support out of reach for many moms who are already at a disadvantage for breastfeeding. 

“As a private practice, for me this is devastating,” Nybo said. “But it’s also really devastating for the moms.”

The Mississippi Department of Education and public schools in the state could lose over $137 million in federal funds after the U.S. Department of Education removed access to pandemic-era grant money.

The post Mississippi Education Leaders Reeling After Trump Administration Rescinds $137 Million in COVID-19 Relief Funds for Schools appeared first on Mississippi Free Press.

Mass firings and federal cuts have many public health officials in Mississippi watching Washington with growing concern as they prepare for the avian flu. An upheaval in the federal government instigated by the Trump Administration is paralyzing key agencies and offices meant to coordinate and direct a unified national response.

The post As Mississippi Prepares for Avian Flu, Federal Chaos Looms Large appeared first on Mississippi Free Press.

The U.S. Department of Agriculture announced late Tuesday it will release previously authorized grant funds to farmers and small rural business owners to build renewable energy projects—but only if they rewrite applications to comply with President Donald Trump’s energy priorities.

The move has left some farmers perplexed—and doubtful that they’ll ever get the grant money they were promised, given the Trump administration’s emphasis on fossil fuels and hostility toward renewable energy.

Some of the roughly 6,000 grant applicants have already completed the solar, wind or other energy projects and are awaiting promised repayment from the government. Others say they can’t afford to take on the projects they’d been planning unless the grant money comes through.

A Floodlight analysis shows the overwhelming majority of the intended recipients of this money reside in Trump country—congressional districts represented by Republicans.

After hearing of the USDA’s latest announcement Wednesday, Minnesota strawberry farmer Andy Petran said he suspects many previously approved projects won’t be funded. He’d been approved for a $39,625 grant to install solar panels on his farm. But like many other farmers nationally, Petran got word from the USDA earlier this year that his grant money had been put on hold.

“It’s not like any small farmer who is looking to put solar panels on their farms will be able to put a natural gas refinery or a coal refinery on the farm,” Petran said. “I don’t know what they expect me to switch to.”

Petran was counting on the benefits that solar power would bring to his farm.

After getting word in September that the USDA had approved his grant application, he expected the solar panels would not only reduce his electricity bill but allow him to sell power back to the grid. He and his wife figured the extra income would help expand their Twin Cities Berry Co. and pay down their debt more quickly.

Petran’s optimism was soon extinguished. A USDA representative told him earlier this year that the grant had been frozen.

His 15-acre farm about 40 miles north of Minneapolis operates on a razor-thin margin, Petran said, so without the grant money, he can’t afford to build the $80,000 solar project.

“Winning these grants was a contract between us and the government,” he said. “There was a level of trust there. That trust has been broken.”

In its announcement, issued Tuesday night, the USDA said grant recipients will have 30 days to review and revise their project plans to align with President Trump’s Unleashing American Energy Executive Order, which prioritizes fossil fuel production and cuts federal support for renewable energy projects.

“This process gives rural electric providers and small businesses the opportunity to refocus their projects on expanding American energy production while eliminating Biden-era DEIA and climate mandates embedded in previous proposals,” the USDA news release said. “… This updated guidance reflects a broader shift away from the Green New Deal.”

USDA Secretary Brooke Rollins said in the release that the new directive will give rural energy providers and small businesses a chance to “realign their projects” with Trump’s priorities.

It’s unclear what this will mean for grant recipients who’ve already spent money on renewable energy projects—or those whose planned projects have been stalled by the administration’s funding freeze.

The USDA didn’t directly answer those questions. In an email to Floodlight on Wednesday, a department spokesperson said the agency must approve any proposed changes to plans—but offered no specific guidance on what or whether changes should be made.

“Awardees that do not respond via the website will be considered as not wishing to make changes to their proposals, and disbursements and other actions will resume after 30 days,” the email said. “For awardees who respond via the website to confirm no changes, processing on their projects will resume immediately.”

IRA funding targeted

The grant funding was put on hold after an executive order issued by President Trump on his first day in office. It froze hundreds of billions of dollars for renewable energy under President Joe Biden’s massive climate law, the Inflation Reduction Act (IRA).

The law added more than $1 billion to the USDA’s 17-year-old Rural Energy for America (REAP) program.

About 6,000 REAP grants funded with IRA money have been paused and are being reviewed for compliance with Trump’s executive order, according to a March 5 email from the USDA’s rural development office to the office of U.S. Sen. Chris Van Hollen (D-Md.).

A lawsuit filed earlier this month challenges the legality of the freeze on IRA funding for REAP projects.

Earthjustice lawyer Hana Vizcarra, one of the attorneys who filed the suit, called the latest USDA announcement a “disingenuous stunt.”

“President Trump and Secretary Rollins can’t change the rules of the game well into the second half,” she said in a statement Wednesday. “This is the definition of an arbitrary and capricious catch-22.”

Under the REAP grant program, farmers pay for renewable and lower carbon energy projects, then submit proof of the completed work to the USDA for reimbursement. The grants were intended to fund solar panels, wind turbines, grain dryers, irrigation upgrades and other projects, USDA data shows.

At a press conference in Atlanta on March 12, Rollins said, “If our farmers and ranchers, especially, have already spent money under a commitment that was made, the goal is to make sure they are made whole.”

But some contend the administration is unfairly making farmers jump through more hoops.

“This isn’t cutting red tape; it’s adding more,” said Andy Olsen, senior policy advocate with the Environmental Law and Policy Center, a Midwest-based environmental advocacy group. “The USDA claims to deliver on commitments, but these new rules could result in awarded grants being permanently frozen.”

U.S. Rep. Chellie Pingree, a longtime farmer and Maine Democrat who sits on the House agriculture committee, said she thinks it’s illegal and unconstitutional for the administration to withhold grant money allocated by Congress. Beyond that, she said, it has hurt cash-strapped farmers.

“This is about farmers making ends meet,” she told Floodlight. “It’s not some ideological issue for us.”

GOP lawmakers silent

Using USDA data, Floodlight identified the top 10 congressional districts that received the most grants. They’re all represented by Republicans who have said little publicly about the funding freezes affecting thousands of their constituents. It’s impossible to tell from the USDA data which REAP grants will get paid out.

The congressional district that received the most REAP grants was Iowa’s 2nd District, in the northeastern part of the state. Farmers and business owners there got more than 300 grants from 2023 through 2025. The district is represented by U.S. Rep. Ashley Hinson, who has previously voiced support for “alternative energy strategies.”

“More than half of the energy produced in Iowa is from renewable sources, and that is something for Iowans to be very proud of,” she told the House Appropriations Committee in June 2022.

Hinson’s office did not respond to multiple requests for comment on the matter.

The No. 2 spot for REAP grants: Minnesota’s 1st Congressional District, represented by U.S. Rep. Brad Finstad. In that district, which spans southern Minnesota, more than 260 farmers and rural businesses were approved for REAP grants.

Finstad’s office did not return multiple emails and calls requesting comment. His constituents have been complaining about his silence on funding freezes. They’ve staged at least two demonstrations at his offices in Minnesota. Finstad said he held a February 26 telephone town hall joined by 3,000 people in his district.

In a February 28 letter to a constituent, Finstad said Rollins has announced that the USDA will honor contracts already signed with farmers and that he looks forward to working with the administration “to support the needs of farm country.”

Finstad is no stranger to the REAP program. Before becoming a congressman, he was the USDA’s state director of rural development for Minnesota. In that role, he was a renewable booster.

“By reducing energy costs, renewable energy helps to create opportunities for improvement elsewhere, like creating jobs,” Finstad said in a 2021 USDA press release. That has since been deleted from the agency’s website.

Rollins, meanwhile, called herself “a massive defender of fossil fuels” at her confirmation hearing, and she has expressed skepticism about the findings of climate scientists. “We know the research of CO2 being a pollutant is just not valid,” Rollins said at the Heartland Institute’s 2018 conference on energy.

She has also said that she welcomes the efforts of Elon Musk and his cost-cutting Department of Government Efficiency team at the USDA.

Losing trust in government

Jake Rabe, a solar installer in Blairstown, Iowa, said he has put up more than 100,000 solar modules in the state since getting into the business in 2015. More than 30 of his customers have completed their installation but are awaiting frozen grant funding, he said. At least 10 more have signed the paperwork but are hesitant to begin construction. Millions of dollars worth of his business are frozen, he said.

On top of that, Rabe said, the state’s net metering policies—in which solar users get credits for any excess power they send back to the grid—are set to expire in 2026.

“I kind of feel like it may be the beginning of the end for the solar industry in Iowa with what’s going on,” said Rabe, who owns Rabe Hardware.

Despite it all, he remains a Trump supporter.

“Under the current administration, I think we’re doing things that are necessary for the betterment of the entire United States,” he said.

On March 13, Earthjustice, a nonprofit environmental law group, filed a federal lawsuit against the USDA on behalf of five farmers and three nonprofits. They’re seeking a court order to compel the Trump administration to honor the government’s grant commitments, saying it violated the Constitution by refusing to disburse funds allocated by Congress.

Vizcarra, the Earthjustice lawyer, said she is disturbed by the lack of concern from Congress, whose powers appear to have been usurped by the administration.

She added, “These are real people, real farmers and real organizations whose projects have impacts on communities who are left with this horrible situation with no idea of when it will end.”

One of the plaintiffs, Laura Beth Resnick, grows dahlias, zinnias and other cut flowers on a small farm about 30 miles north of Baltimore.

Florists are her customers, and demand for her flowers blooms during cold-weather holidays like Thanksgiving. Each of her three greenhouses is half the length of a football field and heating them during those months isn’t cheap, Resnick said. The power bill for Butterbee Farm often exceeds $500 a month.

So a year ago, Resnick applied for a USDA renewable energy grant, hoping to put solar panels on her barn roof—a move that she estimated would save about $5,000 a year. In August, the USDA sent word that her farm had been awarded a grant for $36,450.

The cost of installing solar panels was $72,000, she said. So she paid a solar contractor $36,000 upfront, expecting that she’d pay the rest in January when the federal grant money came in. The solar panels were installed in December.

But the federal government’s check never arrived. A February 4 email from a USDA representative said her request for reimbursement was rejected due to the Trump administration’s recent executive orders.

Resnick said she sought help from her elected representatives but got “pretty much nowhere.”

After hearing about the USDA’s announcement Wednesday, Resnick said that based on the response she’s previously gotten from the USDA, she’s not confident she will get her grant money.

“I’ve lost my trust in the USDA at this point,” she said. “Our project is complete, so we can’t change the scope of it.”

Van Hollen, the Maryland Democrat, said he supports the legal fight against the funding freeze.

“Donald Trump and Elon Musk are scamming our farmers,” Van Hollen said in a statement to Floodlight. “By illegally withholding these reimbursements for work done under federal grants, they’re breaking a promise to farmers and small businesses in Maryland and across the country.”

Renewable projects on hold

Since 2023, when IRA funding became available, the USDA has given or loaned about $21.3 billion through programs to support renewable energy in rural areas, according to a Floodlight analysis of agency data, including the REAP program.

Those grant payments were processed until January 20, when the Trump administration announced its freeze.

Trump’s decision was in line with Project 2025, a conservative blueprint crafted by the Heritage Foundation aimed at reshaping the U.S. government. That document called for repealing the IRA and rescinding “all funds not already spent by these programs.”

Environmental groups have sharply criticized the administration’s move, and several lawsuits are challenging the legality of the freeze of IRA funding.

At a recent public roundtable, Maggie Bruns, CEO of the Prairie Rivers Network which supports Illinois communities’ transition to clean energy, listed REAP grants that have been held up in Illinois, where her multifaceted environmental nonprofit is based. A $390,000 grant for a solar array at the grocery store in Carlinville; $27,000 for solar panels at an auto body shop in Staunton; $51,000 for a solar array for a golf course in Alton.

Since 2023, farmers and businesses in Illinois have been approved for more than 590 REAP grants, making the state the third highest in number of recipients in the United States, Floodlight’s analysis shows. In an interview with Barn Raiser, Bruns said the decision to freeze such grants has caused unneeded stress for farmers. Before the executive order, USDA’s rural development team had worked hard to bring dollars for renewable energy projects to Illinois farmers, she said.

“That’s the thing we should be celebrating right now,” Bruns said, “and instead we have to fight to make sure that money actually does land into the pockets of the people who have gone ahead, jumped through all these hoops and are attempting to do the right thing for their businesses and their farms.”

In January, Dan Batson’s nursery in Mississippi was approved for a $400,367 REAP grant—money that he planned to use to install four solar arrays. He intended to use that solar energy to power the pumps that irrigate more than 1 million trees, a move that would have saved the company about $25,000 a year in electricity costs.

Seated in a wooded area about 30 miles north of Biloxi, his 42-year-old GreenForest nursery ships potted magnolias, hollies, crepe myrtles and other trees to southern states. Until a couple of months ago, Batson had been excited about what the grant money would mean for the business.

But when he saw news about the funding being held up earlier this year, he called a local USDA representative who confirmed the funds had been frozen. Batson had already sent the solar contractor $240,000. Now, his plans are on hold.

“I just can’t do the project if I don’t get the money,” he said.

Tuesday’s announcement from the USDA makes him no more confident he’ll get the money, he said.

Batson said he’s a fiscal conservative, so he understands the effort to cut costs. “But,” he said, “the way they’ve gone about it has disrupted a lot of business owners’ lives.”

Floodlight is a nonprofit newsroom that investigates the powers stalling climate action.

The post Farmers in Trump Country Were Counting on Clean Energy Grants. Then the Government Changed the Rules. appeared first on Barn Raiser.