For over two decades, Bruce Everly has been helping Indiana farmers apply for funding from the federal Rural Energy for America Program, which provides grants for solar, wind, energy-efficiency upgrades, grain dryers, biodigesters, and other projects in rural America.

He’s seen it serve as an economic lifeline for small farmers, especially the state’s poultry producers who operate on thin profit margins.

But the program, known as REAP, has faced a series of setbacks under the Trump administration. Nearly $1 billion in funding was frozen for months, farmers have heard nothing about applications filed last fall — and now a window for new applications that was supposed to open July 1 was closed at the last minute.

Meanwhile, the most common use case for REAP grants, helping farmers install solar, is under direct threat from the administration. A recent U.S. Department of Agriculture document outlining its Make Agriculture Great Again agenda says that, going forward, REAP ​“will disincentivize funding for solar panels on productive farmland.”

The 2022 Inflation Reduction Act infused REAP with over $2 billion, but those funds will soon run out, meaning the program will likely revert to the lower funding level of $50 million per year ensured by the current iteration of the federal Farm Bill.

“We’re not looking at an IRA-like opportunity for REAP again any time soon,” said Lloyd Ritter, founder of the clean-energy policy consultancy Green Capitol. He helped draft the original REAP program as senior counsel for former Sen. Tom Harkin (D-Iowa).

A slowdown in REAP funding would be a blow to the thousands of American farmers who use the program nationwide, forcing them to spend more money to meet their energy needs. And the efforts to block REAP funds from solar projects in particular would both stymie the growth of clean energy in rural areas and hamper what’s become a key source of income for farmers.

“This program has been key to helping people who don’t have a lot of assets make a change and provide some cash flow for their family,” said Everly, who has assisted with REAP grants to turn manure into biofuel, grow vegetables year-round in indoor enclosures, and add ​“desperately needed” energy efficiency to poultry barns.

A boon and bust

The 2002 Farm Bill created the program now known as REAP; it was given its current name under the 2008 Farm Bill.

For more than two decades, the program has offered loan guarantees and grants to farmers and rural small businesses, as well as doled out grants to organizations that provide applicants with technical assistance.

Under the Farm Bill, REAP grants reimbursed recipients for up to a quarter of a project’s cost. The IRA increased reimbursement to up to 50 percent of a project’s cost.

USDA data shows that more than $1 billion in IRA REAP funding was awarded in over 6,800 grants to farmers and rural small businesses between fiscal year 2023 and the first quarter of fiscal year 2025, according to an analysis by the Environmental Law & Policy Center, with 80 percent of the grants going to Republican House districts.

Congress allocated IRA funds for REAP applications through 2031, though the funding will likely run out long before then. Federal data shows that about half of IRA REAP funds have already been obligated.

President Donald Trump froze over $911 million in REAP funds with his Day 1 executive order targeting IRA programs. His administration lifted the freeze in late March and has yet to make another attempt at clawing back already-promised IRA REAP funds, as some advocates had feared would happen — especially for solar projects.

Nonetheless, farmers and experts who monitor the program wonder whether expected grant payments will be disbursed or new applications accepted in coming months, and whether farmers will still trust the program after this period of chaos. 

REAP grants are administered through reimbursement, meaning uncertainty is particularly harmful. Farmers and other recipients make significant up-front investments with their own money under the assumption that the government will honor its commitment to pay them back.

“This year, since Jan. 20, has been incredible levels of stress for people who did not understand if they would ever get paid for work where they have already put down millions of dollars on projects,” said Everly.

“No matter what the government does, the harvest happens at the same time every year. Farmers had made investments with hope of help from the government, and there’s great uncertainty right now.”

A window closed

On June 30, the USDA released a statement saying that the fiscal year 2026 REAP application period that was supposed to run from July 1 to Sept. 30 would not happen.

“This decision was made due to the overwhelming response and continued popularity of the program resulting in a backlog of applicants,” the brief statement says. The USDA said it ​“anticipates” accepting applications again starting Oct. 1.

Meanwhile, the agency has yet to announce decisions on applications submitted last fall, farmers and the advocates who help them with REAP applications told Canary Media. Usually, farmers and technical assistance organizations feel fairly confident that a strong proposal will receive an award, and many made plans expecting to receive funding, Everly said. Now, they are unsure.

REAP only reimburses projects that were started after the application was submitted, so many farmers planning to apply this round had postponed breaking ground on projects until after July 1, Everly said. But with the sudden delay, they must now choose to either move forward without REAP funding or kick needed upgrades down the road once more.

The number of REAP award decisions is indeed down significantly this year, according to an analysis by the Environmental Law & Policy Center. Federal data obtained by the group through a public records request shows the USDA obligated money for just over 1,900 grant and loan guarantees between the start of this fiscal year and July 9; almost 2,400 obligations were made during the same period last year. While the money awarded for grants so far this year is only slightly less than last year, the dollars for loan guarantees are drastically lower.

Everly was hired by the Indiana state government to help farmers file REAP applications in the program’s early days, then founded a firm now staffed by his wife and more than a dozen employees.

His company, EIM LLC, had seven people working full time on REAP applications over the past three months in anticipation of the July 1 application window. They only get paid once projects come to fruition. REAP data from the USDA shows that the company was awarded five grants for $100,000 each in fiscal year 2023, but has received only about $25,000 thus far.

Everly said his firm has a 92 percent success rate in applications, so the wait for payment is not usually a problem. But now he’s uncertain if the 3,000 hours of staff time spent on this latest round of applications will ever be compensated.

“We don’t know if we’ll ever get paid for any of the work we did,” said Everly, whose family also owns two farms in the state, one going back seven generations. He said his firm can survive the possible financial setback, but many farmers are working on tighter margins. ​“We’ve helped a lot of people who really need the help” from REAP funds.

A rollercoaster

The canceled July application window was just the latest disruption in what’s been a chaotic year for REAP.

On March 26, USDA sent a cryptic letter to REAP and other rural agriculture grant recipients noting that the funding freeze was over, and they had 30 days to ​“voluntarily” alter their applications to remove ​“any harmful [Diversity, Equity, Inclusion, and Accessibility] project features” or to use ​“more affordable and effective energy sources.” The letter indicated grants would be paid even without changes.

Amanda Pankau, director of energy and community resiliency at the environmental nonprofit Prairie Rivers Network, said REAP recipients her organization works with in Illinois were alarmed by the freeze and then confused by the letter, especially since switching to an energy source other than solar wasn’t an option, and most projects did not have DEIA components. Indeed, federal data shows that over the past decade, 82 percent of REAP grants went to recipients identified as white, and 75 percent went to men or businesses owned by men.

“The federal freeze and policy chaos, including the confusion surrounding the March 26 letter, created real distress for Illinois’ farmers and rural small businesses,” Pankau said. ​“We know that rural farmers and small business owners are already managing intense stress and thin profit margins. Many don’t have the privilege of a financial cushion to absorb months of federal uncertainty for clean energy projects that were already awarded or underway.”

In mid-April, a federal judge ruled that the USDA must pay out billions of dollars promised under the IRA, including from REAP and other clean energy programs such as Empowering Rural America, Powering Affordable Clean Energy, and Partnership for Climate-Smart Commodities.

The following week, on April 25, three congressional Democrats from Minnesota — Sens. Amy Klobuchar and Tina Smith, along with Rep. Angie Craig — sent a letter to the USDA demanding answers about REAP funds that appeared to still be frozen.

The tumult has had lasting impacts on farmers, technical assistance organizations, and solar developers, multiple sources told Canary Media.

“People are being whipsawed out there, who are just trying to use the program to install clean energy and cut energy waste,” said Andy Olsen, senior policy advocate for the Environmental Law & Policy Center.

Tim Biello is the owner and manager of Featherbed Lane Farm, a regenerative farm supplying community-supported agriculture in upstate New York. He learned in January that he had received REAP funding for a 30-kilowatt, $115,000 solar project. After the freeze, he wondered whether he should really start the project, since he can’t afford it without REAP reimbursement.

“I got awarded, which was awesome news,” said Biello in May. ​“Then we got the notice it was frozen. The solar company was just about to put a $50,000 to $75,000 order for panels. We canceled that; the advice was not to proceed unless you can take it on with no reimbursement.”

Biello said at the time that he assumed he would get the promised payment, ​“but I don’t feel like anything now is guaranteed, even if you have a signed contract with the government.”

Ultimately, Biello decided to install the solar project this summer, after learning the funds were unfrozen and consulting with advisers. In early July, he could finally take a breath of relief: The USDA officially reimbursed him.

Farmers in Iowa have similar trepidation, according to Mike Brummer, sales manager at Eagle Point Solar, an installer that counts REAP grantees among its customers.

“We’re at this point trying to treat it as business as usual. Let’s keep talking about the project, moving forward with the necessary items,” Brummer said. ​“I joke I’ll check my Twitter account at 2 a.m. for an update.”

He said many farmers can only do solar projects with the help of REAP.

“The REAP grant can make or break a project, especially for a small farmer or small business,” he said. ​“For farmers, every penny has a name on it before it hits the bank. The more pennies you can save, the more chance you have of enduring as a farm and being able to go to the next generation.”

The future

Everly has three wishes for REAP going forward: clarity on the status of application windows and the program’s future; full funding through the Farm Bill, so that 50 percent reimbursement can continue; and staff support from the USDA.

“Is it 25 percent or 50 percent [reimbursement], and are the application deadlines real or imaginary?” he said.

With sweeping cuts to the federal workforce, it can be hard to reach someone in the USDA with questions or concerns about the program or an application, he added.

Given the turmoil of the past six months, Everly and others are worried that farmers won’t trust REAP as a resource even if the USDA takes applications again. Everly noted that the average farmer only has about 40 harvest seasons in their life, and with so many resources sunk into each season, they can’t afford to take many risks.

“Any time you create uncertainty,” farmers will be dissuaded, he said. ​“They only get to run this experiment 40 times in their life. If you messed up two of them, it’s hard to get their faith back. One mistake and you’ve lost multiple generations of wealth.”

Ritter at Green Capitol shares Everly’s concern about federal layoffs impacting REAP. In May, Agriculture Secretary Brooke Rollins told lawmakers that the USDA was trying to fill critical positions after more than 15,000 agency employees took buyouts aimed at reducing the federal workforce.

“My biggest fear is the staffing cuts at USDA will hurt program implementation and efficiency and speed,” Ritter said. 

He emphasized the bipartisan support that REAP has long enjoyed, and said he hopes and expects that popularity will help the program weather tough times.

“REAP just makes sense,” said Ritter. ​“The vast bulk of applicants are farmers, ranchers, [and] rural small businesses using it to help lower energy costs and build energy dominance in rural America. Despite unfair and unreasonable attacks from the far right, I think REAP will be OK.” 

This story was originally published by Grist with the headline USDA abruptly cancels rural energy grant application window on Jul 17, 2025.

The Miccosukee Tribe in Florida joined environmental groups on Tuesday to sue the federal and state agencies that constructed an immigrant detention center known as the “Alligator Alcatraz” and located in the Everglades National Park. 

In a motion to join a lawsuit, as one of the first tribes to potentially sue against the detention center, the case argues that the Department of Homeland Security, U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, Miami-Dade County, and the Florida Division of Emergency Management did not seek an environmental review.

The filing alleges the center’s proximity to Miccosukee villages, ceremonial sites, and access to traditional hunting grounds, and “raises significant raises significant concerns about environmental degradation and potential impacts.”

“We are going to make sure that we fight this facility on whatever front is available to us,” said William “Popeye” James Osecola, who is the secretary of the Miccosukee tribal council. He hopes the lawsuit will “signify that the tribe will continue fighting to do what it’s always done, which is protect the land and save the land that saved us.”

According to Osecola, since the facility’s operation began, tribal members have been restricted from gathering plants and roots for uses such as medicine. “Obviously, that’s not an option for us right now,” he said. “At the moment, it’s the first time we’ve ever seen gates like that there, so it’s very jarring for us.” 

Nearby the facility, 15 active tribal villages reside inside Big Cypress National Preserve, located within the Everglades. 

During the 19th century, the Seminole Wars, which the Seminole Nation and Miccosukee Nation view as one continuous conflict against the U.S., many members fled into the wetlands and used their natural environment as refuge. 

In a press conference at the detention center last month, Florida Governor Ron DeSantis said there would be  “zero impact” on the wetland’s environment. The site is located on an abandoned airstrip, once a controversial project that aimed to be the world’s largest airport. Observers outside the facility said they could see lights on at all hours, attracting mosquito swarms. Recent satellite images also reveal that a freshly paved road has been laid down. 

Last year, the tribe and the National Park Service signed a co-stewardship agreement for Everglades National Park. The partnership aimed to collaborate on protecting tribal practices, restoration efforts for the land’s vegetation, and protection. 

In these cypress swamps and toothy sawgrass marshes, wildlife alongside alligators includes bats, turtles, and panthers. Because species such as the panther are critically endangered, Osecola implied that the continuous traffic at Alligator Alcatraz will “see more deaths with the wildlife”. “It’s taken decades just to get Everglades restoration going like it is now,” he said.

While the Department of Homeland Security distanced itself after promoting the facility for weeks, claiming Florida controls the facility under state hands, critics are not convinced. Elise Bennett, Florida and Caribbean director at the Center for Biological Diversity, an organization that filed alongside Friends of the Everglades in the case last month, noted that “setting aside the funding for detaining immigrants is essentially a federal function. This is a federal project, regardless of what they say in their court filings.”

Last week, the Center for Biological Diversity filed a legal notice with an intent to sue that the construction also violates the Clean Water Act and Endangered Species Act, raising concerns such as light pollution and the use of insecticide to mitigate mosquitoes on-site that could affect the area’s wildlife and surrounding water. 

Each day since its opening, protestors and groups have noticed trucks coming in carrying diesel, generators, and caged vehicles holding detainees. There are currently 3000 beds inside the facility and at least 400 security personnel on-site. 

After state legislators were blocked from entering the Alligator Alcatraz’s premises, Governor DeSantis invited legislators and the state’s members of Congress to tour the facility over the weekend. According to Osecola, the Governor of Florida did not extend that invitation to tribes. 

Some Republican members claimed that the detention center was clean and safe. Others, such as Democratic State Representative Anna Eskamani, reported that, “The environmental impact of this facility cannot be overstated — there is new asphalt, thousands of gallons of water used every day and gas tanks powering generators. No alligators seen, but plenty of mosquitoes.”

This story was originally published by Grist with the headline A tribe in Florida joins the fight against the ‘Alligator Alcatraz’ immigrant detention center on Jul 15, 2025.

A live data portal that allows the public to track and understand how prosecutors decide charges, handle diversions and resolve cases will launch in …

The Thurston County Board of County Commissioners proclaimed June 2025 as LGBTQ+  Pride Month. The comes amid a backdrop of …

The Lacey City Council held a work session on Tuesday, May 27, to review progress on a five-year economic development strategy aimed at guiding the city’s future growth …

News by Angela Downs

“Long kelp fronds waving through clear green waters evoke a strong sense of home in many people who live on the coast, but the impact of forest-forming kelps such as bull kelp stretches much further than the beach,” Hilary Hayford, Habitat Program Research Director at Puget Sound Restoration Fund (PRSF), said, invoking a sense of hope in human reconnection to these underwater forests.

Hayford and Emily Buckner are with PSRF, a nonprofit organization working on Bull Kelp forest restoration and controlling the invasive species that might harm it.

Hayford is the research director at PSRF, leading the team in caring for the kelp gardens. 

Bull kelp is the only floating kelp in the Puget Sound, and it is a key species for food and habitat. It is irreplaceable for the foraging fish like herring, sand lance, and surf smelt that salmon then eat, and essential for the success of rockfish and killer whales. 

As an essential part of the Puget Sound’s food chain, the decline in Bull Klep for 70 years is a priority for PSRF. “In southern Puget Sound, Washington Department of Natural Resources researchers found bull kelp decreased by 63% between 1878 and 2017, and substantially less bull kelp was seen in surveys in 1999 or later than in surveys in 1978 or earlier (Berry et al. 2021),” Hayford said. 
PSRF monitors Bull kelp from the surface using planes, satellites and drone photography. But just like in terrestrial forests, there are unknowns about the health of the understory species, which is much harder to monitor. But PSRF is working with divers to record data from below.

Questions of what happens when kelp is planted, what are the best methods for gardening, and what can we learn from the process, motivate the decisions PSRF makes as the only program in Washington investigating the part Bull Kelp plays in our ecology and how we can serve it best. 

“Planting for aquaculture has been done for many years, but only for some types of kelp. Planting kelp for restoration is new.  The difference is really the outcome. The goal of aquaculture is quick-growing, beautiful kelp that can be harvested not long after planting. The goal of restoration is long-lived kelp that reproduces and, ideally, mimics wild kelp as much as possible. Bull kelp is not yet a common commercial species, so planting it at all is relatively new,” Hayford said. 

Local citizen-scientists and farmers track kelp growth and use

The Jefferson Marine Science Center Science Committee has been working with citizen-scientists for ten years on an ongoing project to monitor the kelp beds at North Beach and learn kelp gardening techniques such as wrapping seeded strands around rocks. 

The mission of these restoration projects is for both people and the environment. According to Buckner, deep connection comes from “deriving a sense of place with the ability to harvest food from clean water and spaces.”
Buckener is part of a team working to weave the marine space with the terrestrial space through soil amendment using the overgrowth of Ulva algae, a nuisance species on shellfish beds that degrades water quality. 

These coastal margins are places of regulation, producing oxygen, nutrient cycling and carbon cycling. There is a common misunderstanding that seaweeds sequester carbon, but they do not produce long-term stabilization of the carbon. Instead, they are habitat and a food source in the food chain, moving carbon through the food system. So Buckner and the team are looking for soil in need of carbon that grows salt-resistant plants.

Ulva’s potential to be a local source of nutrients that can be added into the commercial food system is being tested by several small farms in Chimicum within the watershed connections.

“We’re still in the process of making connections with farms in Chimacum, but have previously given Ulva to Chimalow Produce, Woodbridge Farms and Chimacum Valley Dairy. We are hoping in the coming year to establish some longer-term farmer partnerships,” Buckner said. 

The harvesting practices of the Ulva are safe and sustainable, meeting one of the key values of PSRF’s mission of community cohesion and resilience. 

Seaweed harvesting has been practiced for thousands of years across all coastal peoples and has many uses, such as broths, mixed seasonings and spices, pickling, navigation, art, and compost. Specific species, especially red macro algae, have been shown to reduce methane in cows and can also be used as an indirect feed source for livestock (PLOS One).

While the West Coast seaweed industry is friendly in Alaska with many seaweed farms at work, and fair in B.C. with Cascadia Seaweed operating seven commercial farms, it is considered “non-friendly” in Washington. There are three permitted farms in Washington: Blue Dot Sea Farms, Lummi Island SeaGreens, and Pacific Sea Farms. It was a long process for them to get into the water.

With constrained, competing waterways, special use conflicts, and tribal fisheries taking precedent, the real estate is tight. But more so, the rules around permitting don’t yet exist. So the current farmers are forming the way forward.

It is too soon to tell if the seaweed farming industry is having a positive or negative impact on our waterways, emissions, and wild animals, and both Buckner and Hayford believe that small-scale farming is far more sustainable. “Tribal treaties and fishery rights will be the farmer’s first partners,” Buckner said, advising anyone curious to farm seaweed to start there.

Scaling up too far can pose dangers to the water. Gear is also a concern for the animals using the farms as habitat, but the farms’ seeding of the water could be a potential positive. With limited processing infrastructure and costly shipping, it is yet to be seen how seaweed farming develops in the West.

The PSRF field team found 30 baby Bull Kelp recruits from last year’s plant, at  PSRF’s kelp enhancement (i.e. restoration experimentation) site by Indianola called Jefferson Head, a self-propagating generation, which will hopefully drop additional spores once they mature. This is huge news for PSRF and the Puget Sound ecology.

These ongoing research efforts are celebrating, protecting and serving cornerstone species in our ecological web. Their success depends on the community believing in the value of their efforts and supporting them in the ways they can, through conversation, citizen research, trying out seaweeds, volunteering, and donating. 

The post Human killings of wolves are on the rise in Washington appeared first on Columbia Insight.

In the rural Methow Valley in northeast Washington state, parents have few options for child care. There are only two licensed programs in the community — one of which is a Head Start center. About 40 miles northeast in the town of Okanogan, 30 percent of the town’s limited child care spots are provided by the local Head Start center.

Nationwide, Head Start has long played an outsized role in the rural child care landscape, existing in 86 percent of rural counties. If the federal program is eliminated, as President Donald Trump has reportedly proposed in his forthcoming budget, there will be massive consequences in many of the rural communities that voted for the Republican ticket. About 46 percent of all funded Head Start slots are in rural congressional districts, compared to 22 percent in urban districts. In some states, 1 in 3 rural child care centers are operated by Head Start.

In this swath of the Evergreen State, nestled just south of the Canadian border and east of the Cascade Mountains, Head Start fills a critical child care void: Even with the federal program, there is only enough licensed care for about 1 in 3 children under the age of 5. The program also provides vital services that many in the rural region might lack otherwise. Enrolled families can receive developmental screenings, home visiting programs, mental health services, parent support programs and dental care, all part of the federally funded program’s wraparound service model.

“Those federal grant funds make a huge difference in places where other programs cannot afford to operate,” said Katie Hamm, former deputy assistant secretary for early childhood development at the Administration for Children and Families. “If Head Start closes, it’s not like [families] have another option.”

Several of the congressional districts that stand to lose the most Head Start spots if the program is eliminated are rural districts that helped put Trump in office, according to an analysis by the Center for American Progress, a liberal think tank.

Since its launch in 1965, Head Start has served more than 40 million low-income children through a free preschool program and a counterpart for infants and toddlers, known as Early Head Start. 

While Head Start quality varies, research has found positive benefits from the program. Children who have attended Head Start are more likely to graduate from high school and enroll in college and are less likely to experience poor health. Head Start has been found to have a positive impact on self-control and self-esteem and on parenting practices.

The program’s two-generation approach of helping children and their parents is invaluable in rural communities, said Jodi DeCesari, executive director of Washington’s Okanogan County Child Development Association, which runs nine Head Start centers for more than 200 children. “We’re helping families get employment, we’re helping families get their GED. … We’re helping families lift themselves out of poverty and become more self-sufficient,” said DeCesari. “In the long term, that benefits our community.”

Although Head Start has received bipartisan support over the years, the program has been slowly starved of funding under the second Trump administration. Compared to this time last year, the federal government has sent $1 billion less in Head Start funding to states, according to an analysis by the Senate Committee on Appropriations. This comes after reports of funding freezes and mass terminations at the regional and federal levels.

In Georgia, Mindy Binderman, executive director of the Georgia Early Education Alliance for Ready Students, said Head Start programs are now experiencing delays because of an executive order requiring that all requests for federal funds include a detailed justification statement. This practice can be especially destructive for programs in rural areas, experts say, where Head Starts may not have other funding sources from local philanthropies or government sources to tide them over. One of the first programs to temporarily close earlier this month due to a delay in funding was a rural Head Start network outside of Yakima, Washington.

In Montana, a largely rural state, the uncertainty over Head Start’s future is causing fear as the program’s teachers worry their jobs could soon disappear, said Ashley Pena-Larsen, Head Start program director at Montana’s Rocky Mountain Development Council Inc. In rural areas, it’s already a struggle to find qualified teachers, and Head Start programs often have to compete with higher-paying positions in local school districts. Pena-Larsen fears the lack of certainty will compel teachers to search for jobs elsewhere. “When you already have a workforce that’s stretched thin, you don’t want to come into an environment where you’re unsure about your career. Are you wanting to start a career in a field that’s potentially dying?” she said.

Back in Okanogan, with summer heat looming, DeCesari is unsure what will happen when she submits a request to shift some funds to buy a new air conditioning unit at one of her centers. Usually that request would eventually end up at the regional office in Seattle, but that was one of the offices that was abruptly shuttered. “It’s been really chaotic,” DeCesari said. “I feel like everything is in question right now.”

One thing DeCesari is certain about is that if Head Start goes away, there will be an immense ripple effect throughout the local economy. In addition to providing child care and wraparound support, DeCesari’s organization employs more than 100 people and invests millions in the local community through buying food at local grocery stores and hiring companies that help run the organization’s buildings and buses.

But she worries most about the broader impact on Okanogan families if Head Start disappears. “Families benefit from our services,” she said. “Without Head Start, I think we’re really going to see a generational loss.”

Contact staff writer Jackie Mader at 212-678-3562 or mader@hechingerreport.org.

This story about Head Start was produced by The Hechinger Report, a nonprofit, independent news organization focused on inequality and innovation in education. Sign up for the Hechinger newsletter.

The post As federal dollars for Head Start slow, rural parents left without other options appeared first on The Hechinger Report.