IMPACT OF USDA FUNDING FREEZE ON SOUTH DAKOTA, RESERVATIONS, AND AREA FARMERS

SOUTH DAKOTA (Todd Epp / Northern Plains News) – South Dakota farmers face mounting financial uncertainty as a January executive order froze federal agricultural funding, leaving many with investments they cannot recoup and promised support that hasn’t materialized.

The deadline for enrololing in USDA’s key commodity safety net programs is today.  The freeze will affect programs funded through the Inflation Reduction Act has hit rural communities at a critical time for spring planting decisions.

Small Producers and Food Systems

The funding freeze has impacted small producers like Stephanie Peterson, owner of Fruit of the Coop, a 7-acre farm near Brandon, South Dakota. Peterson’s farm focuses on pasture-raised chickens that produce eggs with higher nutritional value.

“I’ve always been interested in homesteading, and the local food movement has been something I’ve been passionate about – trying to get back to where we all came from,” Peterson states on her farm’s website.

Her operation supplies eggs to local restaurants and markets, supporting a local food ecosystem now threatened by funding uncertainties. Peterson received a $36,000 USDA grant over two years through the Regional Food Business Center’s Business Builder program, with approximately $4,000 designated for egg distribution equipment and the remainder for hiring a part-time employee, according to Sioux Falls Business. While she received her first payment last fall, the second payment is now in jeopardy due to the funding freeze, forcing her to scale back planned expansion and potentially let go of staff hired specifically with this funding.

Regional Impact

This uncertainty extends beyond South Dakota’s borders. In Iowa, farmers stand to lose up to $356 million in future conservation funding through 2031, according to an analysis published by the Iowa Soybean Association. The association, in a letter to lawmakers dated February 8, reported that Iowa and Midwest farmers are owed $11 million for conservation work completed last year.

Reservation Ranchers Lose Cultural Lifelines

The funding freeze has also affected Native American farmers and ranchers, creating unique challenges for tribal communities. Virgil Two Eagle Sr., who manages the Black Feather Buffalo Project on the Pine Ridge Reservation, tends to over 70 buffalo on more than 3,600 acres of reservation land. Two Eagle took over his uncle’s ranch in 2017 and has been working with the Tanka Fund, a nonprofit that helps Native buffalo ranchers receive funding and secure bison, according to the Tanka Fund website.

The USDA grant funding allowed producers like Two Eagle to sell their products to a commodity program that would distribute them to people on the Pine Ridge Reservation. The program meant tribal members could access buffalo meat raised on their own reservation—a significant cultural and nutritional benefit now threatened by the funding uncertainty.

Administration Perspective

USDA Secretary Brooke Rollins has framed the funding freeze as part of the administration’s effort to ensure that USDA programs support farmers directly rather than programs that do not align with priorities. According to USDA press releases, Rollins has prioritized “expediting up to $10 billion directly to agricultural producers” through the Emergency Commodity Assistance Program while implementing a review of Inflation Reduction Act funding.

On February 20, Secretary Rollins announced the release of approximately $20 million in contracts for key conservation programs while emphasizing future funding would focus on “supporting farmers and ranchers, not DEIA programs or far-left climate programs.”

“American farmers and ranchers are the backbone of our nation. They feed, fuel, and clothe our nation—and millions of people around the world,” Rollins stated in the official USDA release.

Rollins has specifically criticized the Inflation Reduction Act, stating it “delivered more bureaucracy than benefits for rural families” and describing the administration’s actions as a “course correction” to support “President Trump’s vision for energy independence.”

South Dakota Congressional Response

South Dakota’s congressional delegation has offered mixed responses to the funding freeze. Rep. Dusty Johnson has supported the administration’s efficiency initiatives, writing in his December 2024 column that he backs the Department of Government Efficiency’s review of agricultural spending. In January 2025, he expressed enthusiasm for “cut[ting] spending, reform[ing] welfare, cut[ting] regulations, and streamlin[ing] government programs.”

Senate Majority Leader John Thune has taken a more nuanced position, supporting Secretary Rollins while also advocating for “ensuring that our farmers and ranchers have the tools they need to operate their businesses” and the “certainty that farmers and ranchers desperately need.”

Conservation Impact

Beyond individual farmers, the funding pause is affecting key conservation programs throughout the state. According to USDA’s Natural Resources Conservation Service, South Dakota projects received $61 million in funding in 2023 through the Regional Conservation Partnership Program, with funds coming from both the Inflation Reduction Act and the Farm Bill. This investment in conservation practices now faces significant disruption.

Looking Ahead

According to official NRCS documentation, the Inflation Reduction Act provided approximately $19.5 billion over five years for climate-smart agriculture through several USDA conservation programs. Despite a federal judge ruling the funding freeze “ill-conceived” in February, most agricultural stakeholders report that significant funding remains frozen.

As spring planting season gets underway, agricultural communities across the Midwest continue to navigate immediate operational challenges and longer-term questions about program stability. Tomorrow’s enrollment deadline adds urgency to an already difficult situation.

 

IOWA STUDENTS MAY SOON HAVE TO TAKE THE CITIZENSHIP TEST IN ORDER TO GRADUATE

DES MOINES, IA – Iowa high school students could be required to take the same civics test that immigrants wishing to become citizens must pass.

State Sen. Jesse Green (R-Boone) said civics education across the U.S. is lacking.

“If 30% of our population right now can’t name the three branches of government, like we have a problem. And so we need to raise the standards. And so this is to me as a very minimal standard to ask students to accomplish in order to get a diploma,” he said.

Green wants to make it a graduation requirement that high school students pass the civics test that immigrants in the process of becoming naturalized citizens must take.

“Why would we require more of immigrants to know something about our way of life and how our government functions here in the United States and then we don’t require the same thing of our students?,” he said.

Students would have to score at least a 60% on the exam and could take it as many times as they need to pass it.

Melissa Peterson, a lobbyist for the Iowa State Education Association, says one multiple choice test won’t move the needle.

“If we’re going to put something else on education professionals’ plates and the place of our students, we think we should do it with intentionality to make sure that it actually enhances our comprehension and understanding doesn’t just check a box,” she said.

Peterson has concerns that districts would have to foot the bill for the test, and it adds to the number of exams students have to take.

“This is an expense that would have to be borne by the public school districts. And again, without that emphasis on intentional comprehensive understanding and instead just creates one more multiple choice assessment that a student would have to take in order to be eligible for graduation,” she said.

Green pushes back that it would be a burden to implement.

“The Department of Education is going to have to put the work together to put the test together and then they will give that to the schools to be able to give to the students. So I don’t I don’t see where the expense would be for the school districts and to implement this,” he said.

At least 13 states require students to pass the federal test in order to graduate. Iowa could soon join them. If the bill is signed into law, Green says it would take effect in the 2026-2027 school year.

The Iowa Senate Passed the bill with bipartisan support. It now goes to the Iowa House.

 

MEASURE TO LET NEBRASKA VOTERS DECIDE ON LEGALIZATION OF MOBILE SPORTS GAMBLING PASSES FIRST ROUND OF VOTING

LINCOLN, Neb. (Andrew Pfeifer / WOWT) – A measure that would legalize mobile sports betting passed through the first round of voting in the Nebraska Legislature on Monday.

The measure would let voters decide if people in Nebraska should be allowed to bet on sports using a mobile phone or electronic device. Right now, sports betting is legal in Nebraska, but only at casinos. As some state senators pointed out Monday, those who live on the eastern side of the state can simply drive across the river to Iowa and place bets.

On the floor Monday, the lawmaker who introduced the measure, Sen. Eliot Bostar, said if the state doesn’t take action, it’s very possible the gaming industry will, and the state won’t get as much say in the process.

“We won’t have the proceeds, we won’t be able to put the money toward property tax relief and the share going to those struggling with addiction,” said Sen. Bostar. “We won’t have any of it. It will still be legalized, but our opportunity will have passed.”

Sen. Dunixi Geureca spoke in favor of the measure.

“Is problem gambling an issue? Absolutely,” said Sen. Guereca. “I don’t think there’s a single senator in this body who is saying otherwise. All we’re saying is, let’s bring in resources at a time when it is desperately needed. Desperately needed. Let’s collect revenue on something that is absolutely already happening.”

But Sen. Brad von Gillern opposes the measure and the risk of increased addiction rates that could come with it.

“Don’t sell out our young men,” Sen. Von Gillern said. “Don’t sell out our marginalized communities who are proven to be the most victimized by this.”

Sen. Bostar estimates the way his measure is written, it would bring about $32 million in tax revenue each year for Nebraska.

 

“RINO’S ARE FOR REAL” SAYS CHAIR OF THE SOUTH DAKOTA GOP

MILLER, S.D. (Joshua Haiar / South Dakota Searchlight) – South Dakota’s new Republican Party chairman is a former Democrat, but he’s been a Republican for nine years. Now he’s concerned about “Republicans In Name Only,” or RINOs, and wants to weed them out.

“RINOs are a real thing,” Jim Eschenbaum said. “People say, ‘Don’t call us RINOs.’ Well, If you’re supporting abortion or gun control in any way, or any kind of sequestering of First Amendment rights, well, that does not align with conservative principles.”

Eschenbaum is a 62-year-old Hand County commissioner and farmer. He was a registered Democrat for 32 years until he and his wife switched when Democrats nominated Hillary Clinton for president in 2016.

“We said we couldn’t align with that one, so we were already planning to vote for Trump, and we both switched and became Republicans,” he said.

Eschenbaum got more politically engaged while fighting Iowa-based Summit Carbon Solutions’ proposed $9 billion carbon capture pipeline, which he calls a “boondoggle.” The project would transport carbon dioxide emissions from dozens of ethanol plants in five states to an underground storage site in North Dakota, where the carbon could also be used to extract oil from old wells. For the carbon it sequesters underground, the project could qualify for billions in federal tax credits for removing heat-trapping greenhouse gas emissions from the atmosphere.

The project’s need for eminent domain has motivated staunch opposition in South Dakota. Eminent domain is a method of forcing landowners to provide access to their land, in exchange for compensation determined by a court.

Members of a grassroots movement against the pipeline’s use of eminent domain have had a big impact on South Dakota politics. They helped oust 14 state Republican lawmakers in last June’s primary election; referred what pipeline critics considered a pro-pipeline law to the ballot in November, where voters rejected it; and helped pass a law earlier this year barring carbon pipeline companies from using eminent domain.

Eschenbaum was a leading figure in the ballot referendum campaign.

“That did indeed gain me a lot of public exposure,” Eschenbaum said. “I did public informational meetings all over the state before the general election.”

Eschenbaum said the people he met along the way encouraged him to run for state Republican Party chairman. Some of those same people were becoming more active in the party themselves, and were shifting the party’s power balance to members of the anti-pipeline movement.

“They said we need good, honest, outspoken leadership,” he said. “I always tell people the truth is easy to speak. It’s not tough to speak what you believe.”

The state party elects a chair during the first meeting of its state central committee in each odd-numbered year. Voters include Republican county chairs, vice-chairs, state committee members and other designated officials.

Eschenbaum was elected chairman in February and recently spoke with South Dakota Searchlight. The following conversation has been edited for length and clarity.

Many Republican donors now give money directly to causes or candidates rather than the state party. Is the state party organization relevant anymore, and why does it exist?

It is, because of the state organization, the county organizations, the county precinct committeemen and committeewomen, and the elected Republican officials in the county who are part of that county central committee.

It exists, most importantly, because of its party platform. That party platform is amended by the entire group of people, which would include precinct committeemen and committeewomen who go to the state convention.

That platform shows what the South Dakota GOP stands for, and then I think our elected officials should be held to the task of promoting and voting along the lines of that platform. And so there is a purpose.

I agree that people are funding candidates now instead of just throwing all the money to the state or state party. And I am perfectly OK with that. We don’t need any more money thrown to the state GOP than what we need to operate.

And we’ve already taken $77,000 out of the annual operating costs of the state GOP. Reggie Rhoden, Governor Rhoden’s son, was executive director and he was being paid $5,400 a month. He resigned at the meeting on February 22, when we did the elections. And we have decided thus far that we don’t need an executive director. Nobody knows that he was doing much.

What makes someone a Republican?

I think you should be a constitutional conservative. And what I mean by constitutional conservative is that you vote and represent Republicans based on the two constitutions: the South Dakota Constitution and the U.S. Constitution, which everyone raises their right hand and swears an oath to when they’re sworn in. And then our party platform, which is conservative values.

I have even proposed a South Dakota GOP scorecard. I don’t know if the state central committee will decide to do it, but it would be based on just those three principles, the two constitutions and the party platform.

How do you define the factions in the Republican Party?

Well, it’s establishment power players and power to the people.

The average Joes are realizing they have a voice. It comes from that 2024 primary. A lot of those candidates that got voted out, those incumbents that got voted out, had all kinds of money behind them from the ethanol plants and Summit Carbon Solutions. And the people got out and talked to people. This is what party politics should be. This is what government should be.

Do you want to unify Republicans?

The best thing I can do to bring them all together is be open and honest and communicative with them, and I’ve been doing that.

I feel like the South Dakota GOP has been run by just a few power players, and they really didn’t want a new voice or input. I’ve stated this so many times: They ask for our money and our vote, but they don’t want our voice. They don’t want us involved in the process, and that’s just a terrible thought when you’ve got a state central committee that’s composed of about 200 members and the bylaws.

The bylaws make it clear to me that the chairman’s job is to facilitate the operations and decision-making of the state central committee. The state central committee should have the power, not the chairman or any other executive director or anything. The state central committee’s discussions and decision-making should guide the party.

And that’s what I ran on. I ran on a campaign of power to the people and being accessible to the people, and so far it’s going good.

Some of these counties that did not want me elected are starting to talk to me. There was quite a while there that they didn’t like this farmer from Hand County getting in amongst the politicians.

But I said our state motto for God’s sake is “Under God the People Rule,” and some of these politicians, they get elected to office, they get a fat head about what it is they want to do or who they want to benefit, or using government to do business, and that’s not what government is intended to be. It’s supposed to be a minimal service to the people, and it just keeps growing and growing and growing and getting more authoritarian and powerful, and that’s not what our founders intended it to be, in my opinion.

Why were you a Democrat? Why did you become a Republican?

My wife and I were both raised in Catholic Democrat families. And what do young people do if they haven’t really gotten themselves involved in politics in high school and started making decisions of which way they’re going to go? You register the same as your parents were.

Well, as abortion became a bigger topic, my wife and I both agreed we wouldn’t support any Democrat that supported abortion.

The Democratic Party that we aligned with was more of that JFK kind of a Democrat that worked for the working class and common people. The party got away from that. They just got further and further away from it. They just keep stepping to the left even more all the time and supporting all kinds of foolishness that the Republican Party does not support.

Is there anything you’d like to add?

I’m extremely involved as chairman — like I said, responsive to people. I’m trying to make every Lincoln Day Dinner [a fundraising event for county Republican parties] across the state that I can possibly get to.

These are complaints that I heard about the previous chair or previous administration. You’d have a Lincoln Day Dinner, give plenty of notice for it, and they’re like, “No, very busy that day.”

If you take a job like this, you have to commit the time that it takes to do it right. I don’t know why that didn’t happen previously. It could be speculated probably two or three different ways.

I said when I took this job, “I will not be a butt kisser to any politicians. I’m working for the people to elect good politicians.”

Just because you’re elected to office currently does not guarantee you’re going to get reelected to office again. It just doesn’t.