USDA Ends Taxpayer-Subsidized Renewable Projects on Agricultural Land

U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) Secretary Brooke Rollins announced on August 19th that her agency would suspend taxpayer-funded solar projects, namely Chinese solar panels, on productive agricultural land.

“Our prime farmland should not be wasted and replaced with green new deal subsidized solar panels. It has been disheartening to see our beautiful farmland displaced by solar projects, especially in rural areas that have strong agricultural heritage. One of the largest barriers of entry for new and young farmers is access to land. Subsidized solar farms have made it more difficult for farmers to access farmland by making it more expensive and less available,” Secretary Brooke Rollins said in a press release. “We are no longer allowing businesses to use your taxpayer dollars to fund solar projects on prime American farmland, and we will no longer allow solar panels manufactured by foreign adversaries to be used in our USDA-funded projects.”

There are two changes to USDA-backed renewable energy projects. First, wind and solar projects will now be ineligible for the USDA Rural Development Business and Industry (B&I) Guaranteed Loan Program. Second, the USDA Rural Development Rural Energy for America Program Guaranteed Loan Program (REAP Guaranteed Loan Program) will reject REAP Guaranteed Loan Program applications for “ground mount solar photovoltaic systems larger than 50kW or ground mount solar photovoltaic systems that cannot document historical energy usage …”

This action aligns with the Trump administration’s energy abundance agenda—specifically the recent executive order, “Ending Market Distorting Subsidies for Unreliable, Foreign Controlled Energy Sources.”  

In the last decade, opposition against renewable projects on both public and private land has increased in both red and blue states. The Renewable Rejection Database reports 879 renewable projects—including 369 solar projects and 510 wind projects—have been cancelled since 2015. 

Americans cite concerns with low electricity output, intensive land use, and national security as justification to oppose these clean energy projects on high-productive agricultural land.

Solar energy, like wind energy, is touted as a cheap energy source. This is also debatable. But nevertheless, the electricity produced from solar, especially at utility-scale, is the least reliable source available today. States that adopt solar energy under state renewable portfolio standards (RPS) also witness at least 11% higher electricity costs. Per the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE), solar is highly weather dependent (intermittent) on sunshine and only works optimally for 24.9% of the year. Battery storage, however, isn’t affordable—even with government subsidies. In states like California, excess wind and solar power is discarded, which is leading to higher electricity bills. Last year, the Golden State curtailed 3,400 gigawatt (GW) hours of renewable electricity in 2024, with 93% of it deriving from solar panels. 

Utility-scale solar projects also occupy a lot of land. The American Farmland Trust warned that 3,900 square miles of farmland nationwide could be threatened by solar projects. An October 2021 Princeton University report examining 2050 net-zero goals determined a land area equivalent to the Commonwealth of Virginia—or 39,472 square miles—would be adversely affected by solar project installations on the East Coast.

A typical 1-GW nuclear plant will occupy about one square mile of land—or 640 acres. An equivalent solar facility needs 75 times more land—or 4,000 to 5,000 acres—to produce the same amount of energy. Independent Women Center for Energy and Conservation Senior Fellow Sarah Montalbano detailed the environmental tradeoffs, specifically land use, of utility-scale solar projects on public and productive private agland (bolded for emphasis):

The difference is more stark with nuclear: A 1 gigawatt-capacity nuclear plant, which has the capability to power about 750,000 homes, only takes up 1.3 square miles. To do the same with solar panels, one needs between 45 and 75 square miles; wind requires between 260 and 3,360 square miles. The latter is the size of Rhode Island and Delaware combined. This magnitude of land use has predictable consequences for other worthwhile uses, like agriculture, as well as habitats and the wildlife that depend on them.

The national security implications of sourcing solar panels from China, which dominates 80% of all solar panel manufacturing stages, became clear this past May. A Reuters investigation revealed that Chinese-made power inverters used to connect renewable energy projects to our grid contained communication devices. These inverters are also found in electric vehicle (EV) chargers, batteries, and heat pumps. 

A more appropriate place for solar could be on building rooftops. But even the rooftop solar industry can’t escape scrutiny, as it’s heavily dependent on government subsidies and can’t thrive without them. 100 solar companies—including Biden administration favorites SunPower and Sunnova—have declared bankruptcy since 2023. 

With energy deregulation occurring in Washington, D.C., the market is orienting towards natural gas, nuclear, geothermal, and even coal. Clean energy companies must become profitable and competitive without government backing—or they will collapse and fold.