Five nonprofits that run farmland, food-access, and farmer-training programs sued the U.S. Department of Agriculture on July 30 in federal court in Seattle. They are asking the court to strike four of the new conditions USDA attaches to its grants, terms the plaintiffs say force an organization to choose between federal funding and its own speech and programming.
The plaintiffs are Agroecology Commons, Oregon Farm Corps, Syracuse-Onondaga Food Systems Alliance, Third Sector New England, and Washington Farmland Trust, represented by Public Citizen Litigation Group, Earthjustice, and FarmSTAND. The case, Washington Farmland Trust v. USDA, was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington. One number in the filed complaint makes the stakes concrete: Washington Farmland Trust says it is declining to draw down a $676,452 grant it was already awarded rather than accept the new terms.
The Certifications Cover "Any Programs," Not Just the Grant
The complaint challenges four provisions in USDA's new general terms. One bars using award funds "to promote gender ideology." Another bars directing funding to programs that "allow illegal aliens to obtain taxpayer-funded benefits," provide public resources to meet their needs, or "provide incentives for illegal immigration by demonstrating the availability of public benefits." Two more require the recipient to certify that it does not, and will not during the award term, "operate any programs" that promote diversity, equity, or inclusion "in violation of Federal antidiscrimination laws." The same section also requires certifying compliance with federal antidiscrimination laws, regulations, and policies, and it expressly folds in two executive orders on gender and DEI.
The plaintiffs' objection runs on two tracks. First, the certifications cover an organization's programs generally, not just the work the grant pays for, so signing implicates activities far from the funded project. Second, they argue the qualifier "in violation of Federal antidiscrimination laws" gives no usable definition, because grantees cannot tell which of their programs the government would treat as violations. As the plaintiffs frame the choice: certify, and your whole program list is in play; decline, and the funding is gone.
The conditions trace to a memorandum Secretary Brooke Rollins signed on December 31, which standardized grant terms across the department. In the statement announcing it, Rollins said USDA had acted "to eliminate radical left ideology and foreign adversaries" within its programs. The reach is wide: by USDA's own accounting, the department moved more than $145 billion through 287 grant programs in fiscal 2025, spanning food access, conservation, farmer training, and rural development. The department did not respond to Reuters' request for comment on the suit.
The Suit Calls the Terms Unconstitutional and Unauthorized
The complaint brings seven counts, and they sort into four kinds of claims. It says the conditions violate the First Amendment by conditioning funding on what grantees say and do outside the funded project. It says the certifications are so vague that grantees cannot know what compliance means, a Fifth Amendment due-process problem. It says USDA exceeded its authority under the statutes, the separation of powers, and the Constitution's Spending Clause. And it says the conditions are arbitrary and capricious under the Administrative Procedure Act, the federal law that lets courts set aside agency actions taken without reasoned explanation. Whether any of those claims succeeds turns on the record and the court, and nothing in this article is legal advice for your situation.
This Is the Second Major Challenge to the Same Terms
In March, 21 attorneys general sued over what that suit, led by New York's Letitia James, calls the 2026 Conditions, describing the certifications as vague, coercive, and imposed without required procedure. Thursday's filing brings nonprofit grantees themselves into court, and it joins a year of litigation over federal grant terms, from the Solar for All termination suits to the fight over OMB's proposed overhaul of the governmentwide grant rules. If the pattern holds, expect motions for preliminary relief before any final answer, and expect the final answer to take time.
What to Do If You Hold or Want a USDA Award
First, the part that is handled for you: a lawsuit changes nothing automatically. Your existing award terms stand unless a court blocks them or USDA revises them, so nothing is forced on you today.
The work is in the next award. Pull the general terms and conditions in your actual award documents and any pending application, because conditions differ by program and award date. If the certifications appear, price them the way Washington Farmland Trust did: list which current programs a broad reading of the DEI language could cover, and weigh what changing or ending them would cost against the value of the grant. That arithmetic, not the headline, is the decision. If the number is large in either direction, involve counsel before you certify or walk away; outcomes here turn on your specific facts. And track the case through the litigation page rather than through coverage, since a preliminary ruling could change grantees' options quickly.
The takeaway
Four of USDA's new grant conditions are now being challenged by both state governments and grantees, and a Seattle federal court will decide whether they survive. Until then, the terms are whatever your award documents say. Read them, cost out what certifying would actually require your organization to change, decide with advice rather than by default, and keep a written record of why. A condition you signed without reading is still a condition you signed.