iftttwall

Authored by RealClear Investigations’ Benjamin Weingarten,

Opponents of affirmative action hoped that the Supreme Court had delivered a death blow to the controversial policy in 2023 when Chief Justice John Roberts declared for the court’s majority that “Eliminating racial discrimination means eliminating all of it.”

But as sweeping as that pronouncement was, it came in a ruling in the landmark SFFA v. Harvard case, solely barring the use of racial preferences in college admissions. The practices that the court deemed illegal on campus have persisted elsewhere, including in programs across the federal government.

A lawsuit now wending its way through the courts, Revier v. Loeffler, aims to change that. Building on the SFFA ruling, the suit’s plaintiffs are taking aim at regulations that they allege direct agencies to unconstitutionally dole out tens of billions of dollars in awards on the basis of race – most prominently through no-bid or limited competition contracts reserved for so-called “Small Disadvantaged Businesses” and facilitated by the Small Business Administration. The case could have wide implications, as the SBA’s definition of disadvantage has been widely adopted by many other federal agencies. 

The lawsuit’s thrust parallels a slew of related executive orders, policies, and probes the Trump administration has advanced to purge diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) from the public and private sectors. A future president with different priorities, however, could reverse them. Consequently, absent legislation from a razor-thin Republican congressional majority, opponents of racial preferences believe the courts may offer the best opportunity to end such practices. 

Defenders of affirmative action, however, note that it is rooted in laws passed by Congress that reflected the belief that racial discrimination is a powerful source of disadvantage. And they believe that righting past wrongs through its implementation has redounded to Americans’ collective benefit. Massachusetts Sen. Ed Markey, the ranking Democrat on the Senate Small Business Committee, and Sen. Mazie K. Hirono of Hawaii sent a letter to the SBA  defending minority companies, which they say “play a role in strengthening the industrial base by diversifying the supply chain.”

Biden Amped Up Racial Preference

The Revier case could be a game-changer in part because of the size, scope, and influence of federal contracting.

The U.S. government is the world’s largest buyer of goods and services. Historically, on a bipartisan basis, it has sought to use its buying power to benefit small businesses, for whom the feds earmark roughly one-quarter of all contract dollars. The SBA reported that in fiscal year 2024, federal authorities had inked $630 billion in small business eligible prime contracts.

Following the civil rights acts of the 1960s, the federal government sought to promote the development of minority-owned small businesses, with the Nixon administration initiating the policy to steer a subset of contracts to such enterprises.

The Biden administration significantly increased the value of federal government contracts extended to such businesses to “advance equity and build wealth in underserved communities,” more than doubling the statutorily-driven 5% contracting goal threshold that had been set by Congress. In 2024, the SBA awarded some $78 billion – or 12% of all contract dollars – to so-called “Small Disadvantaged Businesses,” often under no-bid or limited-competition arrangements.

Such contracts cover work in areas ranging from construction to professional services and information technology and are awarded across two dozen agencies, including the Departments of Defense, Health and Human Services, and Agriculture.

SBA sets forth who qualifies as “socially and economically disadvantaged” through regulations, instituted nearly 30 years ago, that have since spread government-wide. While white-owned businesses theoretically qualify for the program, the regulations created a “rebuttable presumption” that – irrespective of one’s individual circumstances – treated blacks, Hispanics, Native Americans, and Asians by default as “socially disadvantaged.” 

Under its “Minority Small Business and Capital Ownership Development Program,” sometimes referred to as 8(a), SBA has historically rendered small firms owned and controlled at least 51% by those identifying as minorities, and who meet certain economic criteria, eligible for its minority business development program – giving them preferential entrée to more than $40 billion in annual awards over non-minorities. 

Analyses show that in recent years, no individually owned firms led by a Caucasian have participated in the program. 

Fraud Allegations

The program also has long been subject to allegations of fraud and abuse, reflected in a series of past Government Accountability Office and SBA Office of Inspector General studies and reports. Some of the initiative’s 4,300 participants have engaged in misconduct ranging from offering kickbacks to reportedly arranging “pass-through” work where purported minority-led companies effectively serve as fronts – winning business only to outsource the work to non-minority subcontractors. 

In June, after four individuals pled guilty to a $550 million bribery and fraud scheme enabled by a USAID contracting officer and involving multiple participants in the SBA program – one of whom would receive an additional $800 million in federal contracts even after being flagged by USAID as lacking “honesty or integrity” – SBA Administrator Kelly Loeffler ordered an audit of the program, focusing on high-dollar and limited-competition contracts.

Months later, in October, investigative journalist James O’Keefe released an undercover interview video indicating that one contractor, ATI Government Solutions, used its minority status pursuant to the program to win upwards of $100 million in contracts – only to outsource 80% of its work to subcontractors, including major corporations like Accenture. Shortly thereafter, the SBA would suspend ATI and its three executives.

In December, the administration intensified its scrutiny of the program, issuing letters to all participants demanding a slew of financial records dating back years under threat of losing their program eligibility, and/or facing investigative and remedial action.

“There is mounting evidence that the 8(a) Program designed for ‘socially and economically disadvantaged’ businesses went from being a targeted program to a pass-through vehicle for rampant abuse and fraud – especially during the Biden Administration, which aggressively prioritized DEI over merit in federal contracting,” SBA Administrator Kelly Loeffler said in a press release.

Days later, Senate Small Business Committee Chairwoman Joni Ernst announced during a hearing the launch of her own investigation of the SBA initiative, stating that “Unfortunately, the SBA’s 8(a) program has been a magnet for fraudsters since its inception.”

During that hearing, Ed Markey acknowledged that “Like any federal program, there have been rare cases of bad actors taking advantage of these resources. And they should be held accountable.”

“But,” he added, “these rare instances do not warrant an all-out assault on a program that has created good-paying jobs, provided pathways to success for small businesses, and created economic growth for our country.”

The Massachusetts Democrat also asserted that politics was at play – even while injecting a note of partisanship himself. The Senate, Markey said, was subjecting “the little guys, the minority small business owner, the black and brown small businesses,” to harsh oversight, in contrast with the administration’s dealings with foreign governments and large corporations, who allegedly participate in “President Trump’s pay-to-play system.”

Systemic Discrimination

The entities currently suing the SBA do not allege discrimination in the 8(a) program, but rather in other government programs that have adopted its regulations.

The two plaintiffs – Revier Technology, a small Louisiana-based software company, and Young America’s Foundation (YAF), a national conservative student organization – asked a Louisiana court in November to vacate the SBA’s 8(a) regulation, which they claim has harmed them in their efforts to access other government initiatives reliant upon it.

Revier, which says it is developing AI-based technology for use in construction, claims it was denied investment capital under a Treasury Department small business credit program, since its funding is limited to businesses owned and controlled by socially and economically disadvantaged individuals as defined by SBA regulation, and Revier’s owner, Matthew Schultheis, is white. “The…investment program I applied to was designed to help small entrepreneurs like me,” Schultheis told RealClearInvestigations. “When my application was rejected solely because of my race, I had to take action.”

Likewise, several students affiliated with Young America’s Foundation (YAF) claim discrimination under a Department of Homeland Security cybersecurity fellowship that requires applicants to be socially disadvantaged to be eligible to participate in the program, as defined by SBA regulation. That regulation’s definition of social disadvantage likewise flows through preferential contracting programs at NASA, research grants administered by the EPA, and elsewhere in the federal government, according to the Revier suit. 

The Revier and YAF plaintiffs each claim they could “not benefit from a presumption of social disadvantage,” and therefore “could not apply on equal footing” in seeking to participate in relevant federal programs, violating their constitutional rights under the Fourteenth Amendment’s Equal Protection Clause and the Fifth Amendment’s Due Process rights to equal treatment. 

“The federal government’s pervasive use of race as a proxy for determining who is ‘socially disadvantaged’ – and therefore who receives contracts, grants, loans, investment capital, opportunities, and other benefits – is unconstitutional, and it must be stopped,” the plaintiffs wrote in their complaint.

YAF is represented by the Wisconsin Institute for Law & Liberty. The conservative/libertarian-oriented public interest law firm, which has served plaintiffs in a number of related cases, has identified at least 60 racially discriminatory programs across the federal government.

Caleb Kruckenberg, litigation director at the Center for Individual Rights, which is co-counsel in the Revier case, told RCI that SBA’s challenged 8(a) regulation “remains on the books and has been incorporated in at least 20 other federal programs administered by multiple federal agencies.”

His colleague, Michael A. Petrino, said that if the plaintiffs were to prevail, minimally “all programs that incorporate the SBA regulation and its racial presumption could no longer administer those other programs using any portions of the regulation that are vacated.”

The Trump administration’s unwillingness to defend racial preferences in analogous cases – including challenges to the use of racial and sexual preferences in Department of Agriculture programs – suggests it may not defend the SBA’s regulations. Although the plaintiffs could achieve a limited victory if the administration rescinds the regulation or revises it to remove the alleged unconstitutional content, Petrino told RCI, “A judicial ruling that requires such revocation would prevent a future administration from reviving the same or similar rule.”

Courts Start Chipping Away

In the meantime, the judicial branch is already scrutinizing the SBA’s longstanding regulations mandating racial preferences. 

In July 2023, a Tennessee U.S. federal district court judge enjoined SBA “from using the rebuttable presumption of social disadvantage in administering” the 8(a) program, finding that that presumption fails to pass the “strict scrutiny” standard required when setting out racial classifications. It “does not further a compelling governmental interest and is not narrowly tailored to achieve such interest,” the court ruled. 

In March 2024, a Texas district court found that a race-based presumption of social disadvantage for applicants in a program run by the Commerce Department’s Minority Business Development Agency was unconstitutional.

Likewise, in October 2024, a Kentucky judge issued a preliminary injunction prohibiting the Department of Transportation “from mandating the use of race- and gender-based rebuttable presumptions” for department contracts impacted by certain “Disadvantaged Business Enterprise” goals when pursued by the plaintiffs who brought the case.

In response to that case, the Trump Justice Department stated that it would no longer defend the SBA-like rebuttable presumptions incorporated into the department’s Disadvantaged Business Enterprise program, finding it to be unconstitutional.

The Revier plaintiffs are seeking a more ambitious end in the elimination of that rule at SBA, and everywhere else it is incorporated. 

Citing such litigation, Petrino told RCI that “any time would have been a good time to bring this case, but the Supreme Court’s rulings in recent years on both racial preferences and administrative law challenges make it easier.”

The Supreme Court declined to take up a challenge to the 8(a) program’s constitutionality back in 2017 on Fifth Amendment grounds. That case, however, challenged the relevant provisions of the Small Business Act authorizing the program. The statute defines socially disadvantaged individuals as those “subjected to racial or ethnic prejudice or cultural bias because of their identity as a member of a group without regard to their individual qualities.” And the statute includes a congressional finding that blacks, Hispanics, Native Americans, and other groups are “socially disadvantaged.” But, unlike the regulations that the Revier plaintiffs are challenging, the law contains no explicit rebuttable presumption of social disadvantage if an individual is a member of such a group.

Resistance Ahead

Any challenge to racial preferences in government programs – particularly at a Supreme Court that has already handed progressives defeats on racial matters – is likely to be met by significant resistance. 

Democrats on the House and Senate Small Business Committees have continued defending it and related efforts. 

Rep. Nydia M. Velázquez criticized the SBA following its announcement that it would be initiating an audit of the 8(a) program in June, and delivery of a warning letter to federal contracting officers in July calling on them to report potential program misconduct.

“The SBA’s decision to target the use of a key small business contracting program and pressure federal agencies is deeply disappointing,” Velázquez, the ranking Democrat on the House Small Business Committee, said in an August statement. “This move strays from the agency’s core mission. Instead of helping small businesses compete in the federal marketplace, SBA is stripping away the very tools that enable them to succeed.”

In addition to its political defenders and the businesses and individuals who are the direct beneficiaries of tens of billions of dollars in government awards annually, a constellation of trade associations, NGOs, law firms, and researchers support and/or rely on the continuation of the regime. Challengers have taken the Trump administration to court over a variety of anti-DEI executive actions – to mixed effect.

Regarding racial preferences in government programs more broadly, a witness selected by congressional Democrats in a relevant June 2025 House Oversight Committee subcommittee hearing captured the position of program proponents.

 “Congress has never placed a ceiling on the debt it endlessly accumulates to African Americans, indigenous peoples, and other communities of colors,” University of Southern California Professor Shaun Harper told the panel, “These diverse citizens persistently appear at the bottom of just about every health indicator and statistical metric of thriving…Government and private sector investments into DEI efforts have never been anywhere close to covering the enormous sum of this unpaid, continuously accruing debt.”

“The real cost of racial inequities far surpasses spending on DEI programs, positions, and professional learning experiences,” Harper concluded.

By contrast, Judge Glock of the right-leaning Manhattan Institute wrote in a spring 2023 City Journal piece that “Instead of righting historical wrongs,” government minority contracting efforts have “enriched a small subset of already-wealthy businesses, bred corruption and fraud, deepened racial divisions, and cost taxpayers countless billions of dollars – while doing nothing to help the truly disadvantaged.”

Such “unconstitutional” programs, Glock said in testimony delivered opposite Harper, “should be removed from all levels of government as quickly as possible.”

* * * 

This article was originally published by RealClearInvestigations and made available via RealClearWire.

The Senate issued a harsh rebuke of President Trump’s actions in Venezuela, voting 52-47 on a bipartisan measure to block him from using military force “within or against Venezuela” unless he obtains Congressional approval first.

The war powers measure came after an unsuccessful attempt by Republican leaders to kill the resolution and preserve Trump’s authority amid the president’s threats of a “second wave” of attacks. Trump has said the US would “run” the country on a temporary basis following last week’s military operation to capture and extradite leader Nicolás Maduro. 

The legislation – which was introduced by Sen. Tim Kaine (D-VA), was cosponsored by Sens. Rand Paul (R-KY), Adam Schiff (R-CA) and Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-NY). 

Five Republicans joined all 47 Democrats in voting ‘yes’ on the motion to advance the resolution to the Senate floor; Paul, Susan Collins, Lisa Murkowski, Todd Young and Josh Hawley. 

“Instead of responding to Americans’ concerns about the affordability crisis, President Trump started a war with Venezuela that is profoundly disrespectful to U.S. troops, deeply unpopular, suspiciously secretive and likely corrupt. How is that ‘America First?‘” said Kaine. “Trump’s war is also clearly illegal because this military action was ordered without the congressional authorization the Constitution requires.”

The procedural motion means that there will be a full Senate vote on the measure next week, which will require only a simple majority and is expected to pass. It will then require House approval and Trump’s signature, making it unlikely to become law as Trump would undoubtedly veto – but it still sends a symbolic message (and possible groundwork to impeach?) that could impact Trump’s foreign policy going forward. 

“To my Senate colleagues: enough is enough,” said Kaine. “You were sent here to have courage and to stand up for your constituents. That means no war without a debate and vote in Congress.”

According to Paul, some members of Congress want to “shift the burden of war to the president” instead of taking responsibility.

“But make no mistake, bombing another nation’s capital and removing their leader is an act of war, plain and simple,” said Paul. “No provision in the Constitution provides such power to the presidency.”

The rebuke comes as Trump has suggested he’s open to boots on the ground in Venezuela, while also threatening action against Iran, Greenland and Colombia on Sunday – adding that Cuba “is ready to fall.” 

Sen. Collins said in response to the measure: “I believe invoking the War Powers Act at this moment is necessary, given the President’s comments about the possibility of ‘boots on the ground’ and a sustained engagement ‘running’ Venezuela, with which I do not agree,” while Murkowski said Congress must “affirm our role under Article 1.” 

In advance of the vote, Sen. Majority Whip John Barrasso (R-WY) urged Senators to reject the war powers measure, calling Maduro’s capture a law enforcement operation.

“It does not make America stronger. It makes America weaker and less safe,” he said in a written statement. “It would weaken the President’s legitimate, constitutional authority. This body, the United States Senate, is being asked whether the President of the United States has the authority to arrest indicted criminals. Of course he does.”

By Chris Bennett of Farm Journal

How deep is the farm crisis? Adios to acreage.

In November 2025, Alex Harrell, among the most highly reputed producers in the U.S., dropped an old-school grading scale, A to F, across his 6,000-acre operation and slashed almost half his ground, notifying 12 landlords in a three-week window. “I can’t speak to the rest of the country, but around here, generational growers are either cutting back, quitting, falling into Chapter 12, or grasping at straws.”

Spurred by crippling inputs, Harrell’s acreage drop is an alarming indication of an agriculture economy in dire straits. “There will be significant acres in my area that won’t be planted next year,” he says. “I’m seeing it with my own eyes in real time.”

“People don’t realize there was ground here in 2025 that didn’t get planted, but you can already see what’s developing for 2026. Guys are walking away.”

Down Comes the Ax 

No fat left to trim. Nothing to burn but muscle. No way to outyield cold math.

“Something has to give when you go three years and more just spinning your wheels on net profit,” Harrell, 36, explains. “The numbers aren’t complicated. When fertilizer, chemical, and machinery costs go up 300% over a short span of time, everything is upside down, especially when commodities go in the tank.”

In 2025, Harrell grew 6,000 acres of corn, soybeans, cotton, and wheat in southwest Georgia’s Lee County. “Breaking even is bad enough in farming, but we’re all way below that around here. We are literally paying to farm—not getting paid to farm. Every year, it costs more to farm input-wise, and unless something changes with these retailers, I don’t see things changing. Based on that, I took a long look at my operation.”

But what to do when there’s nothing left to cut on the farm? Cut the farm itself.

In November 2025, Harrell put his leased acreage under the microscope, under a seven-category lens subject to grades A through F:

1. How many miles away was the land?
2. How productive is the soil?
3. What was the water source (pond, creek, or well)?
4. How was irrigation powered (electric or diesel)?
5. On base acres, how productive was the farm related to PLC and ARC?
6. How did wildlife depredation factor for deer and wild pigs (and whether landowners allowed for shooting with deer permits)?
7. How much was rent?

Harrell axed any piece of ground that scored C through F in more than two categories. The reduction totaled 45% of his crop ground.

“It’s pretty straightforward. The only way I could figure out to make things work was to break down those farms individually and grade them on a scale. Then I dropped the ones that didn’t pass—and that included the very first irrigated farm I ever rented, and ground we’ve put 16, 17 crops on that I’ve been working for years. It was time to turn them loose. Like I said, that’s how bad the farm economy is around here. In some ways, I think the worst part is still to come, but people don’t realize that yet.”

No Bidding War 

Harrell’s acreage chop may go deeper. “I’ve still got considerations to make on some farms. I’ve still got ground flirting on the line. I may have to make more calls to landlords.”

Rent on irrigated ground in Harrell’s region typically runs $275-330 per acre. How did his landlords react when he dropped acres?

“I had one that offered to drop rent a little bit, but I understand because they’re used to having 10 guys sitting there waiting to rent that land. In my opinion, I don’t think they understand the shifting dynamic of the farm economy. This time, people are not going to be beating their doors down. I’m not saying their particular acres won’t get rented, but there’s definitely not going to be a bidding war.”

“Even last year in 2025, there was irrigated land down here that didn’t get worked. In 2026, there’ll be even more. I can’t speak for anyplace else in the U.S., but in southwest Georgia, this is what we’re seeing in farmland, especially marginal ground. It’s already happening.

Yield Forfeit 

Prior to Harrell’s acreage slash, his operation stretched 21 miles east, 30 miles west, 15 miles north, and 15 miles south.

“I tightened the circle. I think my furthest farm is only going to be about 10 miles from me now. When you look at fuel, labor, time, and insurance involved in running up and down the road, that kills you whenever you put a tractor on a highway.

“Next, I’ve got to consider equipment and labor cuts to drop our insurance at least a little, at the same time keeping my eye on the fine line where I’ve got to keep enough acres to spread equipment over.”

Getting bigger and going longer is out—at least for Harrell. “Yeah, that’s how I used to think: Just go across more acres, make inputs cost less, and that’ll solve everything. Not anymore. What people come to see is that spreading too far in the Southeast means that nine times outta ten, you forfeit yield, because there’s no way to look after your crops like they need.”

Translated: Irrigation, weed control, repeated fungicide applications, labor logistics, and host of other management practices create a never-ending game of catch-up.

“There are Midwest farmers out there on big, big acres that do a fantastic job, but in the Southeast, we can’t get behind a single day on irrigation, or we lose yield,” Harrell notes. “Then factor in all the other aspects people don’t think about—like wildlife damage from deer and hogs, and countless spray trips across the field—and things get really complicated. I don’t think it’s an exaggeration to say a 15,000-acre operation in the Midwest compares to a 5,000-acre in the Southeast as far as demand on a farmer. That doesn’t mean anybody is better or worse, but it sure means things are very different.”

Walking Away 

On Aug. 13, 2024, Alex Harrell fired the soybean shot heard round the farm world with a bin-busting 218.28 bushels per acre, shattering his own world record of 206.79 bushels set in 2023. Back to back, he grew the highest yielding soybeans in history.

Harrell has a tight grasp on agronomics, crop management, and bottom-line financials. The extreme rub endured by growers over successive years is down to the bone, he warns.

“We can grow most any variety of crop in the world right here, but we’re at the point of seeing what happens when none of them will turn a profit due to the crazy input prices. We’ve now got guys with all their land and equity burned up, and we’re seeing Chapter 12 bankruptcies every day. Guys are quitting and walking away, and that eventually leads to land that doesn’t get picked up. That’s how terrible things have gotten, even if some people don’t see it yet. Cropland with no crop.”

This week kicked off with France and the UK agreeing to send troops to Ukraine once a ceasefire with Russia is reached, and there have been unconfirmed reports that Washington is planning to do the same – but President Trump has not at all formally signed off on this.

Of course, such a move would result in a firm ‘no’ from Moscow, which would simply see this as NATO forces operating and constituting a threat right on its border. The big Paris conference hosted by France’s President Macron on Tuesday featured the usual hawkish bluster out of European leaders, but Ukraine’s Zelensky – who was present – has complained in the aftermath that a finalized agreement on security guarantees remains ambiguous and not yet confirmed.

When asked about security guarantees from the West in the event of a future post-truce Russian attack, Zelensky said, “I am asking this very question to all our partners and I have not received a clear, unambiguous answer yet.”

Still, President Trump’s envoy Steve Witkoff has claimed that “significant progress” had been made on the issue. “We have made significant progress on several critical workstreams, including our bilateral security guarantee framework and a prosperity plan,” Witkoff stated on X immediately after the summit.

“We agree with the Coalition that durable security guarantees and robust prosperity commitments are essential to a lasting peace in the Ukraine and we will continue to work together on this effort.” And yet rhetoric and statements out of Washington on the issue have been kept intentionally vague.

Zelensky has been frustrated all along: he gets robust (verbal) commitments out of the Europeans, while simultaneously Washington drags its feet or even resists – from Zelensky’s perspective. It’s been an enduring back-and-forth, and plenty of bickering, among the Western allies – but nothing in the end gets signed.

And Trump himself is likely to balk at anything which can be seen as violating his frequent campaign promise of no American ‘boots on the ground’ in Ukraine.

But speaking of something much delayed, Trump has wanted to see Zelensky swiftly hold elections. According to the latest in Ukrainian media:

Ukraine’s working group on preparing elections during a special or post-war period met for the second time on Thursday, Jan. 8, with the Central Election Commission (CEC) having prepared its proposals in advance.

The issue of holding elections in Ukraine is included among the 20 points of a peace plan developed between Washington and Kyiv.

Earlier, Ukraine’s parliament approved the creation of a cross-party working group tasked with drafting a one-off law regulating elections under martial law, amid growing domestic and international debate over how democratic processes can be preserved during Russia’s war.

This too seems a recipe for some intentional feet-dragging, and all the while Zelensky himself has piled on ‘requirements’ – such as a short-term truce which would allow the vote to proceed.

But Russia would have to agree to this, and it has often resisted proposals of merely short-term ceasefires. It wants a permanent, lasting political resolution and brings the war to an end. Also important that if Zelensky continues to test Trump’s patience, he won’t be getting any sought-after ‘security guarantees’ at all.