特朗普政府否决提名女性大豆 board 成员，转而任命男性

Trump administration rejects women picked for soybean board, appoints men instead

2026-04-29 10:13:29 UTC / Reuters

By Karl Plume

April 29, 2026 10:13 AM UTC Updated 1 hour ago

节点运行失败

Item 1 of 5 Farmer Susan Watkins, who was among the four women whose reappointments to the United Soybean Board were rejected by the U.S. Department of Agriculture, checks seed depth and moisture as her son Cody Watkins plants soybeans in Sutherland, Virginia, U.S, April 22, 2026. REUTERS/Evelyn Hockstein

[1/5]Farmer Susan Watkins, who was among the four women whose reappointments to the United Soybean Board were rejected by the U.S. Department of Agriculture, checks seed depth and moisture as her son Cody Watkins plants soybeans in Sutherland, Virginia, U.S, April 22, 2026. REUTERS/Evelyn Hockstein

• Summary

• USDA usually approves top candidates picked by peers in states
• Move reduces female leadership on soy board to lowest in a decade
• Women farmers express concern over gender bias in appointments

CHICAGO, April 29 (Reuters) – The Trump administration rejected all four women farmers chosen by their peers to represent them in an industry group called the United Soybean Board earlier this year, a rare intervention by the U.S. Department of Agriculture that three of the women suspected was because of their gender.

From the Pentagon to the U.S. Department of Education, the ​Trump administration has vowed to root out policies that promote diversity, equity and inclusion, or DEI, from every layer of government.

The Reuters Iran Briefing newsletter keeps you informed with the latest developments and analysis of the Iran war. Sign up here.

Advertisement · Scroll to continue

Normally, soy farmers pick their representatives and the USDA signs off. This time, the USDA rejected at ‌least five of the farmers selected for the United Soybean Board, including four women. It did not give any reason, according to three of the women.

Sara Stelter, a Wisconsin farmer stripped of her role on the soy board, saw the decision as part of Trump’s broader policy.

“It seems like a small thing,” Stelter said, “but in other ways, it’s really a big deal because it’s just another thing of where the current administration views women, I believe, and what their role should be.”

Reuters could not determine the reason for USDA’s rejection of the five candidates for the soy board. The USDA and the United Soybean Board did not respond ​to detailed questions from Reuters about the rejections, saying only that the agriculture secretary selects board members from candidates put forward by state boards. The White House did not fulfill a public information request seeking any correspondence on the matter, citing ​a backlog of requests, and a spokesperson declined to comment, referring Reuters to the USDA.

Advertisement · Scroll to continue

The administration has in the past year revoked equal pay initiatives enacted by the Biden administration and rolled back programs ⁠across the federal government that aimed to correct past inequities impacting women and minority groups. The White House argues that such programs are illegal under laws against race and gender discrimination, and work against merit-based advancement.

Shaun Harper, a University of Southern California professor whose research ​focuses on equity in business, education and policymaking, said the intervention on the soy board showed the administration’s approach to diversity went beyond specific DEI programs and was affecting the federal approach to boards that work within particular industries.

Groups like the United Soybean Board, he said, “are ​casualties of a blanket implementation of anti-DEI policies and practices in the federal government.”

The USDA’s actions reduced the number of women on the 77-member board to five, the lowest level in at least a decade. Women make up more than a third of U.S. farmers but have historically held a smaller share of leadership roles in commodity groups.

APPROVAL FOR NON-POLITICAL BOARD SEATS WAS USUALLY A FORMALITY

The Trump administration rejected five of the candidates vying for United Soybean Board director seats, some of whom the board had already appointed to an executive committee and roles overseeing the organization’s $121 million budget and communications, current and former board ​directors said. Among 40 new and reappointed directors, none were women.

Susan Watkins, a soybean farmer in Virginia whom the USDA rejected, said she was stunned by the decision.

“We should be judged on our merit,” she said. “It’s very disheartening.”

After she lost her seat, Michigan farmer Carla Schultz ​said she was worried that the remaining five women who had earned their board positions could face the same fate when they are up for reappointment. South Dakota’s Dawn Scheier, also ousted by the USDA, did not respond to requests for comment.

The decision marked a departure from how the ‌soybean board has long ⁠operated, according to current and former directors and one former agriculture secretary, who said federal government approval of state-selected nominees has historically been little more than a formality, regardless of which party controlled the White House.

While the USDA targeted farm programs that mentioned diversity in grant applications for funding cuts last year, the soybean board has no specific DEI policy, and is prohibited by federal law from using its funds to influence legislation.

Farmer-led soybean groups in 29 states and two multi-state regions nominate candidates to serve on the board, which directs how to spend checkoff dollars, mandatory assessments on farmers collected from nearly every bushel of soybeans sold.

Some members nominated late last year learned that their appointments had been rejected by the USDA only in February, after the new board’s first meeting.

Watkins, who had served on the board for six years, ​had been selected in December to serve as treasurer overseeing the ​board’s 2026 budget, but was now out.

A conservative who said ⁠she supported Trump, Watkins scoured social media for an explanation for her dismissal. She wondered if a photo taken in 2023 of her with Glenn Youngkin, the former Republican governor of Virginia, had been the problem. Youngkin, a Trump ally, had been criticized by the president after Republicans had underperformed during the 2022 midterm elections.

“I was on the path to become chair within several years, and that was taken ​away from me,” Watkins said.

Tom Vilsack, agriculture secretary under Barack Obama and Joe Biden, said the White House was never involved in nominations during his 12-year tenure. He said he had urged ​state groups to nominate more women and ⁠minorities amid a diversity push by the Democratic administrations, and some states complied. But he could not recall a time when the USDA under his leadership had rejected states’ nominees.

“I don’t know that it happened, but if it did, it was very rare,” he said.

Trump’s first-term agriculture secretary Sonny Perdue declined to comment. Current and former United Soybean Board directors told Reuters that under Perdue, the USDA did not intervene with states’ choices. Five state soybean boards told Reuters that the USDA almost always appointed states’ primary choices.

The Virginia Soybean Board appealed the USDA’s decision. Last month, Sarah ⁠Aswegan, a regulatory ​oversight specialist with USDA’s Agricultural Marketing Service, said the department’s decision to reject Watkins was final, though a letter of recommendation from a sitting member of Congress ​might help if she wanted to try standing again next year, according to meeting notes shared with Reuters. Political backing for a seat on the non-political soybean board is unprecedented, said Virginia Soybean Board Chairman Lynn Gayle.

Gayle, who said he listed himself as an alternative to Watkins only to fill in the blank on the application’s ​form, was tapped by the USDA after Watkins was rejected. Gayle informed the USDA that he had no ability to sit on the board, which left Virginia with only one of two board seats filled.

Reporting by Karl Plume in Chicago. Editing by Emily Schmall and Claudia Parsons

Our Standards: The Thomson Reuters Trust Principles.