Abby Swan of Westfield and two fellow dairy producers forced a federal course correction. The dairy checkoff program can no longer bankroll net-zero and climate change programs — but processor “voluntary” mandates remain in place for now.
Three months after the Heartland Post documented how Abby Swan and Wisconsin dairy farmers were being squeezed by an expanding demand for environmental data through the mandatory Dairy Checkoff program, Wisconsin dairy farmers have scored a significant victory in federal court on Thursday, Sept 17.
The Wisconsin Institute for Law & Liberty (WILL) announced Thursday that the U.S. Department of Agriculture intends to prohibit mandatory Dairy Checkoff assessment funds from being used for Environmental, Social and Governance (ESG) initiatives, including net-zero and climate-neutrality programs. The The changes could potentially impact over 20,000 dairy farms.
The federal lawsuit Swan v. Rollins was filed by WILL on June 9, 2026, in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Wisconsin, and argued for the plaintiffs — Wisconsin dairy farmers Abby Swan of Westfield, Adam Faust of Chilton and Christopher Baird of Ferryville.
The farmers sued Agriculture Secretary Brooke Rollins and the National Dairy Promotion and Research Board, arguing that mandatory checkoff dollars were being used to support anti-dairy organizations and initiatives beyond the purposes authorized by Congress.
According to WILL, Wisconsin dairy farmers are forced to subsidize a burdensome federal program that leads to the demise of small farms under the guise of environmental “sustainability.” Not only is this compelled subsidy Orwellian, but it also violates the First Amendment to the United States Constitution and the Administrative Procedure Act.
According to a consent motion filed in the case, the federal government confirmed that USDA “intends to direct the National Dairy Promotion and Research Board that assessment funds may no longer be spent on Environmental, Social, and Governance (ESG) frameworks, net-zero, or climate-neutrality initiatives.”
It is a major development in the case, however the lawsuit has not been dismissed. Instead, the parties have agreed to stay the case while the USDA works to finalize and implement the change.
Hours later, Swan posted a thank-you to Secretary Rollins for agreeing “ESG has no place in the dairy checkoff,” then asked whether USDA will dissolve the Innovation Center and remove the CEO and Board of Directors of the Dairy Management Inc. (DMI) who backed that agenda.
The Dairy Research and Promotion Program, commonly known as the “Dairy Checkoff,” was established under the Dairy Production Stabilization Act of 1983. USDA says dairy farmers currently pay an assessment of 15 cents per hundredweight of milk produced (dairy is sold by the hundred weight or 100lbs/11.6 gallons instead of individual gallons). Those funds are purportedly to be used for dairy product promotion, research and nutrition education. The program became famous through campaigns such as “Got Milk?” and has long been presented as a way for dairy producers to collectively promote their products and build consumer demand.
WILL argued that the checkoff was being used to subsidize private speech and programs that went beyond the authority Congress granted through the Dairy Act. The organization also argued that the use of the funds violate the First Amendment and Administrative Procedure Act.
The lawsuit did not seek to eliminate the checkoff itself, Instead, Swan, Faust and Baird argued the program was an improper use of money. USDA agreed, stating the checkoff-funded projects should focus on creating long-term value for dairy producers by opening markets, increasing demand and promoting dairy products.
Abby Swan works on her family’s approximately 800-cow dairy farm, where roughly 320 cows are currently milked. Before becoming a full-time dairy farmer, Swan spent more than two decades working in the medical field, including as an emergency department registered nurse. Her concerns reflect a larger frustration among farmers who say the cost of producing food has continued to rise while additional regulatory burdens have been layered onto an already complicated business
“Until WILL stepped in, dairy farmers were being forced to subsidize private organizations pushing climate change research and costly mandates for family farms,” Swan said following the government’s agreement. “Middle America has had enough. We are fighting back to end ridiculous practices like these once and for all.”
For now, the lawsuit remains open. WILL and the USDA have agreed to stay the case while the USDA finalizes the changes. The court is proposing to file joint status reports with the court every 30 days, giving the farmers and their attorneys an opportunity to monitor whether the promised changes are actually carried out. If the government does not follow through, the litigation could resume.
WILL Deputy Counsel Rebecca Furdek, who represents the farmers alongside Daniel Lennington, characterized the development as a rejection of federal officials using farmers’ mandatory financial contributions to advance an ideological agenda. Whether that change ultimately becomes permanent will depend on what USDA puts into practice and what happens as the case moves forward.
For now, dairy farmers can celebrate an important victory and a massive federal course correction. The Heartland Post will continue to follow this case.
