The Rural Energy for America Program primarily benefits Republican congressional districts

The majority of the program’s grants have been under $50,000, highlighting its effectiveness in right-sizing investments to match the needs of rural businesses and farmers. This is because rural applicants can often find federal programs challenging to navigate and often have difficulty getting smaller loans from traditional financing offered by large banks and corporate institutions.

In fact, 52.8% of REAP’s grants have been between $10,000-$50,000 since its inception. At the same time, fewer than 20% of REAP’s grants account for 70% of its total spending, or just under $1.5 billion, demonstrating the flexibility of the program to match the wide range of enterprises and opportunities across rural America.

Where do REAP’s grants go?

Over two-thirds of REAP’s grants have gone to districts currently represented by Republicans. The districts receiving the highest total funding are largely clustered in the Midwest, where the majority of projects are also located.

Twenty congressional districts account for $562 million, or more than a quarter of all REAP grant obligations. Eighteen out of the 20 districts currently have Republican representatives, including the top five recipients.

An analysis of REAP obligations between 2016–2024 shows that the distribution of grants primarily to Republican-controlled congressional districts has been consistent across the last two presidential administrations: 64.9% during the first Trump administration and 66.7% during the Biden administration.⁴ This pattern likely reflects the geographic location and rural focus of REAP recipients more than any deliberate political preference. It also highlights that the increase in REAP funding through the IRA during the Biden administration’s oversight of the program continued to align with the needs and opportunities in right-leaning communities.

The average size and number of REAP grants increased sharply after the IRA supplemental appropriation in fiscal year 2023. During the first Trump administration, the average grant amount was $31,641, while during the Biden administration, this average increased to $138,506—with more than 11,500 grants approved—an increase of more than 150% of the number of grants distributed during the Trump years. Not only does this indicate the significant appetite for investment among farmers and rural businesses, but the increased size of the current contracts under review potentially represents high levels of risk and liability for the recipients.

What is the current status of REAP funding?

Based on President Trump’s executive order, projects funded by the IRA appropriation have been frozen. This freeze includes $911 million in remaining REAP grant obligations—roughly 75% of all REAP IRA funding—affecting more than 4,800 recipients, with the majority in Republican congressional districts. If recipients choose to resubmit program plans, as offered by Secretary Rollins—submissions are voluntary—they must do so by April 24.

Conclusion

As the administration receives the revised program plans from REAP recipients, these considerations deserve attention:

• REAP long predates the IRA. Authorized in 2008, REAP distributed millions of dollars before receiving additional funding from the IRA. Its objectives and design were not set in the IRA.
• REAP has been effective in reaching a diversity of places and enterprises across rural America. The size and flexibility of its grants and its emphasis on lowering costs and increasing the dependability of energy have been well-received by farmers and small rural businesses. Its wide geographic breadth and large number of supported projects attest to its popularity.
• A significant majority of REAP grants land in Republican congressional districts. REAP has enjoyed bipartisan support throughout its lifetime, and the locations it serves suggest that it aligns well with policy priorities that cross political lines. The IRA appropriations did not change its political distribution. Yet the increase in grant size suggests that the levels of risk and liability incurred by recipients of the grants under review may be more substantial than in the past.

This analysis suggests that REAP is a good example of a federal program meeting the needs of a wide variety of rural places. It suggests that REAP’s rural design is authentic—the distribution of its grants demonstrates that the federal government can be effective in making its investments accessible to rural places when a program is designed specifically to meet rural needs and opportunities. REAP would benefit from additional analysis that that measures its return on investment, which—given the wide array of types of recipients and their geographic distribution—could be substantial. This could strengthen the impetus for ensuring its continuity through sustained appropriations in the Farm Bill. Losing or significantly altering REAP could disrupt established economic gains and energy savings, ultimately harming rural economic development and energy security.