FFA members and advisors deserve better from National FFA CEO Scott Stump than what they are getting. They deserve a fair and accurate account of what is happening with so-called Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion (DEI or EDI) initiatives in the FFA.
That’s what Congressmen Jason Smith, Tracey Mann, and David Schweikert asked for as well but have not yet received.
Congress deserves better too. They deserve the unspun truth.
On February 3, 2026, Chairman Jason Smith, Rep. Tracey Mann, and Chairman David Schweikert sent Scott Stump a formal letter raising concerns about National FFA’s relationship with Syngenta, its DEI policies, and whether the organization was drifting from its core educational mission.
They asked for documents about Syngenta agreements, Syngenta personnel in leadership roles, DEI recommendations, and related funding.
Stump’s response was meant to calm Congress down. Instead, it reads like an effort to rewrite the record. He tells Congress that FFA is focused on mission, that sponsors do not control policy, that earlier EDI efforts were never really implemented, and that the organization’s later actions were a necessary response to events at the 2021 National FFA Convention.
That last point is where this gets especially troubling.
In his reply, Stump says FFA experienced “racial and behavioral incidents, including on-stage actions,” at the 2021 convention, that the reaction was “vocal and pronounced,” and that National FFA therefore needed to respond “promptly and in a meaningful way.” He then uses that episode to help explain sponsor involvement, outside advisory help, and the policy direction that followed.
But in reality, the two “on-stage actions” invoked from that convention were hand gestures similar to “OK,” displayed to simply celebrate member accomplishments. Both on-stage actions, involving then FFA members from Texas and Tennessee were investigated, the members were cleared of wrongdoing, and no punitive actions were taken. In other words, it was not an open wound. It was addressed and dispelled.
So why revive it in an official response letter to Congress in 2026?
Because they help Stump justify everything that came next: the Syngenta-backed executive-in-residence, expanded radical DEI work, and the broader policy agenda that followed. That is what makes this feel less like a neutral explanation and more like propaganda using old, debunked allegations to protect himself.
And the rest of the response follows the same pattern.
Stump tells Congress that federal education dollars do not flow to or fund National FFA. Yet National FFA’s own website guidance to advisors says Perkins funds can, in many states, be used for affiliation fees. He says sponsors do not direct FFA, yet his own letter describes sponsors pressing for action, offering staff support, and helping place Brandon Bell in a Syngenta-funded advisory role on EDI strategy. He says the 2020 EDI Roadmap was never implemented, yet prior statements from former CEO Mark Poeschel describing the roadmap as something FFA would work diligently to carry out.
The context matters here. Congress sent a serious oversight letter questioning Syngenta’s role, DEI policy direction, and whether National FFA was staying true to its mission. Stump’s answer should have been direct and candid. Instead, he appears to have answered by softening leadership’s role, glossing over contradictions, and placing certain debunked accusations on the backs of members . It’s disturbing Stump was willing tarnish the good names of members to justify his past actions that are now under scrutiny.