Farmers depend on information from USDA. But what happens when the agency decides the public should only be informed on a need-to-know basis?
A more accurate description these days might be a “what-we-want-you-to-know” basis. Of course, that’s assuming USDA even knows what this administration wants anybody to know.
According to recent polling, farmers’ confidence in USDA data is falling. That’s no surprise given the market turmoil caused by its unexpected revisions to its January World Ag Supply and Demand Estimates report.
USDA Secretary Brooke Rollins recently announced a request for information to “help inform future efforts to deliver data that is useful to our customers.”
But what about information USDA should already have? Back in the early days of Trump 2.0, Elon Musk’s DOGE, for Department of Government Efficiency, had free rein to cut jobs. A year later, USDA’s employee numbers are down over 24,000. That number includes 34% at the National Agricultural Statistics Service and 29% at the Economic Research Service.
Where’s USDA’s analysis on the potential impact of those cuts?
Speaking of reports, in February 2024, the USDA Equity Commission released its findings, including more than 66 recommendations on how to advance equity across the agency. That report quietly disappeared from USDA’s website.
The current administration is under no obligation to follow those recommendations. But isn’t the public entitled to see the findings of a major public report their tax dollars funded? Apparently not.
Unfiltered information, big and small, is hard to come by these days.
No questions asked
In February, I attended USDA’s Ag Outlook Forum in Washington. One session was on combating New World screwworm.
The session did not disappoint. Five USDA experts delved into the data for nearly an hour. It was absolutely fascinating — yet another example of what great minds can do when given the proper resources.
After the session’s end, the panelists stuck around to chat. No less than 20 people approached the stage. One scientist agreed to answer a couple of my questions in a few minutes.
As I waited, a USDA staffer asked me if I was media. When I confirmed what was clearly stated on my badge, she said I wouldn’t be allowed to talk with the scientist. Assuming the speakers were pressed for time, I promised to limit myself to one question. The USDA “bouncer” said it didn’t matter.
As the panelists spoke with others all around me, I was told to go through “official channels.”
Now to be clear, no person is obligated to speak with me. When a person tells me they don’t want to talk, I accept it and move on. That’s their prerogative. But when the government forbids its own scientists from speaking without a government chaperone, that concerns me.
It should concern you, too.