Their anger is justified. Farmers continue to face unprecedented challenges as they struggle to earn a living.
For many, the idea of doing something — anything — different is preferable to the current situation. Love him or hate him, President Donald Trump is definitely not the status quo. But now that his administration has unveiled its plans to reorganize USDA, it’s time to consider if big changes mean good changes.
The USDA reorganization plan that Agriculture Secretary Brooke Rollins announced late this summer would move more than half of the agency’s Washington workforce to regional hubs. Multiple agency operations also would be consolidated.
Rollins said the reorganization plan will reduce costs and bring USDA officials closer to the heartland. According to Stephen Vaden, deputy ag secretary, the reorganization plan will save USDA a minimum of $4 billion.
How will cuts help farmers?
If the administration is to be believed, its plan cuts excess spending and makes USDA more efficient. Still, how will these changes impact farmers? What analysis was done in that regard?
Imagination is required to answer that question because the reorganization plan was drafted in virtual secrecy. Congress, farmers and ag stakeholders were completely excluded from those discussions.
Implementing a plan of this scope without input is extremely unusual, said Robert Bonnie, former USDA undersecretary of agriculture for farm production and conservation. During his time at USDA, changes were only implemented after extensive collaboration with Capitol Hill and farm groups. The heads of any USDA agencies affected were also consulted before even modest changes were implemented.
“It’s not clear to me that they [Trump administration officials] have actually consulted the agencies on this,” Bonnie said. “That’s hugely problematic because those are your professionals. They want their agencies to succeed, and this [reorganization] appears to have been written in a black box.”
During his July 30 testimony before the Senate Agriculture Committee, Vaden said the plan was formulated in relative secrecy out of respect for USDA workers.
“Out of common courtesy and respect, they should hear that decision from the secretary first, and not from a leak that originates from somewhere else,” he said.
While Vaden’s sentiment toward employees may be admirable, it doesn’t answer the question of how USDA determined employees should be relocated in the first place.
As multiple Democrats have pointed out, the first Trump administration relocated officials from USDA’s Economic Research Service and National Institute of Food and Agriculture away from Washington. According to a 2022 Government Accountability Office analysis, about 75% of employees left USDA instead of moving to the Kansas City, Mo., area. Following the move, ERS produced fewer reports and NIFA took much longer to process grants.
Can farmers expect a similar decline in service if the Trump reorganization plan goes through?
Perhaps, as Rollins said, the changes will “refocus” USDA’s core operations to “better align with its founding mission of supporting American farming, ranching and forestry.”
Still, the fact that farmers and agriculture advocates were shut out of the decision-making process is concerning. And that’s an understatement.