The Trump administration has moved aggressively to shrink the federal government. One major target has been the United States Department of Agriculture. A recent report from the USDA Office of Inspector General reveals that more than 20,300 employees left the agency in the first five months of the presidency. This represents about one-fifth of the total workforce, which stood at over 110,300 at the start of the year. Most departures came through voluntary financial incentive programs designed to encourage resignations and early retirements.
While many agree that government bureaucracy can be excessive and in need of reform, the scale and speed of these reductions raise serious concerns. Critics argue that this approach resembles using a chainsaw rather than a scalpel on an agency critical to supporting American farmers, ranchers, and rural communities. Targeted efficiencies make sense, but broad, deep cuts risk undermining essential services that protect food production, manage natural resources, and respond to agricultural crises.
The impacts have already become evident across various USDA divisions. The Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service lost 25 percent of its staff, including experts tasked with inspecting imports and containing pests and diseases. This has raised alarms about vulnerabilities to threats like avian influenza and invasive pests such as the New World Screwworm. The Natural Resources Conservation Service saw 22 percent of its workforce depart, leading to expanded workloads for remaining employees who now handle more counties with fewer resources. Farmers report delays in technical assistance for soil conservation and livestock management.
The Farm Service Agency, which administers loans and safety net programs directly to producers, lost 24 percent of its personnel. Local offices have become understaffed, slowing processing times for disaster relief and farm payments. The Forest Service shed 16 percent of its employees, complicating wildfire management and forest health initiatives at a time when rural economies depend on these efforts. Research arms like the Agricultural Research Service and National Institute of Food and Agriculture experienced significant losses of scientists and administrators, potentially stalling innovations in crop yields, pest resistance, and sustainable practices.
Senator Amy Klobuchar, the top Democrat on the Senate Agriculture Committee, highlighted the risks. She stated that losing this much of USDA staff weakens the department’s ability to respond to challenges facing farmers, leaves food supply chains more vulnerable to threats, and undermines efforts to drive the rural economy forward.
Looking ahead, further changes loom. Plans include relocating thousands of Washington-area staff to regional hubs and consolidating offices, which could trigger additional resignations and loss of institutional knowledge. Stakeholders worry about reduced local expertise, longer wait times for program approvals, and diminished capacity to handle emerging issues that could disrupt American farms.
American agriculture thrives when supported by a capable federal partner. Streamlining operations to eliminate waste is worthwhile, but hollowing out the USDA threatens food security, farmer livelihoods, and rural vitality. A more measured strategy would preserve core functions while achieving efficiencies. Farmers deserve an agency equipped to help them succeed, not one struggling to keep up after massive upheaval.