Subscribe to the new Harvest newsletter for our latest reporting on agriculture and the environment, behind-the-scenes exclusives, and more.
The Trump administration’s proposal for the 2027 fiscal year aims to eliminate $4.9 billion from the U.S. Department of Agriculture’s annual budget — a nearly 20% cut. In total, the department’s discretionary spending totals $20.8 billion for the fiscal year that starts Oct. 1.
The budget proposal refers to the USDA as a “bloated Washington, D.C. bureaucracy with multiple management layers and many extraneous programs that are irrelevant to supporting an America First agricultural policy.”
“The Budget eliminates programming that does not serve a core mission, such as radical transgender and Green New Scam ideologies, and brings the Agency’s resources closer to the rural Americans it serves,” it reads.
Seth Meyer, who served as the USDA’s chief economist until last year, said the proposal seems to signal the Trump administration’s priorities.
“What's been proposed is a pretty sizable cut, but I think that that's in line with the administration's stated reduction in government spending to some extent — or the reduction in certain government programs or deliveries,” said Meyer, who now directs the University of Missouri’s Food and Agricultural Policy Research Institute. “I don’t think it’s inconsistent with what the administration has said.”
The cuts in the requested budget include a $510 million reduction in funding to the National Institute of Food and Agriculture, which supports agricultural research and extension programs. It also cuts $659 million from a grant program designed to fund community facilities or services.
The proposed budget includes an additional $50 million to continue relocating USDA employees from Washington, D.C. to regional hubs scattered across the country, like the U.S. Forest Service.
Shrinking funding for rural programs
Despite the Trump administration's stated goal of bringing more resources to rural America, some experts worry the suggested budget cuts may have the opposite effect.
Kalee Olson, senior policy manager at the Center for Rural Affairs in Nebraska, said the budget wasn’t surprising given that last year’s proposal for USDA presented similar cuts.
“It is really disheartening to the center and, I think, a lot of the people we serve to see this kind of disinvestment in rural communities,” Olson said.
The small-town Nebraska nonprofit works with farmers and small businesses to build up rural America. For Olson, the suggested cut to zero out funding for the Rural Microentrepreneur Assistance Program serves as a good example. That program provides loans and technical assistance to rural businesses with fewer than 10 employees.
Olson said these small programs “have an outsized impact” on rural communities compared to their cost.
”In the grand scheme of things, they aren’t contributing a lot to the overall budget, but they’re being cut,” she said.
The Trump administration also suggested zeroing out the microentrepreneur program in its budget proposal last year, but Congress ended up setting aside $4 million to fund it for the current fiscal year. In previous years, it’s received as much as $6 million.
In its justification this year, USDA wrote the program is similar to others offered by similar agencies, like the Small Business Administration.
But accessing credit for these types of small businesses can already be difficult for rural America, Olson said.
No new funding is requested for another program, known as Conservation Technical Assistance, that’s designed to help farmers implement plans for practices like cover crops, no till or prescribed grazing. Last year, USDA set aside more than $732 million for the Natural Resources Conservation Service program.
“That line item out is really concerning to us, especially during a time when we're seeing historically low levels of staffing within our NRCS offices due to layoffs and deferred resignations last year,” Olson said.
Harvest Public Media reached out to the USDA for comment on the suggested budget cuts but did not receive a response.
Scaling back support for school lunches
The Trump administration rolled out new dietary guidelines earlier this year that, among other things, discourage consuming highly processed foods. Secretary of Health and Human Services Robert F. Kennedy Jr. has also visited schools to help promote scratch-cooked meals, made with whole ingredients, as part of a push to make school lunches healthier.
While those who plan school lunches can support serving less processed foods, the proposed budget may make that effort more difficult, said Kaitlin Tauriainen.
Tauriainen serves as the child nutrition coordinator for the Ashwaubenon School District in suburban Green Bay, Wisconsin and was previously the president of the Wisconsin School Nutrition Association.
The proposed USDA budget does not include any funding for School Meal Equipment grants, which can be used by school districts to buy ovens, dishwashers or ventilation systems.
“The reality of the situation is that those fresh, whole foods end up costing more,” Tauriainen said. “In order for us to do more scratch cooking, a lot of our schools are going to need a lot more equipment.”
The $10 million budget item for Farm to School Grants will also be cut in half to $5 million under the proposal. That program allows districts like Tauriainen’s to purchase meat from local farmers and processors to make lunches, like tacos or spaghetti.
“The difference in taste for our students is, gosh, I don't even know how to describe it,” Tauriainen said. “It's just such a better product for our kids.”
The budget also cuts $1 million to the Institute of Child Nutrition at the University of Mississippi, which, among other things, helps train school cooks on scratch cooking.
All in all, schools get about $4.70 per lunch for students eligible for free meals from the federal government that’s governed outside of the budget. Only about $2 of those dollars are spent on lunch, and losing other funding would present another challenge when food costs are rising, Tauriainen said.
“It's continuing to get harder and harder,” she said. “If you're not setting us up for success, then it's hard to ask us to do all these different things.”
While Tauriainen said she’s hopeful proposals from the Senate and House will look different, Olson with the Center for Rural Affairs said the suggested cuts shouldn’t be taken lightly.
“Because it still stands for what our administration thinks of the programming and the people that the programming was set up to serve,” she said.
Ultimately, Congress has the power of the purse, and both the Senate and House need to present their own proposals, even if they may not get one passed by Oct. 1, said Meyer, the former USDA economist.
“Those things may be very similar in certain areas, and they can be very divergent in other areas between the President's budget and what will ultimately be passed on the hill,” Meyer said.
This story was produced in partnership with Harvest Public Media, a collaboration of public media newsrooms in the Midwest and Great Plains. It reports on food systems, agriculture and rural issues.
