The USDA in its current form is “bloated,” a budget document says
The United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) could see its funding reduced moving forward.
President Trump’s fiscal year 2027 budget proposal calls for $20.8 billion in discretionary spending for the USDA.
This would represent a $4.9 billion, or 19 percent decrease from 2026.
The USDA in its current form “is 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 92-page document says.
The spending reductions would be felt in multiple areas.
The National Institute of Food and Agriculture Formula Grants, for example, will have $510 million fewer dollars to allocate for initiatives described as “university pet projects.”
These ideas include clothing needs of transgender people and expanding green infrastructure as a response to climate change.
Instead, the Trump administration would award these grants competitively “to projects in the national interest, as opposed to the woke radical left projects these grants previously funded.”
The Rural Business Service would see an $82 million reduction.
Part of the Small Business Administration’s mandate includes supporting rural America, making some RBS work redundant, the budget proposal says.
In addition, RBS grants funded activities the administration deemed wasteful, like promoting the consumption of sugary drinks, which goes against the Make America Health Again initiative.
The Agricultural Marketing Service would have its discretionary budget reduced by $61 million.
Grants through the AMS funded projects like a gelato festival in Los Angeles, and the Dairy Discovery 5K and Fun Run at Willow Bend Farm in Shortsville, N.Y.
Supporting those activities isn’t a good use of taxpayer dollars, the budget document says.
“Industry can fund their own marketing efforts without deepening the Federal deficit.”
The McGovern-Dole Food for Education Program (MDFEP) would also receive the axe, saving the U.S. government about $240 million.
The foreign aid program is inefficient.
“Food often takes months to arrive at intended destinations and does so at an extremely high cost. The program also can disrupt local and regional markets when in reality, the aid could often be purchased for less in these markets,” the budget proposal says.
And there would be a $659 million reduction in Community Facilities Grant Earmarks.
These grants typically helped rural communities make important investments in things like ambulances or fire stations.
But in 2022, the Trump administration says, Congress provided funding for non-essential grants, turning the program “into a pork-barrel spending program for wasteful earmarks to areas that are arguably the least in need.”
Examples of this identified in the budget proposal include $1.6 million to renovate a theatre in Waterford, Conn., and $3 million for a playground, equipment, and other items in California.
Another USDA program slated to be cut is Food for Peace.
If approved, the U.S. government would save $1.2 billion.
The foreign aid program helps ship food around the world.
But food takes too long to arrive, and funding has been used for initiatives not related to food procurement.
“A Congressional Research Service report found that U.S. food aid deliveries to Sub-Saharan Africa took 147 days on average, compared to less than 45 days for locally and regionally procured food,” the budget document says.
And examples of wasteful spending include paying for multiple climate and gender initiatives.