Become a Member

Category: Education

Public Urged to Comment on Significant USDA Cuts by Sept. 30, 2025

Individuals interested in potentially losing government-provided financial aid amounting to $157.11 billion in 2025 for food, nutrition, and safety, as well as agriculture in general, should join in opposition to the reorganization attempts by Agriculture Secretary (USDA) Brooke Rollins.

Rollins, a Trump appointee and daughter of Helen Kerwin, a member of the Texas House of Representatives, announced plans to send 2,600 of her 4,000 (65%) of her Washington, DC staff to five regional hubs: Raleigh, NC; Kansas City, MO; Indianapolis, IN; Fort Collins, CO; and Salt Lake City, UT.

This relocation move follows the loss of at least 15,000 employees who have accepted Rollins’ “voluntary” resignation offers as she seeks to eliminate 30,000 (30%) of its workforce.[i]

In addition, last month, Rollins announced the elimination of a $360 million program, established during the Biden era, through the American Rescue Plan Act to bolster rural development and build stronger food supply networks in the wake of the COVID-19 pandemic. 

Rollins’ move to cut her Washington, DC staff by 65% masks the actual importance of those people.

Federal agencies place political appointees and hire civil service individuals in their Washington, DC staff for both political and professional reasons.

USDA Washington, DC personnel, both political and civil service, deal with several congressional committees when budgeting, planning, and programming, including House Agriculture, Supplemental Nutrition (SNAP), Livestock and Foreign Agriculture, Nutrition, Oversight and Department Operations, Forestry and Horticulture, Farm Bill Committee, General Farm Committee, and Risk Management and Conservation programs. Additionally, statistical information on farm and agricultural activities comes from the DC office.

Furthermore, political appointees, as expected, serve the whims of the party in power, whereas civil service individuals provide the long-term knowledge, skills, and abilities necessary to run an organization and, sometimes surreptitiously, provide Congress with organizational information that often corrects distorted or misinterpreted political presentations.

Through these collaborative efforts, in 2025, Congress obligated $192.71 billion to the USDA. Of that amount, Congress directed USDA to spend $157.11 billion (81.5% of the total) on private sector contractors (4.6%) and financial assistance (95.4%).

In simple terms, it’s civil service employees who determine the cost-effectiveness of obligation spending. At the same time, political appointees attempt to do the opposite, either by ending funding or diverting those dollars to special interest groups, without oversight.

In Nevada, USDA funds cover aerial photography, conservation programs, daily market prices, disaster assistance, farm loans, outreach and education, and price support for food banks, as well as SNAP.

Unfortualy, under Rollins, as of March 2025, USDA funding for programs supporting Nevada’s food banks, schools, and local businesses, such as the Home Feeds Nevada program and regional food business centers, has been significantly reduced or eliminated.

While some rural development grants continue, Rollins terminated significant funding for locally sourced food purchases, which impacts the state’s agricultural sector and food security efforts. 

According to Jeniffer Solis of Nevada Current, the USDA terminations amount to $3 million, and local small and mid-sized food and farm businesses ended three years ahead of schedule. 

For her part, Rollings, while serving as president and CEO of the Texas Public Policy Foundation, an Austin-based conservative think tank, advocated for the end of agriculture subsidies for farmers and opposed ethanol requirements for fuels.

Meanwhile, as agriculture trade groups sound alarms about price slumps for crops and worsening credit conditions, during Trump’s chaotic trade war, Rollins, in addressing the Northern AG Network in July, congratulated Trump on his trade policies, saying that “I believe with every fiber of my being that prosperity is around the corner because of Trump’s trade negotiations.“

As a reminder, it was Rollins who told reporters on July 8, 2025,  that Medicaid recipients could replace farm laborers.

Individuals can provide comments by emailing [email protected] and are also encouraged to contact their senators and representatives. The comment period is open through September 30, 2025.

[i] See: USDA workforce according to Politico.

Trumps Tarrif War reduces income

Donald Trump’s tariff rates, ranging from 10 to 41 percent on goods from more than 90 countries, took effect after midnight on Thursday.

His move to reignite his trade war, particularly against Canada, Mexico, and China, will result in a 2.7% reduction in income for the bottom 20% of earners, while the top 1% will lose 0.6%.

The Yale Budget Lab estimates that the overall price level resulting from all tariffs enacted in 2025 will lead to an average household income loss of $2,400 in 2025 dollars. Other analyses project even higher costs, with some estimating a $3,800 annual loss per household from consumer price increases tied to all 2025 tariffs.

While US tariff revenues have risen significantly, they still constitute a small portion of the federal budget deficit. The projected fiscal year 2025 federal budget deficit is $1.9 trillion. The increased tariff revenue, even with recent increases, amounts to roughly 7% of that figure. 

Such a minor increase in revenue puts to rest Trump‘s idea of entirely replacing the federal income tax with new tariffs.

To replace the roughly $2 trillion of revenue raised by the individual income tax with tariffs would require astronomically high tariff rates.

 Raising tariff rates to astronomically high levels would significantly depress imports, making it impossible to generate enough revenue to offset the costs of Trump’s tariff rates fully.

Trump’s attack on Iran, an Economic strategy (editorial)

 Trump’s attack on Iran’s nuclear facilities is part of his Economic strategy to make the rich richer at the cost of lives and economic sustainability for everyone else.

After Netanyahu dog-walked Trump into illegally dropping bombs on Iran’s nuclear facilities, we must dismiss his allegations of a total distribution of Iran’s atomic ability; he has delayed but accelerated their ability to make at least low-yield nuclear weapons.

While it is unlikely, but possible, that Trump has committed us to a full-out nuclear or conventional war, what he has essentially done is strengthen Russia and China’s ties to join with Iraq in taking economic actions against the US, in addition to supporting their proxies (primarily Shiite militants) in terrorist activities both abroad and on US soil, thus creating a need for more military-industrial complex spending.

Fighting terrorism is an economic gain for the military-industrial complex, and Trump spent over $22 billion on conflicts in the Middle East over the past year, including military aid to Israel and American operations in the region.

However, other Presidents have also contributed to the total cost of the US global war on terror, which stands at $8 trillion in taxpayer funding and 900,000 deaths.

Regardless, Trump’s 2026 federal budget proposes cuts to domestic programs and a 13% increase in military spending, including $127 billion for a virtually useless missile defense system (Golden Dome).

Both Israel and Iran have a range of missiles capable of reaching each other. However, the US stands uniquely apart from such a threat, unless, of course, Mexico and Canada perceive Trump as a military threat.

Even if such a threat exists, at best, a multi-layered missile defense system would have a 50% interception success rate, which could cost anywhere from $430 billion to $5.3 trillion, prompting experts to question whether the system is worth the cost.

And because of Trump’s antagonism and meritless Tariff actions against Western Allies, it is highly questionable whether NATO, under Article 5, would aid the US in combating terrorism, essentially arguing that the Article only applies to an armed attack, leaving the US to bear the problem alone.

All in all, US citizens can now look forward to massive defense spending, a lower gross national product, and higher death tolls for military members and citizens alike.