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.
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.
