Trump and the Federal Bureaucracy: Lessons From the Destruction of USDA Agencies

Part 1: The Center of Agricultural Research and Policy

Five years ago, President Donald Trump's budget director executed a plan to "drain the swamp" by targeting two relatively obscure research agencies within the Department of Agriculture (USDA).

Mick Mulvaney claimed it was nearly impossible to fire federal workers, but the USDA had defied the odds by ordering the relocation of hundreds of employees to Kansas City. As a result, approximately 75% of affected employees chose to resign, leaving agencies such as the Economic Research Service (ERS) and the National Institute for Food and Agriculture (NIFA) severely understaffed.

Part 2: The Unintended Consequences

According to former and current employees, the mass departure of agricultural experts had a significant impact on public research and highlighted the vulnerability of federal agencies under Trump's administration. Staffing issues and the loss of institutional knowledge hindered the production of important research and delayed grant approvals.

In 2023, with Donald Trump once again at the helm, similar concerns have been raised about agency relocations and the departure of experienced government workers.

Part 3: A Pattern of Bureaucratic Disruption

For years, Trump and his associates, including Russ Vought and Elon Musk, have advocated for the relocation of federal agencies outside of Washington, D.C., to "curtail administrative overgrowth." The Trump administration attempted to move the Bureau of Land Management to Colorado, though the Biden administration reversed the decision.

The USDA relocations, Project 2025 recommendations, and recent reports about potential EPA headquarters relocation suggest that Trump's agenda includes dismantling agencies like ERS and NIFA at other departments.

Part 4: The Erosion of Independent Research

The loss of experienced researchers from ERS and NIFA raised concerns about the availability of unbiased information available to the public. With less research available, industry groups and partisan actors may fill the void with biased or limited information.

The destruction of these agencies could have long-term consequences for agricultural policy and research, reducing transparency and opening the door to special interests.