Other Ag News:
“Farmers have waited far too long for a new farm bill while dealing with rising input costs, market volatility, and shrinking margins,” said Darin Von Ruden, a Wisconsin farmer and president of the state’s Farmers Union chapter. Farmers across the country agree and have been clear with Congress: they need a new farm bill that provides investments and policy solutions that will meaningfully improve not only the immediate crises farmers are facing, but also the long-term resilience and viability of their farms. As the House recently passed its Farm, Food, and National Security Act of 2026 and attention turns to the Senate, this blog post uplifts farmers’ perspectives on how the House bill falls short of what they really need to see from a new farm bill, and what changes are urgently needed in the Senate and any final version. Grounded in comments from small, mid-sized, and diversified producers, these stories reveal what’s at stake for conservation, local and regional food systems, the farm safety net, and the basic capacity of the US Department of Agriculture (USDA) to serve the people who grow our food.
The National Sustainable Agriculture Coalition (NSAC) opposed the House farm bill as it offered only scattered policy improvements without the resources to fuel them. Members of Congress who voted for the bill were quick to point to support from farmers, making the same mistake previous farm bills have made: monolithing farmers and suggesting status quo ‘one-size-fits-all’ policy approaches will benefit all farmers. As focus shifts to the Senate Agriculture Committee, it is important to uplift the perspectives of farmers who believe the House farm bill does not fully address their needs. Right now, Congress is at a crossroads – they could take the quickest possible path, keep things ‘business as usual’ and pass a farm bill filled with short-term bandaids, or they can work towards a pragmatic, comprehensive, and fair farm bill that fosters food system resiliency, improves farmers’ livelihoods, and sets up the next generation of American farmers to thrive.
Farmers Want a Better Farm BillWhile the general public may not closely track the farm bill, farmers with operations of all shapes and sizes certainly do. After the House passed its farm bill proposal, NSAC surveyed its member organizations to hear farmers’ opinions, with responses ranging from small urban growers to large row crop operations. While perspectives differ based on growing practices, experience with federal programs, and geography, a common thread was the persistent challenge of accessing federal programs that would improve operations and overall viability, exacerbated by limited conservation program funding, understaffing at USDA agencies responsible for program outreach and implementation, or the outright termination of popular, effective programs.
USDA Photo by Bob NicholsAs the Senate prepares to move forward with its farm bill proposal, these farmers’ stories should be heard, considered, and addressed. The farmers who agreed to provide stories had the choice to be named and quoted in this blog post or to contribute anonymously. Quotes from farmers who chose to remain anonymous are attributed only by geography.
A Farm Bill that Leaves Many Farmers BehindBelow are some of the most salient points farmers shared with us about the inadequacies of the House’s farm bill. Commentary is organized around four key areas: threats to climate and conservation efforts, local and regional food systems, a fair farm safety net, and USDA’s ability to effectively fulfill its mission of serving American farmers and the public.
Climate and Conservation
While there were some bright spots in the Conservation title of the House farm bill, farmers were quick to point to an overall lack of new investments needed to address high demand for conservation. Farmers in Iowa and Illinois cited reduced funds for Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) programs like the Environmental Quality Incentives Program (EQIP) and the Conservation Stewardship Program (CSP). One farmer specifically emphasized that these programs are in high demand because they are so accessible and beneficial for small acreage and urban farmers.
Patrick Brown of Brown Family Farms in North Carolina says it’s in his blood to farm. His grain operation was established in 1865; for generations, his family has weathered storms and taken advantage of opportunities like EQIP to sustain their business. He spoke of the increased competition for these cost-share programs that are likely to occur with less funding available, saying: “up to $600 million has been completely cut from EQIP… making the pot of money that you compete for in the program smaller.” He added that, as currently structured in the House farm bill, it carves out $100 million per year from CSP for state soil health programs. Instead, he suggests soil health programs should be funded through different programs like RCPP, “so that the CSP funding pie does not get smaller for producers like [us],” he said.
Farmers adopting conservation practices that protect the soil, water, and air – by extension improving their neighboring communities’ health and wellbeing – should be supported in their efforts. Instead, the bill siphons off resources from the nation’s most popular conservation programs, increasing competition for limited funding. Coupled with the unresolved staffing crisis at NRCS and USDA as a whole, this is a recipe for reduced access and degraded customer service for all farmers, particularly small farms. Any farm bill that passes this year must both preserve and increase resources for conservation programs and ensure robust staffing levels for NRCS.
Local Food Systems
In Ohio, a producer at an organic mill and processing facility, who asked to remain anonymous, expressed disappointment at the lack of investment in local food systems. Speaking of the Local Food Purchasing Assistance Program (LFPA, which was terminated last year under the rubric that it didn’t align with the current Administration’s priorities), the producer lamented that the program’s innovation and hard-won progress was ignored. “For the two years that the program ran, we were able to purchase over a half million pounds of black beans from our region’s farmers and send those to all 12 Ohio food banks,” pointing to a first-time budget for food banks that had been created for the program. “When the billion-dollar program was terminated without notice, I assumed that it would be packaged and added to the farm bill.” As they later elaborated, the termination of LFPA pushed their mill into the red, an impact that was likely reproduced across the state as many farmers rely on the program to access local markets.
Another farmer in Pennsylvania added that there were not enough funds allocated for SNAP, SNAP-Ed, which saw its funding slashed by last year’s reconciliation bill, or for local food purchasing. When most think of the threats to SNAP, many think of small children, the elderly, and those most vulnerable in our society. Notably absent from these conversations are how farmers and their bottom lines will be impacted. Both SNAP and SNAP-Ed have been demonstrated to be spurs of economic activity, with every dollar spent on SNAP reportedly generating $1.50 in economic activity.
An Illinois farmer noted that the loss in funds for SNAP in the farm bill signaled a massive failure for those accessing locally grown produce. For his part, Brown, in North Carolina, shifted his focus out. “Overall the bill does not include nearly enough of the priorities that regional food systems and small and mid-size farmers need,” shared Brown. In March, NSAC argued that disproportionately investing along the food supply chains could lead to supply without adequate markets available for producers, a point farmers we spoke to inherently understood.
Investing in programs that allow farmers to gain access to a stable local market and meat processing facilities closer to home, while making food more accessible to millions of people who struggle to put food on the table, is a simple way a farm bill can invest in strengthening local and regional food systems and economies while actively creating jobs in rural communities. The House farm bill fell short of the mark in investing in such programs. While it did allow for the creation of a program that would replace LFPA, for example, it did not include funding for that program.
Faithfull Farms, North CaroliaSafety Net for Small and Beginning Farmers
Rising production costs, low crop prices, and unpredictable market conditions are threatening farmer livelihoods. The current economic environment replicates the conditions preceding the 1980s farm crisis, during which farmers were pushed off their land, farm consolidation skyrocketed, and rural communities collapsed, many never to recover. This catastrophic precedent illustrates the critical role the farm safety net plays in maintaining farm viability under the present circumstances.
The farm safety net provides support through disaster assistance, farm credit, and crop insurance. The current construction of the farm safety net typically tends to function well for most large commodity operations; however, most small, beginning, and diversified farmers report that these systems don’t benefit their operations. As stated by two farmers from Illinois, the farm safety net doesn’t work for them because it is “hard to access for small diversified farm systems.”
The impacts of an insufficient farm safety net are severe. Without strong support, a large percentage of small, mid-sized, diversified, and beginning farms may be forced into foreclosure, leading to scarcity of local fruits and vegetables, and an increase in expensive imported produce. As demonstrated during the 1980s farm crisis, policy decisions that leave out wide swaths of farmers can decimate rural communities and squander their trust. A chain is only as strong as its weakest link, which means the Senate has an opportunity to avert a second farm crisis by supporting the farms that are most vulnerable to external factors through this farm bill.
Understaffing and Access
In 2025, 20 % of USDA staff left the agency either because they were abruptly laid off through Reduction in Force or through the Deferred Resignation Program in a purported effort to streamline federal services and reduce waste and fraud. This broad and indiscriminate staff reduction left 141 counties across the United States with zero USDA support staff, while 1,197 counties, or 53 percent of counties in the country, had a net staff loss. Understaffed offices limit USDA’s ability to fulfill its mission of serving farmers. “The bill does next to nothing to increase staffing levels at local NRCS and FSA offices, a key concern we’ve heard from many of the farmers…especially after the huge staff losses of last year,” Brown said.
One Illinois farmer expressed her concern about grant funding, explaining that “a lot of small farmers rely on [grant funds] to sustain themselves and continue to help at-risk populations.” She added to the urgency of the matter, noting that “local farmers are important and are becoming obsolete.” A couple of other Illinois farmers likewise highlighted the lack of support for farmers like them in the House farm bill version. “Loss of USDA staff makes access even more difficult,” one remarked. Another explained that adjustments to FSA loan programs were improvements on the surface that could easily go to expanding existing large operations that don’t need government support while leaving small farms with even less access to those loan programs. “Combined with no meaningful increase in total available funding, means that smaller operations will likely lose out at the local FSA office,” he shared.
USDA has been nicknamed the “People’s Department,” but without resources that allow it – and, crucially, its staff – to fulfill its mission, farmers are left scrambling to find someone who can help them when they want to apply for a cost-share program, write a conservation plan, or receive a loan.
A Strong Farm BillAs the Senate drafts its own version of the farm bill, it must keep in mind everyone who participates in our food and agricultural system, whether they run large, medium, or small operations. It must consider those who grow diverse and specialty crops, who are engaged in localized food production and marketing, and those using conservation practices. While farmers shared the shortcomings of the House version of the farm bill, they also had a clear vision for what a strong farm bill that supported all farmers would look like.
Von Ruden was quick to point to the need to support small farms. “That means a stronger safety net, meaningful support for conservation, and policies that address consolidation,” Von Ruden said.
One of the farmers in Illinois echoed that sentiment. “A strong farm bill aggressively reduces consolidation in our food and farm system and prioritizes the needs of small and beginning farmers and those who have been historically disadvantaged by prior Farm Bills,” he explained. He pointed to a state program in Illinois called the Local Food Infrastructure Grant program as a model that the federal government could explore. “Federal funding has largely shied away from investment in hard assets due to concerns of fraud or negligence. I would support greater oversight, including direct farm visits and supported audits, if it meant that the USDA was investing more directly in the relocalization of our food system,” he closed.
A farm bill that also supports those who have been traditionally disenfranchised resonated with Swanson, who shared what a strong farm bill meant to her: “Being allowed to stand up for minority populations while supporting small food production.”
Another farmer in Ohio reinterpreted what is implied in the title of the House bill as “Farm, Food, and National Security Act of 2026,” by saying that to her, a strong farm bill “focuses on homeland security, which means nothing less than supporting Family Farms and the food processors that they work with [who] are committed to growing and distributing healthy food for all while keeping soil and water clean and fertile. Give them the hand up to transition to organic and install on-farm renewable energy systems to ensure we have food for all.”
As the Senate takes up the responsibility of crafting a meaningfully bipartisan farm bill, these stories offer members of the Senate Agriculture Committee grounding in what is needed to draft a farm bill that can adequately address the needs of all our nation’s farmers.
The post Farmers React to House Farm Bill appeared first on National Sustainable Agriculture Coalition.
(Washington, D.C., June 17, 2026) – The U.S. Department of Agriculture today welcomed new guidance from the U.S. Department of Homeland Security (DHS) and the U.S. Department of Labor clarifying that dairy operations may use the H-2A temporary agricultural worker program when they can demonstrate a qualifying temporary or seasonal labor need under existing law.
(Washington, D.C., June 17, 2026) – The U.S. Department of Agriculture today announced the consolidation of fourteen separate civil rights offices into one office under the Office of the Assistant Secretary for Civil Rights, establishing a single intake, a single standard, and one accountable office for every American who brings a civil rights claim to USDA.
Editor’s Note: This series draws on analysis the National Sustainable Agriculture Coalition (NSAC) conducted in partnership with Bernie Kluger, Managing Partner at Prospect Partners, LLC.
Bernie has led strategic realignments, crisis recoveries, and major capacity-building initiatives in government, higher education, and the private sector. Prior to joining Prospect Partners, Bernie served as enterprise lead for organizational effectiveness and workforce development at the US Department of Agriculture (USDA). At USDA, Bernie tackled complex multi-stakeholder negotiations that delivered results for the public, including a nationwide hiring surge that powered a $40 billion expansion in operational capacity. Bernie holds a B.S. in Political Economy from Williams College and an M.B.A. from Columbia University. He lives in Washington, DC.
This blog post is the third in our series updating analysis on the widespread staffing crisis across the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA). While our previous post showed that all USDA agencies lost staff during 2025, losses of direct farmer-support staff at the Farm Service Agency (FSA) are particularly concerning as farmers face an ongoing crisis and struggle to stay on the land. In this post, we examine previously unpublished data on FSA County employees to show a troubling loss of local staff.
Through a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request, NSAC and our colleagues at Prospect Partners have confirmed that over one-third of FSA local offices experienced a net loss of staff by the end of 2025, with 42 offices ending the year with no FSA County employees. These losses compound cuts previously reported on other locally stationed staff in the Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) and Farm Service Agency (FSA) who provide direct support to America’s farmers and ranchers. NSAC urges Congress to prioritize reversing FSA staffing losses, ensuring that the local staff who administer programs passed by Congress to help farmers access the credit and other resources they need to build and grow viable operations are present in every community that needs them.
Farm Service Agency: Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) Data Reveals Majority of Counties Lost StaffUSDA reduced the number of front-line staff at the US Farm Service Agency (FSA) by 8% in 2025, according to data recently obtained through a Freedom of Information Act request. Over one-third of FSA local offices lost FSA County employees by year’s end, with 42 offices ending 2025 with no FSA County staff. Cuts to FSA County staff were USDA’s largest termination of community presence in over a decade. These findings build on federal data released in March 2026 showing widespread loss of FSA Federal personnel in 2025.
Figure 1: FSA County Staffing Losses (Jan 2025-Jan 2026)
FSA’s Heritage of Local Presence and ControlMany federal agencies, including the US Postal Service and US Small Business Administration, maintain local presence in the communities they serve. Among such agencies, the Farm Service Agency has a unique heritage of local presence, with over 2,000 reported offices nationwide in 2025 and a commitment to local input regarding who staffs those offices in each county.
Every FSA office in the country is required by law to have an advisory board, called a County Committee, made up of local elected farmers and ranchers. Since the 1930’s, County Committees have provided grassroots input on FSA programs and hiring. Historically, approximately two-thirds of the FSA workforce have actually served as employees of these local committees, not the federal government. FSA’s locally employed staff are commonly referred to as FSA County Office (FSACO) employees.
This analysis focuses on changes in headcount among FSACO employees, who have primary responsibility for FSA front-line services and are relied upon by local farmers and ranchers to navigate an array of federal agricultural programs.
Top FindingsUS farmers and ranchers ended January 2025 with access to 7,672 FSACO staff stationed across 2,037 offices in 2,012 counties. By the end of January 2026, staffing dropped to 7,022 FSACO staff, an 8% decline, across 2,018 offices in 1,992 counties.
- 89% of the FSA County staff lost between January 2025 and December 2025 were full-time, permanent employees.
- The positions with the steepest losses are County Program Analysts, a direct farmer-facing role where staff helps with “interpreting and explaining procedures, program regulations and forms to producers.” FSA lost 614 County Program Analysts between January 2025 and December 2025, the staff farmers and ranchers rely on most to navigate programs and paperwork.
- Leadership took a significant hit, as well, with 122 positions lost among County Executive Directors and 47 County Executive Directors in Training between January 2025 and December 2025. These experienced leaders manage county office service centers and provide essential outreach to producers, “working closely with farmers and ranchers to promote environmental and economic growth and sustainability.” Major losses in farmer-facing and leadership positions remove a vital conduit between local communities and federal staff, leaving county offices less equipped to deliver the programs and support that American farmers depend on.
Net staffing reductions among FSACO employees were widely distributed across rural America. Among counties that started the year with FSA County staff, federal data shows a net reduction of FSA County employees in 704 (34%) counties in the United States and territories. Staffing was flat in 1,122 (54%) counties, with only 232 (11%) showing a net increase. Among counties that started the year with FSA County staff, 38 (2%) counties ended 2025 with no FSA County staff, including three counties unstaffed in Florida and four in Texas.
FSA County Employees: Regional HighlightsMajor agricultural states in the Midwest and Southeast lost the most FSA County staff during 2025. The largest staffing losses were in Illinois (51), Indiana (48), Nebraska (43), North Dakota (41) and Georgia and Texas (39 each). Smaller states saw steeper percentage declines, with the largest in Arizona (31%), Hawaii (25%), Vermont (22%), Wyoming (21%), and Rhode Island (20%). Minnesota lost 7% of its FSA County staff. Two states–Indiana and North Dakota–appear on both lists, meaning they lost both large numbers of staff and a substantial share of their total FSA County workforce.
Figure 2: Top 10 States with FSA County Staff Losses (Jan 2025-Jan 2026)
Source: FSA County staff provided via FOIA on April 8, 2026The formerly staffed county offices that ended 2025 with zero FSA County staff are spread widely across the West, Midwest, and Southeast, as seen in the map above.
FSA Federal Employees: Adding to the Impact of County Staffing ReductionsUSDA has historically staffed local FSA offices with a combination of FSA Federal and FSA County employees, the former being locally stationed staff who are employed directly by the Farm Service Agency. FSA Federal employee data, which the federal government published at data.opm.gov on March 4, 2026, shows that headcount declined among FSA Federal employees at more than double the rate of FSA County employees. Headcount among FSA Federal employees fell by 21% in 2025, compared to 8% for FSA County employees.
Figure 3: Count of FSA County and FSA Federal Employees (Feb 2016- Jan 2026)
Source: Office of Personnel Management (OPM), FSA County staff provided via FOIA on April 8, 2026FSA Federal employee staffing levels declined in 45% of counties and were flat in 44% of counties. In that same period, 11% of counties experienced a net increase in FSA Federal staff. Nationwide, 127 counties lost all of their FSA Federal employees in 2025, reducing the number of counties with FSA Federal staff from 932 to 805.
Figure 4: Net Staffing Change Among FSA Federal Employees in US Counties (Jan 2025-Jan 2026)
The FOIA data obtained for this analysis make visible what farmers and ranchers across the country have been experiencing firsthand: the front-line staff who help them navigate federal programs, manage paperwork, and access a safety net built over decades are disappearing from their communities. With 42 county offices ending 2025 with no FSA County staff, and FSA Federal staff declining at more than double the rate of county staff, the cumulative impact on local agricultural communities is severe. FSA’s heritage of local presence and community accountability — embodied in the County Committee system — was built precisely because federal agricultural programs work best when administered by people who know the land and the farmers they serve. That heritage is now at risk.
Congress must act urgently to reverse FSA staffing losses at both the county and federal level. America’s farmers are in crisis: trade disruption, volatile markets, and a string of natural disasters have put enormous pressure on farm operations of every kind. FSA County staff are the people farmers call when they need to access the programs designed to help them weather exactly these kinds of challenges — including the Emergency Loan program, Emergency Conservation Program, Farmer Bridge Assistance, and the Supplemental Disaster Relief Program. Every one of these programs requires local FSA staff to administer them. NSAC urges Congress to use the appropriations process and the Farm Bill to mandate and fund the restoration of FSA staffing to levels adequate to deliver these essential programs, and to ensure that no county is left without local FSA presence.
The post USDA Staffing Crisis: Losses Reduce Local Presence in Communities Nationwide appeared first on National Sustainable Agriculture Coalition.
(Washington, D.C., June 15, 2026) – U.S. Secretary of Agriculture Brooke L. Rollins and U.S. Secretary of Education Linda McMahon hosted several land-grant university leaders at USDA for a roundtable discussion and announced the opening of the FY2026 funding opportunity for the Research Facilities Act program.
The United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) spends roughly $4 billion buying food at the lowest price possible, and American family farmers are locked out due to high volume and complex federal contracting requirements. Yet there is a low-cost policy solution that would unlock this existing funding source for more farmers to compete.
NSAC members National Farm to School Network, Center for Good Food Purchasing, Food Corps, and National Young Farmers Coalition, in partnership with Friends of the Earth, Chef Ann Foundation, and Scratchworks, have heard demands from school nutritionists, farmers, and local food distributors. Farmers want reliable local markets, and schools want fresh, reliable, nutritious foods to serve to students. A school district in Arkansas noted, Produce purchased through broadline distributors is not as fresh as items grown and sourced locally.
More than 450 schools, farmers, and nutrition organizations are requesting that Congressional agricultural leaders authorize schools to use their entitlement funding to purchase from their local farmers and ranchers. Read more below in a cross-post from the National Farm to School Network.
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASEJune 10 – As the Senate prepares to release its Farm Bill text, a group of 450 organizations submitted a letter urging Congress to improve the National School Lunch Program for farmers and schools through a new “Local Food Purchase Option.” This policy solution would create a new pathway in the USDA Foods program that would allow schools to use existing entitlement funding on minimally processed, locally sourced food. School districts, farmers, aggregators, parents, and nonprofits from 43 states and Washington D.C. have signed on in support. Together, they back this commonsense solution to benefit small and mid-sized American farmers and ranchers while improving school meal quality for students.
Red Tape, Rising Costs, and the Case for Change30 million children benefit from the National School Lunch Program each day. As part of this program, schools receive entitlement funding that they spend on commodity foods purchased by the U.S. Department of Agriculture. This accounts for 15-20% of the food on students’ lunch trays, amounting to approximately $1.6 billion each year. However, many schools would prefer having the option to spend this entitlement funding on fresh, local foods, which they are limited by within the current program.
“We are surrounded by cattle farms and produce farms but don’t have the funds to work in partnership with them. Being able to use all or part of our entitlement funds towards a partnership would be a dream” says Janene Hatton of Scott County Schools in Kentucky. “The freshest food is transported within a few miles instead of being processed hundreds or thousands of miles away before reaching the plates—that’s the way it should be!”
While there is interest, red tape and large volume requirements largely exclude family farms from participating in the USDA Foods programs. “We are a large-scale greenhouse grower of hydroponic lettuce in Central Mississippi and would like the opportunity to supply our schools with fresh, healthy chemical-free lettuce. The current local produce to school program makes it difficult to meet the requirements of supplying the entire state,” says Leigh Bailey of Salad Days, LLC, referring to the USDA DoD Fresh program, one of USDA’s current entitlement programs that allows schools to purchase fresh produce.
Connecting small and mid-size farmers to schools is more important now than ever. According to the American Farm Bureau Foundation, the farm bankruptcy rate increased by 46% in 2025 compared to 2024. School nutrition programs can provide a lifeline and stable revenue source for these farmers, as was demonstrated by USDA’s COVID-19 era Local Food for Schools (LFS) program. However, the second round slated to bring $660 million over three years directly into the hands of family farmers was terminated in March 2025.
“When the LFS grant program was active, we built a network and strong relationships with schools across the state of Arkansas” says John Wahrmund of Wahrmund Farms in Arkansas, who scaled up his farm after USDA announced the second round of LFS. “We invested in a large walk-in freezer to keep inventory and meet the needs of school nutrition services in a timely manner. We received extremely positive feedback about our beef, and know that programs found our product superior, our service superior, and student participation increased. Schools would love to purchase from us and other local food producers if funding were accessible. These purchases would support our family farm, our local processors, and our schools fueling our local economy. Local food purchasing is a win across the board for farmers, schools, and communities.”
Rising food costs are making it harder for school nutrition professionals to maintain these connections, keep quality food on the menu, and reduce the use of ultra-processed foods. Like Janene Hatton from Kentucky, many simply want more flexibility in how they can spend the funds they already have.
The Opportunity for Action Through the Farm BillSignatories of this letter see a clear solution: open a new optional pathway within the existing USDA Foods program for schools to divert a portion of their entitlement funds to spend on local, fresh, and minimally processed foods. States can design their programs to best suit their contexts, whether through subawards to schools, contracts with food hubs, or a statewide solicitation for local food. This concept is modeled after the successful Local Food for Schools program, but without the same price tag, since the funds are already there.
“Our food hub experienced a loss of $500,000 per year when the Local Food for Schools and Local Food Purchase Assistance programs were canceled,” says Peter Kraus of Iowa Food Hub. “Schools tell us they loved our products, but would not continue to purchase without the incentives. We can grow the food system when there are reliable markets.”
If just 10% of Iowa’s entitlement funds were diverted through this program, it would direct $1.9 million of existing federal funds to local farms and generate $3.3 million in local economic activity, according to National Farm to School Network’s calculator.
Authors of this letter call on the Senate Agriculture Committee to create this new pathway in their version of the Farm Bill. Senate Agriculture Committee Chairman John Boozman (R-AR) has said that the Committee will be introducing text in June.
“Many of our Network Partners, particularly schools, have wanted this pathway for decades. As we continue to advocate for dedicated funds to support local food purchases, more flexibility with entitlement funds is yet another solution to enhance the school food marketplace for family farmers” says Jessica Gudmundson, Executive Director of the National Farm to School Network. As the letter states, “this is a rare bipartisan opportunity to cut red tape, invest in American family farmers, and give schools the flexibility to build stronger local food economies.” With the Farm Bill window open, now is the time to act.
###
About USDA Entitlement Local Purchase Option
You can learn more about the USDA Entitlement Local Purchase Option, read the letter, sign-on in support, and estimate the impacts to your state by visiting the website here: https://www.farmtoschool.org/policy/usda-entitlement-local-food-purchase-option
About National Farm to School Network
National Farm to School Network is the leading voice for the U.S. farm to school and farm to early care and education movement, working as an information, advocacy and networking hub for communities to bring local food sourcing, gardens, and food and agriculture education into schools and early care and education settings. Learn more at: http://farmtoschool.org.
Media Contact: info@farmtoschool.org
The post 450 Organizations Push Congress to Unlock Local Food Funding for Schools appeared first on National Sustainable Agriculture Coalition.
Washington, D.C. – June 12, 2026 – Today, U.S. Secretary of Agriculture Brooke L. Rollins announced the distribution of a comprehensive directive to all U.S. Forest Service employees from the Office of the Under Secretary for Natural Resources and Environment (NRE).
Editor’s Note: This series draws on analysis the National Sustainable Agriculture Coalition (NSAC) conducted in partnership with Bernie Kluger, Managing Partner at Prospect Partners, LLC.
Bernie has led strategic realignments, crisis recoveries, and major capacity-building initiatives in government, higher education, and the private sector. Prior to joining Prospect Partners, Bernie served as enterprise lead for organizational effectiveness and workforce development at the US Department of Agriculture (USDA). At USDA, Bernie tackled complex multi-stakeholder negotiations that delivered results for the public, including a nationwide hiring surge that powered a $40 billion expansion in operational capacity. Bernie holds a B.S. in Political Economy from Williams College and an M.B.A. from Columbia University. He lives in Washington, DC.
This blog post is the second in a series updating analysis on the widespread staffing crisis across the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA), focusing on the Natural Resources Conservation Service. While our previous post showed that every USDA agency lost staff during 2025, staff losses in direct farmer- and rancher-serving offices are particularly concerning as America’s farmers grapple with severe and ongoing economic and weather disruptions.
Staff in the Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) work directly with farmers, providing technical assistance, financial support, and guidance to navigate the suite of programs offered by the agency. Losses in these direct farmer-serving agencies mean that US farmers, ranchers, and landowners have fewer experts in their communities to turn to for assistance. The National Sustainable Agriculture Coalition (NSAC) urges Congress to prioritize restoring NRCS field staff capacity, as farmers facing increasingly unpredictable weather impacts cannot afford to lose the local conservation expertise they depend on to build environmentally and economically resilient operations.
Conservation Staff DepletedNRCS lost 23% of its staff between January 2025 and January 2026. NRCS staff work directly with farmers and landowners to identify conservation practices that are well-suited to their needs and local natural resource concerns. They provide vital technical assistance for farmers and landowners and help them apply for and manage contracts with conservation programs that help share the cost of conservation practices.
The NRCS staff position that experienced the largest losses was Soil Conservationist, with a loss of 711 Soil Conservationists during the time period and an additional 283 Soil Conservation Technicians. Soil Conservationists are the primary field staff who work directly with landowners on conservation planning and implementation, and Technicians provide field-level support for conservation work, often handling site assessments, measurements, and installation oversight alongside Soil Conservationists.
Examining NRCS staff losses at the county level shows more clearly how many US farmers, ranchers, and landowners now lack access to local NRCS staff in their counties. In January 2025, 2,386 counties across the US had NRCS staff working in their local county office. By January 2026, 141 of those counties had lost 100% of their NRCS staff. This means that farmers and landowners in those counties lost staff with local relationships and local knowledge, and that the remaining NRCS staff are now stretched thin over larger geographic areas.
The map below shows the NRCS staffing levels for every county and the change from January 2025 to January 2026, using data from the Office of Personnel Management.
Figure 1: County-Level NRCS Staffing Losses (Jan 2025-Jan 2026)
Major agricultural states in the Midwest and West lost the most NRCS staff during 2025. The largest staffing losses were in Texas (144), Kansas (127), Missouri (105), Wisconsin (100), and Colorado (99). States with smaller starting NRCS staff saw deeper percentage declines, with the largest in Rhode Island (44%), New York (38%), Colorado (36%), and Maine (35%). Kansas, Massachusetts, Arizona, and Florida all lost 34% of their NRCS staff.
Figure 2: Top 10 States with NRCS Staff Losses (Jan 2025-Jan 2026)
Source: Office of Personnel Management (OPM) Loss of Key Conservation PositionsThe picture sharpens further when looking specifically at five specific occupations most central to NRCS’s conservation mission: Soil Conservation, Soil Conservation Technicians, Soil Science, Agronomy, and Rangeland Management. Together, these occupations lost 1,178 employees in 2025, nearly one in five positions. One hundred thirty-nine counties with at least one employee in these key roles in January 2025 had none by January 2026. Kansas lost key conservation staff in 15 counties; Indiana and Texas each lost coverage in 10. Georgia, while not among the top states for total job losses, lost all key conservation staff in 9 counties — a pattern of losses spread thinly across many locations rather than concentrated in larger offices, leaving widespread gaps in local coverage across the state.
Farmers Feel the Impacts of Staffing LossThe consequences of these staffing losses are already reducing farmer access to conservation programs. According to a recent analysis by NSAC member organization the Institute for Agriculture and Trade Policy (IATP), acceptance rates for the Environmental Quality Incentives Program (EQIP) and Conservation Stewardship Program (CSP) dropped sharply in fiscal year 2025. Only about 24% of EQIP applicants and 37% of CSP applicants were awarded contracts in FY2025 — a steep drop from FY2024, when approximately 43% of EQIP applicants and 54% of CSP applicants received contracts. NRCS staff are essential at every step of that process: they help farmers understand which programs fit their operations, support them through the application, and provide the technical assistance needed to implement and manage contracts. Fewer staff means longer waits, fewer applications processed, and more farmers left without the conservation support they need.
Staff Losses Mean Less Support for FarmersThe loss of nearly a quarter of NRCS staff in a single year, including over 700 Soil Conservationists and Technicians, is not an abstraction. These are the people farmers call when they want to plant a cover crop, design a nutrient management plan, or try to navigate a conservation program contract. Their absence means longer wait times, fewer site visits, and reduced access to the technical assistance that makes conservation programs work. With 141 counties now entirely without local NRCS staff, the support net for America’s farmland has real and growing holes.
Congress must act to restore NRCS staffing capacity before these losses become permanent. Farmers and ranchers across the country are navigating an era of unprecedented natural disasters, from severe drought to catastrophic flooding, and they need the support of local conservation experts who know their land, their operations, and their communities. NSAC urges Congress to prioritize restoring NRCS field staff, with particular attention to rebuilding the positions that form the backbone of conservation delivery. Every county that loses its last NRCS employee loses irreplaceable local knowledge, and the farmers in that county lose a critical partner in building the resilience their operations depend on.
The post USDA Staffing Crisis: Widespread Loss of Conservation Staff appeared first on National Sustainable Agriculture Coalition.
Editor’s Note: This series draws on analysis the National Sustainable Agriculture Coalition (NSAC) conducted in partnership with Bernie Kluger, Managing Partner at Prospect Partners, LLC.
Bernie has led strategic realignments, crisis recoveries, and major capacity-building initiatives in government, higher education, and the private sector. Prior to joining Prospect Partners, Bernie served as enterprise lead for organizational effectiveness and workforce development at the US Department of Agriculture (USDA). At USDA, Bernie tackled complex multi-stakeholder negotiations that delivered results for the public, including a nationwide hiring surge that powered a $40 billion expansion in operational capacity. Bernie holds a B.S. in Political Economy from Williams College and an M.B.A. from Columbia University. He lives in Washington, DC.
The past sixteen months have seen an unprecedented staffing crisis unfurl across the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA). This blog post offers a fresh look at the depth and breadth of the ongoing staffing crisis, as well as updates on previously reported nationwide staff cuts across other USDA agencies. A second post examines the deep losses sustained by the farmer-serving staff of the Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS), and a third uses previously unpublished data on Farm Service Agency (FSA) County employees to examine the devastating losses of local county staff.
Analysis of federal personnel data from the US Office of Personnel Management confirms widespread headcount reductions across all USDA agencies, with the exception of staffing increases in the immediate office of the Agriculture Secretary, which grew by 18% in 2025. NSAC urges Congress to use every available tool to address the USDA staffing crisis and pass a bipartisan farm bill that restores the department’s capacity to serve farmers and rural communities.
USDA Impact: Staffing Declines Across All Agencies, Staffing Increase in the Immediate Office of the SecretaryBetween January 2025 and January 2026, USDA lost approximately 20,000 employees, according to staffing data published by the US Office of Personnel Management. Every USDA agency was affected, and staff losses were spread across the entire nation. Our analysis attributes the majority of staff losses (~15,000) to the so-called Deferred Resignation Program, a program run by the Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE) to encourage federal employees to voluntarily leave their positions.
On July 24, 2025 US Secretary of Agriculture Brooke Rollins released a memo (SM-1078-015) announcing a planned reorganization of the department, drafted without consultation with farmers, Congress, or other stakeholders. After stakeholders responded with widespread concern, the Secretary announced an ad hoc, informal opportunity to comment on the reorganization, which generated 46,845 responses. According to USDA’s own analysis, 82% of comments were negative, expressing serious concerns with the reorganization. Major themes of concern included the loss of local oversight and expertise, reduction in personnel and resources, and a desire for adequate staffing in every county.
Despite these overwhelmingly negative responses and continued concern from stakeholders about local presence, the Secretary has continued to move forward with the reorganization plan that would relocate agency headquarters and leadership. Thus far, reorganization plans have been announced for the Food, Nutrition, and Consumer Services agency; Food Safety and Inspection Service; Research, Education, and Economics mission area; and the Forest Service. Reporting on employee reactions to the reorganization plan suggests that relocation will lead to further staff losses, exacerbating the existing USDA staffing crisis with negative consequences for farmer and rancher-facing services. A recent survey by the American Federation of Government Employees, for example, found that 76% of its members do not plan to relocate when required by the reorganization plan and would instead leave their positions.
Staff Losses Are NationwideWhile Secretary Rollins and other headquarters leadership have attempted to frame the USDA reorganization as moving staff out of DC and closer to farmers, the reality is the vast majority of USDA staff already work outside of DC. In January 2025, just 3.24% of all USDA employees worked in Washington, DC. By January 2026, after massive staff losses, still just 3.56% of all USDA employees worked in DC. In reality, 98% of the USDA staff lost between January 2025 and January 2026 were outside of Washington, DC (19,259 employees).
The map below shows the percentage and number of USDA staff lost in each state between January 2025 and January 2026.
Figure 1: USDA Staff Losses January 2025-January 2026
Every state and territory lost USDA staff during this time period. The states that lost the highest number of staff were: Maryland (1,411), California (1,080), Texas (925), Virginia (896), Colorado (850), Oregon (682), New Mexico (640), Kansas (559), Georgia (546), and Missouri (514).
The relative impact of staffing losses was unevenly spread, with multiple states losing over 20% of staff. The 10 states experiencing the largest percentage staff losses include: Maryland (41%), Rhode Island (41%), Virginia (37%), Maine (29%), Alaska (29%), Kansas (28%), Massachusetts (27%), Vermont (27%), New York (25%), and Florida (24%).
Figure 2: Top 10 States with USDA Staff Losses (Jan 2025-Jan 2026)
Source: Office of Personnel Management (OPM), FSA County staff provided via FOIA on April 8, 2026 Loss of Experienced StaffUSDA also experienced a dramatic loss of highly experienced and skilled staff. Between January 2025 and January 2026, the number of staff with more than ten years of service declined by nearly 7,000 (from 45,247 in 2025 to just 38,291 in 2026). These experienced mid and late-career staff carry irreplaceable institutional knowledge that supports the functioning of the department.
Every USDA Agency Lost StaffWhile the overall loss of 1 in 5 USDA employees is already staggering, some departmental agencies had even more significant staffing losses. The Office of Partnerships and Public Engagement (OPPE) lost more than half of its staff (55%), the Office of Budget and Program Analysis (OBPA) lost 41%, National Institute of Food and Agriculture (NIFA) 40%, Rural Development (RD) 36%, and National Agricultural Statistics Service (NASS) 36%. Staff losses at NIFA are particularly troubling, with the Government Accountability Office reporting lingering negative impacts on productivity following a previous relocation in 2019 of the agency to Kansas City, MO.
Table 1: USDA Staff Losses by Agency (Jan 2025-Jan 2026)
USDA AgencyJan-25Jan-26% Staff LossOffice Of Partnerships And Public Engagement5324-55%Office Of Budget And Program Analysis5935-41%National Institute Of Food And Agriculture473284-40%Rural Development4,8733,097-36%National Agricultural Statistics Service781498-36%FPAC Business Center1,5941,030-35%Departmental Administration507330-35%Food And Nutrition Service1,8341,202-34%Civil Rights14897-34%Economic Research Service292198-32%Agricultural Research Service7,1094,916-31%Office Of Communications4029-28%National Appeals Division6648-27%Office Of The Chief Financial Officer989730-26%Office Of The Chief Economist6750-25%Office Of The Chief Information Officer1,5851,191-25%Foreign Agricultural Service713543-24%Office Of The General Counsel275210-24%Natural Resources Conservation Service11,8619,078-23%Animal And Plant Health Inspection Se..8,6726,663-23%Farm Service Agency (Federal)3,2842,604-21%Homeland Security Staff5746-19%Risk Management Agency418351-16%Forest Service31,25726,260-16%Office Of The Inspector General422359-15%Agricultural Marketing Service4,4783,890-13%Food Safety And Inspection Service8,3107,444-10%Farm Service Agency (County)76727022-8%Office Of The Secretary Of Agriculture9711418%Total97,98678,343-20%Source: Office of Personnel Management (OPM), FSA County staff provided via FOIA on April 8, 2026The current Administration’s impact on the “People’s Agency” is clear: USDA has lost one in five of its employees in just twelve months, with the overwhelming majority of cuts to staff capacity and expertise happening at the state and county level. The reorganization plan now underway risks transforming a shortfall into a crisis, as the majority of employees subject to relocation requirements have indicated they would leave the agency rather than uproot their lives and families to move. The posts that follow examine in greater detail the losses sustained by two agencies with the most direct farmer-facing roles: the Natural Resources Conservation Service and the Farm Service Agency.
Congress must treat the collapse of USDA’s workforce as a crisis that can be averted. With one in five USDA employees gone in a single year and reorganization plans poised to drive further departures, lawmakers must use every available lever to reverse course. America’s farmers, ranchers, and rural communities are facing serious challenges, and they need a USDA that is fully staffed and fully functional.
The post USDA Staffing Crisis: Nationwide Losses appeared first on National Sustainable Agriculture Coalition.
As Special Envoy, Rich will serve as a leading advocate for America’s farmers, ranchers, and private landowners, helping ensure their concerns are heard and their rights are protected. He will engage directly with landowners across the country and work to address challenges posed by government overreach, activist pressure campaigns, and outside interests that threaten private property rights and the long-term viability of rural communities.
Pages
Signup for the Ag Newsletter
Get the freshest farm news, events and updates from in and around Cattaraugus County, NY at least once a month! Go signup!
Other ways to stay connected:
Get Involved in Farming
Resources for Starting a Farm in Cattaraugus County
Profile of Cattaraugus County soils
Agriculture Career Exploration
Questions about farming? Find out Who to Call
