“If farmers are allowed to operate without unnecessary government intervention, American agriculture will continue to flourish, producing plentiful, safe, nutritious, and affordable food.” (Project 2025, Section 3.1: Department of Agriculture, Daren Bakst, page 321, paragraph 1.)

Next paragraph: 

“The USDA should recognize what should be self-evident: Agricultural production should first and foremost be focused on efficiently producing safe food. (Project 2025, Section 3.1: Department of Agriculture, Daren Bakst, page 321, paragraph 2.)

See the fundamental disconnect here? The primary reason we have safe food is BECAUSE of governmental regulations. The Boar’s Head plant in Virginia is just one recent example. The plant was at the center of a deadly listeria outbreak, which was linked to 9 deaths and 57 hospitalizations. In addition to shuttering its doors, the corporation is permanently discontinuing the production of liverwurst. [Source]¹

“It pains us to impact the livelihoods of hundreds of hard-working employees. We do not take lightly our responsibility as one of the area’s largest employers. But, under these circumstances, we feel that a plant closure is the most prudent course. We will work to assist each of our employees in the transition process.”

This is how deregulation costs jobs. 500 workers at this one plant alone² were displaced. In a town like Jarratt, VA, that’s devastating. Their entire population as of 2022³ was 935.

Was the incident actually linked to deregulation? It’s likely that it was DIRECTLY related. See this article: Trump administration allows pork slaughterhouses to have fewer USDA inspectors⁴ From the linked article:

“This rule puts industry profits ahead of public health,” said Thomas Gremillion, director of food policy for the Consumer Federation of America, an advocacy group. He called the rule “a recipe for food safety disaster.”

So right on the first page of this section, we have a major disconnect from reality.

Aside from costing Americans jobs, deregulation has other unintended effects as well.

“The Railroad Revitalization and Regulatory Reform Act of 1976 and the Staggers Rail Act of 1980 made it easier for railroads to abandon passenger service, which had been a financial drain. Amtrak started service in 1971, but it never made it to many remote and rural areas. Deregulation a few years later meant that railroads no longer had to offer passenger service in addition to freight. Most dropped it and soon pulled up unused tracks. That left rural people without service. Eventually, high fuel prices and global warming made Americans think about alternatives to automobiles. But by then, much of the passenger rail service was history.” [Source]⁵

Other examples?

“With the thought that a freer market would encourage new developments and improve service, Congress passed the Federal Telecommunications Act of 1996. For radio, that deregulation meant companies could own more stations in the same market — and as many as they wanted nationwide. The result? A few large companies own most commercial radio stations. Clear Channel is the giant, owning more than 850 stations across the country.”

This deregulation led to the completely homogenized and limited news and soulless, monotonous and repetitive music we hear on most radio. It also resulted in corporate ownership of news stations cutting jobs and reducing local news coverage. Result: A few large corporations control most of the information you get.

Need more? The Airline Deregulation act of 1978 is part of the reason that you rarely get full meals or legroom on planes any more, and why you’re being charged insane fees for checking in early, bringing baggage, etc. (See above linked source.)

The Telecommunications Act of 1996 ended most oversight and regulations on cable television. As a result, after a decade, cable bills had increased by almost 60% in most places, and about 98% of Americans only had one cable company available to them to choose from.

Repealing the 1933 Glass-Steagall Act in 1999 with the Gramm-Leach-Bliley act, resulted in the great recession of 2008, because of banks being suddenly allowed to promote risky lending practices and make bad loans. What started as a subprime mortgage crisis in 2007 quickly spread through most sectors of the economy, causing what is widely regarded as the worst financial crisis in the U.S. since the Great Depression.

Is deregulation ALWAYS bad? No. But for the most part, deregulation is playing a short game intended to increase profits and ignore risks, while carefully considered regulations produce long-term success. So as we read this section, let’s keep that in mind. A cynic might argue that certain types of deregulation is in the government’s best interests because it results in very homogenized control of the media and the messaging we get.

Bakst goes on to argue generally for deregulation of the USDA and a limiting of its scope. For reference, the USDA’s scope of work includes distributing farm subsidies, running the food stamp program and other food-related welfare programs, and covers issues like conservation, biofuels, forestry, climate change impact, and more. The USDA employs more than 100,000 employees at more than 6,000 locations across the country and abroad. (Source: The USDA)

“The federal government does not need to transform the food system or develop a national plan to intervene across the supply chain. Instead, it should respect American farmers, truckers, and everyone who makes the food supply chain so resilient and successful. One of the important lessons learned during the COVID-19 pandemic was how critical it is to remove barriers in the food supply chain – not to increase them.” (Project 2025, Section 3.1: Department of Agriculture, Daren Bakst, page 324, paragraph 3.)

This claim suggests that the U.S. food supply chain is already effective and resilient, and that transformation or national-level planning is unnecessary. However, the COVID-19 pandemic exposed significant vulnerabilities in the food supply chain, such as disruptions in meatpacking plants, shortages of labor in agriculture and trucking, and difficulty in shifting food supplies from commercial to retail sectors. The pandemic highlighted weaknesses in the system that national coordination or transformation could address, such as improving worker protections, enhancing logistics, or diversifying supply chains.

To say that it’s “critical to remove barriers in the food supply chain” is oversimplifying. While some regulatory flexibility, such as relaxing transportation restrictions or allowing temporary worker visa programs, helped ease supply chain issues during the pandemic, other interventions were critical for public health and safety. For example, the government had to impose health and safety regulations in meatpacking plants to protect workers, many of whom were disproportionately affected by the virus. Additionally, government assistance, such as financial support for farmers and direct aid to food banks, was vital in preventing food shortages.

In fact, Trump’s deregulations of the food supply chain during COVID had some predictably terrible results, and in fact, the Trump administration was accused by House lawmakers of “exploiting the COVID-19 pandemic to push [the Administration’s] reckless deregulatory agenda.” [Source]⁶

They were concerned that Trump’s sweeping deregulations were going to make communities less safe. And they were right.

“They rolled back everything they could get their hands on,” says Rena Steinzor, professor of administrative and food safety law at the University of Maryland. “And they couldn’t care less about workers.” Food policies aren’t the only ones getting reined in: The administration has also loosened clean air regulations and pollution reporting rules.” [Source]⁷

The article goes on to describe one of the results of Trump’s efforts as “faster chicken, with a side of tumors.” Before deregulation, poultry processors were required to dispose of chickens with lesions and tumors potentially caused by avian leukosis, a cancer-causing virus in chickens. After regulation, slaughterhouses could just chop the tumors off and use the rest of the bird. Another result of the deregulation was removing standards for processing line speeds. Before deregulation, lines moved at a maximum pace of 140 birds per minute. After deregulation, 175 birds per minute.

“The carcasses move so fast that nobody can see if there’s something wrong with them, and processing them becomes even more injurious.”

More results of Trump’s pandemic deregulations? OSHA stopped tracking the spread of workplace illnesses. The EPA stopped policing pollution. Food labels were suddenly allowed to have inaccuracies. Regulations limiting long hours for truckers were lifted. See linked article above for details. As Winston Churchill famously said, “never let a good crisis go to waste.”

Bakst goes on to slam the Biden administration for “placing issues such as climate change and equity front and center”, ahead of “efficiency in food production.” How dare we prize equal rights and sustainable development over our God-given right to have tumors in our chicken?!

I’ll try to stick more tightly to actual policy recommendations at this point; I think we’ve made the case against prizing short-term gains from deregulation.

“A recent USDA-created program captures both the disrespect for American farmers and the Biden Administration’s effort to dictate agricultural practices. The USDA explained that it was concerned with farmers not transitioning to organic farming, and therefore announced that it will dedicate $300 million to induce farmers to adopt organic farming. There was no recognition that farmers know how to farm better than D.C. politicians or a that organic food is expensive and land-intensive. The Biden Administration has also been pushing so-called “climate-smart” agricultural practices which received additional support in the partisan Inflation Reduction Act.” (Project 2025, Section 3.1: Department of Agriculture, Daren Bakst, pages 324 and 325.)

How is providing incentives to participate in a voluntary program an act of “disrespect” to farmers? Framing this as “dictating” is completely disingenuous and inflammatory. “There was no recognition that farmers know how to farm better than D.C. politicians.” And why should there be? That seems like an obvious point. Should there have been recognition on the farmers’ parts that D.C. politicians are likely to be better at addressing broader challenges like sustainability, climate resilience, or public health?

Bakst’s statement here reflects nothing more than anti-government intervention rhetoric and totally fails to recognize the broader challenges that the agricultural sector faces. A more balanced approach would acknowledge the need for both farmer autonomy and government support to promote sustainable, resilient, and economically viable farming practices.

Here’s where it gets ugly with the specific recommendations:

“Remove the U.S. from any association with U.N. and other efforts to push sustainable-development schemes connected to food production.” (Project 2025, Section 3.1: Department of Agriculture, Daren Bakst, pages 325, paragraph 5.)

It’s hard to know where to start with that. It’s…just unbelievably ridiculous to halt all efforts into sustainable food production. Does he think we have unlimited food supplies?

Bakst goes on to make a few other recommendations, then advocate for the next Administration imposing these via executive order, bypassing Congress:

“To accomplish these objectives, a new Administration should announce its principles through an executive order, the USDA should remove all references to transforming the food system on its web site and other department-disseminated material, and it should expressly and regularly communicate the principles informing the objectives listed above, as well as promote these principles through legislative efforts.” (Project 2025, Section 3.1: Department of Agriculture, Daren Bakst, pages 325 and 326.)

There’s the Bruno Strategy at work there as well – if we don’t mention the need for sustainability in food production, it doesn’t exist! Not a thing! Don’t need to worry about it!

More recommendations:

“Repeal the federal sugar program. The federal government should not be in the central planning business, and the sugar program is a prime example of harmful central planning. Its very purpose is to limit the sugar supply in order to increase prices. The program has a regressive effect, since lower-income households spend more of their money to meet food needs compared to higher income households.” (Project 2025, Section 3.1: Department of Agriculture, Daren Bakst, pages 328, paragraph 6.)

He’s oversimplifying again. The Federal Sugar Program is a complex system that aims to maintain domestic sugar prices above global market levels. Potential impacts of repealing it include loss of price supports – meaning that sugar producers (both sugar beet and sugarcane farmers) would be exposed to lower global market prices, which are often more volatile and lower than U.S. prices. This could result in significant financial difficulties, with smaller or less efficient farms at risk of going out of business, which could lead to reduced domestic sugar production.

Without the import quotas and tariffs, cheaper sugar from countries like Brazil, Mexico, and Thailand could flood the U.S. market, putting further pressure on domestic producers. I suspect this is another example of “Republicans not properly understanding tariffs.” Increased reliance on imported sugar could negatively affect domestic employment in the sugar industry, particularly in states like Florida, Louisiana, and Minnesota, where sugar production is significant.

U.S. food manufacturers would benefit, since they would no longer have to buy domestic sugar and could get it cheaper at the global market price. If the price of sugar decreased, food manufacturers may drop prices, which would benefit U.S. consumers if that were indeed the result. Removal of the pricing supports leaves us open to global market volatility, potentially resulting in unpredictable sugar prices, which translates to unpredictable manufacturing prices and therefore unpredictable and fluctuating consumer costs.

On the other hand, if domestic sugar production declines due to the removal of price supports, it could lead to environmental benefits, especially where sugarcane production is water- and chemical-intensive, such as the Florida Everglades (where sugarcane farming has been linked to water pollution.⁸) (Although I’m sure that environmental harm reduction isn’t something that Bakst wants or cares about.)

“Ideally, repeal the ARC and PLC programs. Farmers eligible to participate in ARC or PLC are generally already able to purchase federal crop insurance, policies that protect against shortfalls in expected revenue whether caused by lower prices or smaller harvests. The ARC program is especially egregious because farmers are being protected from shallow losses, which is another way of saying minor dips in expected revenue. This is hardly consistent with the concept of providing a safety net to help farmers when they fall on hard times. The Congressional Budget Office (CBO), in one of its options to reduce the federal deficit, has once again identified repealing all Title I farm programs, including ARC, PLC, and the federal sugar program.” (Project 2025, Section 3.1: Department of Agriculture, Daren Bakst, pages 328, paragraph 6.)

Repealing these key safety nets, which are designed to help manage revenue and price risks for commodity crops like corn, soybeans, wheat, and rice, would have significant consequences for farmers (which in turn affects rural economies.) Let’s break that down a little:

The ARC and PLC programs provide financial assistance to farmers when crop prices or revenues fall below certain thresholds. If repealed, farmers would be more exposed to price fluctuations and yield variability, which could be particularly destabilizing in years of low prices or poor harvests. In the absence of these safety nets, periods of low prices could drive some farmers out of business, particularly smaller or more marginal producers. At the very least, it reduces income stability for farmers, which would lead to increased farm bankruptcies and financial stress in rural communities.

Bakst is correct that crop insurance is already a key tool for farmers, but ARC and PLC provide additional layers of protection. Without them, farmers might need to rely more heavily on crop insurance. While this could work for some, insurance generally doesn’t cover price drops as well as ARC and PLC, so farmers would still face greater exposure to price-related risks. Result: Farmers may have to buy more comprehensive and expensive crop insurance, increasing their operational costs without fully replacing the benefits of ARC and PLC.

More potential outcomes:

• Without ARC and PLC, small- and medium-sized farms may struggle more than larger operations, which are often better positioned to weather market volatility. This could accelerate the trend of farm consolidation, where larger farms buy out smaller, less financially stable ones. This threatens the viability of family farms.
• Without the income support from ARC and PLC, some farmers may reduce their planting of certain crops, especially if market prices are low or uncertain. This could reduce overall U.S. production of key commodities like corn, soybeans, wheat, and rice, leading to less supply in the market.
• Economic downturns in farming could lead to job losses and reduced economic activity in rural areas, further weakening already vulnerable communities.
• In periods of low commodity prices, farmers often rely on ARC and PLC payments to meet their financial obligations. Without these programs, farmers could be forced to take on more debt to cover operating costs, leading to higher debt-to-income ratios and increasing financial stress in the agricultural sector. This could exacerbate financial instability in rural America, potentially leading to higher rates of farm bankruptcies and foreclosures.
• Repealing ARC and PLC would align with a free-market approach, where farmers are more exposed to global competition and price fluctuations without government intervention. However, this could make the U.S. farming sector less competitive globally, as other countries continue to subsidize their farmers.

The only argument FOR repealing ARC and PLC is the potential reduction in government spending. These programs cost taxpayers billions of dollars annually. However, the actual savings might be limited, as the government may need to step in with ad-hoc disaster relief or emergency assistance during times of extreme market downturns or natural disasters – things that were previously covered under the safety net programs they repealed.

Bakst goes on to argue that safety nets should ONLY be applied to farmers when they have experienced serious unforeseen losses due to natural disasters. This is explicitly stating that market fluctuations aren’t going to be covered, and as we read above, they’re additionally arguing for policies that result in more market fluctuation.

The next recommendation is for moving all federal food programs supported by the USDA to the HHS (Department of Health and Human Services.) This includes SNAP, WIC, the National School Lunch and Breakfast Programs (NSLP and NSBP), and many others. That recommendation could make sense, given that the HHS oversees other types of assistance programs.

“As for baby formula regulations generally, labeling regulations and regulations that unnecessarily delay the manufacture and sale of baby formula should be re-evaluated. During the Biden Administration, there have been devastating baby formula shortages.” (Project 2025, Section 3.1: Department of Agriculture, Daren Bakst, page 334, paragraph 1.)

This statement is a bit of a doozy. He’s advocating for deregulating baby formula, which can lead to more contamination and manufacturing problems, while also calling for safer food production. He uses the 2022 baby formula shortage as an example of the problem, even though that shortage was caused by bacterial contamination and the shutdown of the Abbott Nutrition Plant after several infants were hospitalized and two died. That’s staggering levels of cognitive dissonance. [Source]⁹

Bakst goes on to rage that many public schools have now gone to free lunch and breakfast programs that all children are allowed to access, not just the very poorest ones. Most normal, compassionate people would rather err on the side of feeding all children, knowing that some don’t strictly need it, rather than let a single needy child go hungrier.

“Congress should eliminate CEP.” (Project 2025, Section 3.1: Department of Agriculture, Daren Bakst, page 335, paragraph 5.)

CEP is the federal program that allows schools in low-income areas to provide free meals to all students, without requiring individual applications for it. It was introduced in the Healthy, Hunger-Free Kids Act of 2010. Eliminating CEP would increase the administrative workload for school districts (because they would have to go back to the system of processing individual applications from families to determine who qualifies for free or reduced lunches.) This would also result in kids having reduced access to nutritious food, leading to an increase in food insecurity among low-income students. Some families who would qualify for free or reduced meals might not even apply due to stigma, confusion, or lack of awareness.

Anecdotally, we’ve all heard the stories about low-income students being denied food at school cafeterias because their parents couldn’t pay their lunch debt. In Sioux Falls, Iowa, school officials made it a policy to deny kids food who had a negative balance of $75 or more on their lunch accounts. “It’s a tough decision”, officials said, “but the alternative is debt!” [Source]¹⁰ This is an abohorrent policy, and they’re not alone: According to the group Hunger Free Schools Ohio, it would cost the state less than $2/day per kid to provide free meals to every student in the state. They’re not doing it, despite the fact that 1 in 6 children statewide and up to 1 in 4 children in some Ohio counties are hungry. [Source]¹¹

Then of course, there’s the stigma of “lunch-shaming”, where children are laughed at by their classmates when they aren’t able to afford their lunch and are denied. This is why it’s important to provide meals to all where possible – it avoids stigmatizing lower-income children, which can further traumatize them. In some cases, if children can’t afford hot lunch, they’re given a peanut butter sandwich and a milk. In other places, such as in this particular case in Florida¹², a cafeteria took food from a little girl who couldn’t afford it, and threw it in the trash in front of her. She was given nothing. The cruelty is unspeakable. (This happened in 2018.) Seriously, there are countless examples of poor kids being denied food, before this program became more widespread.

Some states have rejected CEP, of course, for various reasons, but for Bakst to wish to force a return to this for ALL American children in the name of reduced government spending, is despicable. (And mind you, Bakst doesn’t seem to object outright to feeding poor kids, he just doesn’t care if they’re stigmatized or badly treated in the process.)

“As a general matter, the next Administration should ensure that these [conservation] programs address genuine and specific environmental concerns with a focus on currently existing environmental problems, not those that are speculative in nature.” (Project 2025, Section 3.1: Department of Agriculture, Daren Bakst, page 336, paragraph 3.)

Bakst is couching any conservation efforts relating to climate change as “speculative” here. Climate change is not speculative.¹³

“[The next Administration should] Champion the elimination of the Conservation Reserve Program.” (Project 2025, Section 3.1: Department of Agriculture, Daren Bakst, page 336, paragraphs 6 and 7.)

Bakst couches the program as “paying farmers NOT to farm their land.” The reality is obviously more complex. The primary purpose of the Conservation Reserve Program is to improve environmental health and sustainability by incentivizing farmers and landowners to remove environmentally sensitive land from agricultural production and implement conservation practices. This provides benefits such as preventing soil erosion, improving water quality, enhancing wildlife habitats, promoting carbon sequestration, and improving air quality. The program was introduced in 1985 under Reagan following concerns over unacceptably high levels of soil erosion. It authorized the USDA to enroll up to 45 million acres in the program. So yes, it “pays farmers not to farm their land”, but for environmental reasons. [Source]¹⁴

Under the heading “Remove Obstacles for Agricultural Biotechnology”:

“The next Administration should embrace innovation and technology, not hinder its use – especially because of scare tactics that ignore sound science.” (Project 2025, Section 3.1: Department of Agriculture, Daren Bakst, page 339, paragraph 3.)

It is absolutely, laughably RICH that a climate change denier would even be able to utter the phrase “scare tactics that ignore sound science” with a straight face. This is unworthy of dignifying with further response.

“The USDA should work with Congress to repeal the federal labeling law, while maintaining federal preemption, and stress that voluntary labeling is allowed.” (Project 2025, Section 3.1: Department of Agriculture, Daren Bakst, page 339, paragraph 6.)

He’s arguing here for repealing the mandate that food manufacturers have to label their products accordingly if they’ve been genetically engineered (GMOs).

“The Forest Service should instead be focusing on addressing the precipitous annual amassing of biomass in the national forests that drive the behavior of wildfires. By thinning trees, removing live fuels and deadwood, and taking other preventive steps, the Forest Service can help to minimize the consequences of wildfires.” (Project 2025, Section 3.1: Department of Agriculture, Daren Bakst, page 340, paragraph 3.)

Ohhhh, NOW I understand where Trump got his idea to “rake the forests.”¹⁵ It feels like the authors of this Project would have gotten a lot further in selling it to the public if they hadn’t chosen such a laughably stupid figurehead to publicly explain their policies. Seriously, if he understood biomass reduction as “raking the forest”, imagine how facile his grasp on other major issues must be?

Nevertheless, this is an idea I can get behind (no, not raking the forests.) The U.S. Forest Service already engages in biomass removal as part of its forest management activities, particularly to reduce the risk of wildfires. This process, known as fuel reduction, involves thinning forests, removing dead or dying trees, and managing undergrowth (live fuels) that can contribute to the intensity and spread of wildfires. Many (apparently including Bakst, here), argue that they could do more to address biomass buildup and help prevent wildfires.

Next, Bakst argues that we should repeal the USDA Dietary Guidelines, claiming that there’s “no shortage” of private-sector diet advice for people. While this might be true on the surface, school lunches have to adhere to the dietary guidelines. Repealing them could/almost certainly would result in schools taking cheaper, non-nutritional options for feeding children. The reason Bakst is offended by these guidelines, by the way, is that they are currently mindful of sustainability and environmental practices.