The Trump Administration has been justifiably criticized for its disparagement of science and ignorance of scientific facts. The most publicized example of his anti-science actions is Trump’s withdrawal from the international agreement addressing climate change.
There are many more ill-advised examples, less publicized and “under the radar,” drawing little media attention. These include using executive power to influence programs of executive branch agencies. A prime example of this tactic is the blatant attempt to gut the research and fact finding mission of the U.S. Department of Agriculture.
Secretary of Agriculture Sonny Perdue has announced plans to cut employment in USDA’s Economic Research Service and move it out of Washington, under the guise of “saving money and being closer to agricultural producers.” Critics of this move include 42 organizations, like The American Statistical Association, the world’s largest community of statisticians whose members serve in industry, government and academia in more than 90 countries.
These organizations urged that ERS remain in the Washington D.C. area, be protected as an independent statistical agency and be given the resources needed to maintain credibility and integrity in its research. Fifty-six former USDA and federal statistical agency officials, including former deputy and undersecretaries, have written to Congress, warning of damage this would cause and urging that these proposed plans be abandoned. College deans and university departments have written to Congress, highlighting the importance of sustaining ERS research capacity and quality.
The ERS, rated as one of the top three agricultural research institutions of the world, employs about 330 people, including interdisciplinary teams of economists, statisticians, sociologists, demographers and a broad range of agricultural scientists. These professionals provide economic research and analysis of emerging issues in agriculture, food, the environment and rural America. Issues include global trade, food safety and consequences of climate change.
The ERS has traditionally enjoyed independence within the organizational structure of USDA. Critics assert that the real motivation behind the Trump Administration’s proposal is to gut research and reporting of results that are politically uncomfortable to the administration and interest groups.
Trump’s proposal not only would move the ERS out of Washington, but would move it into the policy wing of the USDA that supports the secretary of agriculture’s policies. This would be a drastic change from the traditional independence of the ERS staff that has insulated it from policy concerns.
In short, cutting staff and moving ERS to USDA’s policy wing would enable the secretary to politicize the program. Former ERS employees assert that ERS has run afoul with Ag Secretary Perdue with findings on how farmers have been financially harmed by Trump’s trade feuds, the Republican tax code rewrite and other sensitive issues. A current ERS employee, unnamed for fear of retaliation, states, “The administration didn’t appreciate some of our findings, so this is retaliation to harm the agency and send a message.”
In their March budget request, Perdue and Trump made clear they wanted to reduce the scope of the ERS, eliminating what they called “low priority research” that included politically sensitive areas such as food stamps and environmental issues. The proposal called for slashing ERS staff levels by over 50%, cutting total positions from about 329 to 160.
Former ERS Administrator Susan Offutt, under Presidents Bill Clinton and George W. Bush, stated that the agency’s studies showing how USDA’s farm-subsidy programs disproportionately benefit wealthier farmers have been a “perennial irritant” to influential lobbing groups. “Of course, this is not the story the farm lobby wants to tell about struggling farmers,” Offutt said. “Controlling ERS would stop unflattering news about farm subsidies favoring high-income, high-wealth farm households from reaching the public.”
The proposal to move ERS out of Washington would appear to have some rationale, as the cost of living in Washington is high. But the real intent is to encourage retirements and cut staff. ASA President Lisa LaVange asserts that many of these employees are not going to readily move their homes and families. “They can and will take jobs that allow them to stay in their homes and keep kids in the same schools; they most likely will resign or take early retirement rather than move.”
Former ASA President Katherine Wallman adds, “USDA’s dismantling of the ERS is the biggest threat to a federal statistical agency in many years.”
ERS employees are resisting the proposal by recently voting to join the American Federation of Government Employees. The union is backing legislation to withhold funds the USDA would need to make the move. Critics of Trump’s proposal have some allies in Congress. The outcome is uncertain.
It is a bad idea for federal agencies to politicize research. Avoiding topics such as effects of climate change, tariffs and environmental issues, is obviously politically motivated.
It’s not that such politicization is unheard of; one of my former senior colleagues in the University of Minnesota’s Agricultural Economics Department, Willard Cochrane, was chief agricultural policy advisor for JFK’s presidential campaign and held a major USDA post during the Kennedy Administration. Cochrane tells about how, during USDA’s budget hearings, the chair of the House Agriculture Appropriations Subcommittee, a traditional Southern Democrat, would insist that there be no research money used for “hound dog studies.” The expression was Congressional speak for studies on rural poverty, the results of which would not reflect well on Congress. So, best not to fund it.
But the Trump proposal regarding ERS is characterized by critics such as Offett as “over the top.”
Adding to actions that tank the morale of highly qualified personnel, Perdue directed USDA researchers, even in peer-reviewed publications, to include disclaimers stating that findings were “preliminary;” an action clearly intended to water down unflattering data from the department’s own experts.
Squelching undesirable facts is typical of Trump’s modus operandi. After all, Trump thrives on creating his own reality.
— John Waelti of Monroe, a retired professor of economics, can be reached at jjwaelti1@tds.net. His column appears Saturdays in the Monroe Times.
