Agriculture is a vital industry that sustains every American. However, as it stands, the industry is in jeopardy. As part of President Donald Trump’s efforts to reduce the size of the federal workforce, the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services — which includes the National Institutes of Health, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, and Food and Drug Administration (FDA) — announced in February that it would fire over 5,000 of its roughly 80,000 workers. Yet, according to Robert Califf, a former commissioner of the FDA, “there’s not any spare personnel” left, suggesting that any cuts may have a large detrimental impact on the agency and, thereby, American consumers.
Most of those who lost their jobs were in probationary periods, which include employees new to the agency as well as those shifting to new positions. The fact that probationary employees were targeted is especially damaging, as, according to a former FDA official, cuts to these jobs disproportionately affect younger staffers who have more up-to-date technical skills and are already hard to recruit due to competition with the private sector.
Shortly after the initial announcements in February, sources at the FDA reported that the Trump administration had rehired some of the workers that it initially fired at the agency. However, the question of what cuts to the FDA mean for agricultural companies and for American consumers remains. Current threats to the FDA’s funding fit within a broader history of the organization’s underfunding, which has placed the health of Americans at risk while benefiting “Big Agriculture,” just as many of Trump’s other volatile policies threaten U.S. agriculture.
Many issues in the regulation of American agriculture are far from new. While meats and poultry generally fall under the jurisdiction of the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA), the FDA is responsible for regulating most other food items in addition to ensuring the safety of drugs and medical devices. Yet, in 2024, the FDA’s budget of $6.9 billion lagged far behind the USDA’s budget of $203 billion—a conspicuous inequity that, along with its wide array of duties, explains reports of the FDA being stretched thin Evidently, this issue is not simply isolated to the new administration’s impacts. Rather, it has been a constant problem that the FDA has faced for decades, which would only be exacerbated by further cuts.
The most direct impact of threats to the FDA comes in the form of food safety concerns. According to the CDC, there are typically between 17 and 36 investigations into multi-state episodes of foodborne illnesses carried out each week. In 2024, the rate of foodborne illnesses in the U.S. rose dramatically, with the number of hospitalizations and deaths doubling and recalls relating to pathogens like salmonella and E. coli rising 41%. The rise of E. coli rates can be partially attributed to different outbreaks, including one linked to McDonald’s Quarter Pounders in September 2024 that affected 104 people in 14 states, leading to 34 hospitalizations and one death. Another outbreak emerged in leafy greens last November, beginning in St. Louis, Mo. before spreading to a total of 115 patients across six other states.
The persistence and increasing frequency of these outbreaks of foodborne illness highlight the growing need to invest more heavily in the FDA in the interest of public safety rather than imbuing it with further burdens. Though there is always some risk of food outbreaks occurring, the FDA’s historical underfunding has contributed to the frequency of these outbreaks, an ominous sign considering the further increases in cuts proposed by the Trump Administration.
Beyond the obvious issue of foodborne illness, an additional impact of the threats to the FDA concerns the price of eggs. Currently, the FDA is working in conjunction with the USDA and the CDC to monitor and control an outbreak of H5N1 Avian Influenza, more commonly known as bird flu, by taking actions such as sampling aged raw milk cheese for signs of the pathogen. This outbreak has, in just the past few months, killed millions of egg-laying hens, heavily constricting the supply of eggs. As a result, the average price of a dozen eggs in the United States hit an all time high of $4.95 in January, up from $4.15 just a month earlier. This trend continued into February wherein wholesale egg prices saw a 53.6% jump, which drove two-thirds of the increase in the price of goods as measured by the U.S. consumer price index. Thus, a weakened FDA risks concerns over food safety in health but also to the bottom line for American shoppers.
The other side of weakening the FDA involves its implications for Big Agriculture. Regulatory capture describes cases in which governmental regulatory bodies are unduly influenced by firms in the industries that they are supposed to be regulating. This leads to a conflict of interest in which the firms influence policies while regulatory power is alleviated. An underfunded FDA that is less capable of carrying out its duties is less likely to fend off the interests of Big Agriculture. Especially when public health and safety is at risk, this issue is one to keep an eye on amid threats to further incapacitate the FDA.
As Professor Shon R. Hiatt at Harvard Business School points out, “if a company can get enough farmers to support the [agricultural] product and they write letters, then the USDA is going to listen,” demonstrating how firms already seek to promote their own interests with regard to regulations. Trump’s threats to the FDA demonstrate a disinterest in its regulatory purpose, which sends a signal to these firms that they may be able to get away with more in the future, at the expense of the American people.
Beyond the FDA, some of Trump’s other policies have threatened the state of U.S. agriculture both from the consumer and producer sides. His threats of massive deportations could significantly cut down the workforce within the agricultural sector. While 39% of hired crop farmworkers possess U.S. Citizenship and 19% have official work authorization permits, which leaves 42% with no work authorization. The proportion of unauthorized workers is highest in California, which is the nation’s largest producer of agricultural products. This proportion is also higher in certain sectors of agriculture, such as dairy, where immigrants are estimated to make up one half of all workers.
Thus, the removal of these workers would create supply chain issues through labor shortage complications and subsequent price hikes. Additionally, Trump’s erratic tariff policy and the threat of retaliatory tariffs runs the risk of driving down global demand for U.S. agricultural goods such as dairy, which pushes down the price farmers receive for their products and thus slashing their incomes. These examples demonstrate the negative impacts that Trump’s policies, even outside of the scope of potential FDA cuts, threaten to have on agriculture.
Beyond agencies that operate at the federal level, there are other actors that can contribute to agriculture reform. Namely, states have the power to mitigate some of the deleterious effects that would come from these current and ongoing agriculture concerns. Agencies such as the Massachusetts Department of Agriculture Divisions, California Department for Food and Agriculture, and Washington State Department of Agriculture perform their own agricultural regulation and supervision that supplements work done by the FDA. State regulations in California ensure that farm workers receive proper overtime pay, mandate regular water breaks to prevent heat illnesses, dictate sufficient field sanitation, and require reporting on pesticide use.
Better funding for these state departments to expand their work could help protect consumers from the dangers associated with gaps and limitations in the FDA’s coverage. In the end, however, a sustainable solution for all Americans requires a federal government that is committed to food safety, as reflected first and foremost by building up support for the FDA to better conduct its duties, rather than threatening its funding.
Senior U.S. Editor
