United States Department Of Agriculture

The United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) is not merely a bureaucratic apparatus; it is an executive department of the United States federal government designed to grapple with the fundamental, often messy, realities of sustenance. Its stated purpose is to address the multifaceted requirements of commercial farming and the production of livestock for food, to strategically promote agricultural trade and output, to tirelessly work towards ensuring food safety, to safeguard vital natural resources, to cultivate and strengthen rural communities, and, rather ambitiously, to strive for the eradication of hunger both within the United States and across international borders.

This sprawling entity is presided over by the secretary of agriculture, an individual who reports directly to the president of the United States and holds a seat within the president's influential Cabinet. The current occupant of this demanding position is Brooke Rollins, who assumed the role on February 13, 2025. One might wonder if the vastness of the task ever truly settles in.

The department's central command post is the imposing Jamie L. Whitten Building, situated at 1301 Independence Avenue, S.W., in the heart of Washington, D.C., precisely at coordinates 38°53′17″N 77°1′48″W. This isn't just a building; it's a nexus for an organization that employs a staggering 105,778 individuals and operates with an annual budget that hit US$213 billion in 2024. A substantial portion of this budget, approximately 71%, is channeled into critical nutrition assistance programs, expertly managed by the Food and Nutrition Service (FNS). The veritable behemoth within the FNS budget is the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (formerly, and perhaps more colloquially, known as the 'Food Stamp' program), which stands as the bedrock of the USDA's efforts to combat food insecurity. Beyond direct food aid, the United States Forest Service reigns as the single largest agency within the department, overseeing the administration of national forests and national grasslands, which collectively encompass a formidable 25% of all federal lands. It's a vast mandate, to say the least.

Overview

The USDA, in its infinite wisdom and intricate design, is logically bifurcated into eight distinct mission areas. Each of these areas, presumably to prevent utter chaos, is assigned at least one specialized agency, all steadfastly dedicated to the overarching theme of their respective missions. It's a bureaucratic tapestry, meticulously woven, or so they tell us.

Farm Production and Conservation (FPAC) This mission area focuses on the direct support and stewardship of agricultural lands, a somewhat Sisyphean task given the constant interplay of nature and economics.

• FPAC Business Center
• Farm Service Agency (FSA)
• Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS)
• Risk Management Agency (RMA)

Food, Nutrition, and Consumer Services (FNCS) Perhaps the most direct link between the USDA and the average American, this area grapples with the unglamorous but essential task of feeding people and offering guidance on how to avoid questionable dietary choices.

• Food and Nutrition Service (FNS)

Food Safety (FS) A critical, often thankless, endeavor that attempts to ensure the food on your plate isn't actively trying to kill you. A noble goal, if perpetually challenging.

• Food Safety and Inspection Service (FSIS)

Marketing and Regulatory Programs (MRP) This is where the invisible hand of regulation meets the tangible reality of agricultural commerce, attempting to impose some semblance of order on markets and prevent widespread pestilence.

• Agricultural Marketing Service (AMS)
• Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS)

Natural Resources and the Environment (NRE) Charged with the unenviable task of balancing human needs with ecological imperatives, this mission area oversees vast swathes of the nation's natural heritage.

• Forest Service (FS)

Research, Education, and Economics (REE) The intellectual engine of the USDA, tasked with peering into the future of agriculture, understanding its economic underpinnings, and, presumably, making sense of it all for the rest of us.

• Agricultural Research Service (ARS)
• Economic Research Service (ERS)
• National Agricultural Statistics Service (NASS)
• National Institute of Food and Agriculture (NIFA)
• Office of the Chief Scientist

Rural Development (RD) An attempt to ensure that life beyond the urban sprawl isn't an exercise in deprivation, fostering economic vitality and infrastructure in areas often overlooked.

• Rural Business-Cooperative Service (RBS)
• Rural Housing Service (RHS)
• Rural Utilities Service (RUS)

Trade and Foreign Agriculture Affairs (TFAA) Navigating the treacherous waters of international agricultural trade, this mission area aims to both open markets for American products and address global food security challenges.

• Foreign Agricultural Service (FAS)
• U.S. Codex Office

The Food and Nutrition Service bears the considerable weight of administering many of the programs concerned with the equitable distribution of food and nourishment to the populace of the United States. It also undertakes the crucial task of providing essential nutrition education to those in need, a seemingly endless endeavor in a nation perpetually confused about its dietary choices. Among its most impactful activities is the aforementioned Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, a lifeline that consistently delivers healthy food to over 40 million low-income and homeless individuals each month. It’s a stark reminder of persistent societal inequalities. The USDA, recognizing the gravity of widespread homelessness, is also a committed member of the United States Interagency Council on Homelessness, actively collaborating with other agencies to ensure that these vital mainstream benefits are accessible to those experiencing homelessness. Because, apparently, navigating bureaucracy is a luxury not everyone can afford.

Furthermore, the USDA extends its considerable reach to assist farmers and food producers, not just in growing their crops, but in successfully marketing and selling them on both domestic and competitive global markets. In a broader humanitarian context, it plays a significant role in overseas aid programs, strategically providing surplus foods to developing countries. This aid can be channeled through various avenues: the United States Agency for International Development (USAID), direct engagement with foreign governments, collaboration with international bodies such as the World Food Program, or through a network of approved non-profit organizations. The legal bedrock for such actions is firmly established by the Agricultural Act of 1949, specifically section 416 (b), and the Agricultural Trade Development and Assistance Act of 1954, more famously known as Food for Peace. In a slightly sweeter vein, the USDA also proudly counts itself as a partner of the World Cocoa Foundation, which, one presumes, is a far less contentious undertaking.

History

To understand the present, one must, regrettably, delve into the past. The history of agriculture in the United States is a long and often turbulent saga, and the USDA's role within it is equally complex. The definitive narrative, if such a thing exists, is often cited as Gladys L. Baker's Century of Service: The first 100 years of the United States Department of Agriculture (U.S. Department of Agriculture, 1963).

Origins in the Patent Office

In its nascent stages, the American economy was overwhelmingly agrarian. The federal government, ever keen to foster growth and prosperity, recognized early on the profound importance of agriculture. Consequently, officials dedicated efforts to identifying and importing novel, improved varieties of seeds, plants, and animals into the burgeoning United States. This wasn't merely a hobby; it was an economic imperative.

A significant, albeit indirect, precursor to the USDA's agricultural mandate emerged in 1829. At the behest of James Smithson, who harbored a genuine desire to further propagate and disseminate scientific knowledge among the American populace, the illustrious Smithsonian Institution was formally established. Curiously, despite its broad scientific aims, it did not initially incorporate agriculture as a distinct focus.

The seeds of a dedicated agricultural department truly began to sprout in 1837 when Henry Leavitt Ellsworth assumed the role of Commissioner of Patents within the Department of State. Displaying an uncommon foresight and initiative, Ellsworth began a systematic process of collecting and distributing new varieties of seeds and plants. He leveraged existing networks, primarily through influential members of Congress and various local agricultural societies, effectively creating an informal but impactful agricultural outreach program. Recognizing the clear need for a more formalized structure, Congress responded in 1839 by establishing the Agricultural Division directly within the Patent Office. A modest sum of $1,000 was initially allotted for "the collection of agricultural statistics and other agricultural purposes"—a sum that seems almost quaint today, yet represented a critical first step.

Ellsworth’s unwavering interest in advancing agricultural practices was unequivocally articulated in his annual reports. These documents consistently advocated for the creation of a public depository, a sort of national library for plant life, to meticulously preserve and efficiently distribute the diverse array of new seeds and plants being introduced. He also pressed for the appointment of a dedicated clerk to systematically collect and analyze crucial agricultural statistics, the compilation of comprehensive statewide reports detailing crop conditions across different regions, and the innovative application of chemistry to agricultural processes—a revolutionary concept at the time. For these pioneering efforts, Ellsworth rightfully earned the moniker, the "Father of the Department of Agriculture."

However, this nascent agricultural focus remained somewhat adrift within the broader governmental structure. In 1849, the Patent Office, and by extension its Agricultural Division, was transferred to the newly formed Department of the Interior. In the years that followed, the agitation for a more autonomous and prominent governmental body dedicated solely to agriculture became increasingly vocal and persistent. It seems even in the 19th century, bureaucracy struggled with proper categorization.

Formation

The persistent advocacy for a dedicated agricultural department finally bore fruit amidst the turmoil of the American Civil War. On May 15, 1862, in a pivotal move that underscored the nation's reliance on its agricultural backbone even in wartime, President Abraham Lincoln signed the Morrill Act, officially establishing the independent Department of Agriculture. This new department was initially led by a commissioner, a role that, rather tellingly, did not yet carry Cabinet status. Starting with a meager staff of just eight employees, the department was assigned an ambitious mandate: to conduct comprehensive research and development pertaining to "agriculture, rural development, aquaculture, and human nutrition in the most general and comprehensive sense of those terms." Isaac Newton, a seasoned agriculturalist, was entrusted with the responsibility of becoming its first commissioner, tasked with navigating this immense, albeit understaffed, endeavor. Lincoln, with characteristic eloquence and perhaps a touch of political savvy, famously dubbed it the "people's department," a fitting description given that, at the time, over half of the nation's population was directly or indirectly engaged in agriculture or the burgeoning field of agribusiness.

By 1868, the department had outgrown its initial confines and relocated to the grand new Department of Agriculture Building in Washington D.C.. Designed by the celebrated D.C. architect Adolf Cluss, this impressive structure stood proudly on the National Mall, nestled between 12th Street and 14th SW. More than just providing offices for its expanding staff, the department was granted the entire width of the Mall up to B Street NW, transforming a public space into an expansive outdoor laboratory where new plants could be cultivated and experimented with. This visual presence undoubtedly reinforced its growing importance.

The 1880s witnessed a flurry of lobbying activity from diverse advocacy groups, all vying for greater representation at the Cabinet level. Business interests clamored for a dedicated Department of Commerce and Industry, while farmers, recognizing their collective power, tirelessly pushed to elevate the Department of Agriculture to Cabinet rank. A moment of near-triumph arrived in 1887 when both the House of Representatives and Senate successfully passed separate bills that would have granted Cabinet status to a combined Department of Agriculture and Labor. However, this legislative effort ultimately faltered in conference committee, primarily due to objections from farm interests who resisted the inclusion of labor concerns in "their" department. The struggle persisted, but finally, in 1889, the Department of Agriculture achieved its long-sought cabinet-level status, a testament to the undeniable economic and social power of the agricultural sector.

The department’s influence continued to expand geographically and functionally. The landmark Hatch Act of 1887 proved instrumental by providing crucial federal funding for the establishment of agricultural experiment stations in every state. This created a decentralized network of research and innovation, bringing scientific inquiry directly to farming communities. Building upon this foundation, the Smith-Lever Act of 1914 further solidified the USDA's outreach by funding cooperative extension services in each state. These services were designed to disseminate practical knowledge in agriculture, home economics, and other vital subjects directly to the public, effectively extending the department's educational arm into virtually every county of every state. The USDA was no longer just a federal office; it was a pervasive presence in rural America.

New Deal era

By the year 1933, as the nation teetered on the brink of economic collapse, the department was a well-established fixture in Washington and an intimately known entity across rural America. However, the agricultural landscape itself was in dire straits. The USDA's statisticians, under the astute leadership of Secretary Henry Wallace, a statistician himself, had already built a formidable data-gathering arm within the Division of Crop and Livestock Estimates. Wallace further augmented this expertise by introducing sophisticated sampling techniques, bringing a new level of scientific rigor to agricultural data. A robust Bureau of Agricultural Economics, staffed by professional economists, provided critical analysis. Yet, the true power of the USDA lay in its extensive agricultural experiment station system—a deeply embedded network of state partners operating within the land-grant colleges. These colleges, in turn, ran a vast field service, maintaining direct contact with farmers in virtually every rural county. The department navigated this complex ecosystem smoothly, often working in concert with the American Farm Bureau Federation, a well-organized and influential pressure group representing the interests of the largest commercial growers before Congress.

The onset of the Great Depression plunged the agricultural sector into an unprecedented crisis. As late as this period, farm work still occupied a significant fourth of the American workforce. In a striking reversal of urban migration trends, many young people who had sought opportunity in cities during the prosperous 1920s found themselves returning to the relative stability of the family farm after the economic collapse of 1929 decimated urban employment. In this climate of widespread despair, the USDA emerged as a critical bulwark. It played an indispensable role in ensuring that food continued to be produced and efficiently distributed to those who desperately needed it. The department also provided vital loans for struggling small landowners, offering a lifeline against foreclosure, and dispensed invaluable technical advice, helping farmers adapt and survive. Its Bureau of Home Economics, established a decade prior in 1923, stepped up its efforts, publishing practical shopping advice and ingenious recipes designed to stretch meager family budgets and make food go further—a testament to the department's direct impact on everyday lives. In a more specialized, yet equally crucial, development in the late 1940s, the Pollinating Insect Research unit was formally established. This unit, initially part of the alfalfa seed production effort, was dedicated to the study of bees and other pollinators, aiming to improve pollination management—a quiet but essential contribution to agricultural productivity that continues to resonate today.

Modern times

The USDA, like all large federal agencies, continues to evolve and respond to the ever-shifting landscape of national and global challenges. On August 27, 2018, the department announced a substantial farm aid package, totaling $4.7 billion in direct payments to American farmers. This significant intervention was a direct response to the economic pressures faced by the agricultural sector, particularly in the context of ongoing trade disputes.

More recently, recognizing the urgent need to address climate change and its impact on agriculture, the USDA made a notable announcement on February 7, 2022. It unveiled the Partnerships for Climate-Smart Commodities, an ambitious $1 billion program. This initiative is designed to rigorously test and verify the tangible benefits of agricultural practices that are specifically tailored to be climate-friendly, signaling a strategic shift towards more sustainable farming methods.

In October 2022, the USDA again stepped in to provide crucial relief, announcing a $1.3 billion debt relief program. This program was aimed at approximately 36,000 farmers who had fallen behind on their loan payments or were facing the looming threat of foreclosures. The provisions for this aid were rooted in the [Inflation Reduction Act of 2022](/Inflation_Reduction_Act_of_2022), which wisely set aside$3.1 billion specifically to assist farmers grappling with high-risk operations exacerbated by USDA-backed loans. It's a testament to the cyclical nature of agricultural hardship and the government's role in mitigating it.

However, the path of a federal agency is rarely smooth. In February 2025, the Trump administration initiated a controversial series of dismissals within the USDA. Multiple probationary employees were terminated, including several highly skilled researchers in the post-doctoral research fellowship program within the Agricultural Research Service—a division explicitly dedicated to leveraging scientific expertise to safeguard the nation's food supply. The USDA, in a statement issued on February 14, 2025, attempted to justify these actions by claiming it was implementing "an aggressive plan to optimize its workforce by eliminating positions that are no longer necessary." One might question the timing and targets of such "optimization." Just a few days later, however, a follow-up statement was released, confirming that some of the fired individuals held "several positions supporting" highly pathogenic avian influenza research. The department then stated it was "working to swiftly rectify the situation and rescind" the termination letters, a rather telling admission of a significant misstep that left many wondering about the decision-making process.

Further controversy emerged in March 2025 when the USDA made the decision to cut two federal programs. These programs had previously provided approximately $1 billion in crucial funding to schools and food banks, enabling them to directly purchase food from local farms, ranchers, and producers. Such cuts invariably spark debates about supporting local economies versus broader budgetary considerations, often with real-world consequences for communities and producers alike.

Organization and Component Staff Level

The USDA's vastness is perhaps best illustrated by its internal structure, a complex web of offices and agencies, each with its own specific mandate and staff. The following breakdown, based on the estimated FY2023 appropriation as detailed in USDA's FY2024 Congressional Budget Justification, offers a glimpse into the sheer scale of this administrative machinery. It’s a lot of people, doing a lot of things, often simultaneously.

A nutrition researcher, lost in thought over canned peas, embodies the quiet dedication within the USDA.

Inactive Departmental Services

Like all large organizations, the USDA has seen its share of restructuring, renaming, and re-missioning over the years. These are not failures, merely evolutions, or perhaps bureaucratic reshufflings designed to keep everyone on their toes.

• Agricultural Stabilization and Conservation Service (ASCS) (This agency, once a cornerstone of farm policy, was absorbed into the more comprehensive Farm Service Agency in 1994, a move that consolidated various farm support programs.)
• Animal Damage Control (This rather blunt title was eventually refined and renamed Wildlife Services, reflecting a more nuanced approach to human-wildlife interactions, though the core function of mitigating conflicts remains.)
• Soil Conservation Service (SCS) (A foundational agency dedicated to protecting the nation's soil, it was eventually renamed the Natural Resources Conservation Service, broadening its mandate to encompass a wider array of natural resource stewardship.)
• Section of Vegetable Pathology, Division of Botany (1887–90) (A highly specialized unit, indicative of the early scientific focus of the department.)
• Renamed Division of Vegetable Pathology (1890–95) (A slight, but noticeable, shift in nomenclature, reflecting perhaps a broader scope or increased prominence within the botanical studies.)

Discrimination

The history of the USDA, unfortunately, is not without its significant blemishes, particularly concerning systemic discrimination. Allegations have been consistently leveled, asserting that throughout the agency's long history, its personnel have actively discriminated against farmers from various minority backgrounds. This discrimination manifested in tangible ways, primarily through the denial of crucial loans and restricted access to other vital programs, extending well into the 1990s. The insidious effect of this systemic discrimination was a precipitous and tragic reduction in the number of African American farmers operating in the United States. While African American farmers have undeniably borne the brunt of these discriminatory actions by the USDA, they were not alone. Women, Native Americans, Hispanics, and other minority groups have also experienced various forms of discrimination at the hands of the USDA. The majority of these discriminatory practices, it has been revealed, were perpetrated through the Farm Service Agency, the very entity charged with overseeing essential loan and assistance programs intended to support farmers. The irony, as always, is rather bitter.

Even in the implementation of well-intentioned programs, discrimination found a foothold. In response to the Supreme Court's ruling that deemed the Agricultural Adjustment Act unconstitutional, Congress enacted the Soil Conservation and Domestic Allotment Act of 1936. This legislation established the Soil Conservation Service (SCS), an agency designed to provide services to private landowners and encourage subsidies for practices that would relieve soil from excessive farming. Yet, in its formative years, particularly within Southern jurisdictions, the SCS exhibited a noticeable reluctance to hire Black conservationists. Rather than actively recruiting and interviewing Black students from universities for job opportunities, these students were often left to seek out the limited opportunities grudgingly granted to Black conservationists. Progress, it seems, was not always a given.

A significant turning point, at least formally, arrived with the 1964 Civil Rights Act, which prompted the USDA to officially end racial segregation among its staff. However, the legacy of past discrimination continued to haunt the department. This came to a head in 1999 with the landmark Pigford v. Glickman class-action lawsuit, brought forth by courageous African American farmers. In a significant admission of culpability, the USDA agreed to a billion-dollar settlement, acknowledging its pervasive patterns of discrimination in the granting of loans and subsidies to Black farmers. Yet, even this substantial settlement proved insufficient for many. In 2011, a second round of payouts, colloquially known as Pigford II, was appropriated by Congress for $1.25 billion. While seemingly large, this payout arrived far too late to provide meaningful financial assistance to the many who had desperately needed it during the initial 1999 lawsuit, often amounting to only around$250,000 per farmer. Justice, as ever, moves at a glacial pace, and often with insufficient compensation. A March 17, 2006, letter from the Government Accountability Office (GAO) concerning the Pigford Settlement starkly highlighted a critical systemic failure, noting that "the court noted that USDA disbanded its Office of Civil Rights in 1983, and stopped responding to claims of discrimination." The implications of such an abandonment of oversight are chillingly clear.

Pigford v. Glickman

The culmination of decades of simmering resentment and documented injustice, Black farmers finally united to file a monumental class action discrimination suit against the USDA in federal court in 1997. This legal challenge was not merely a lawsuit; an attorney involved aptly described it as "the most organized, largest civil rights case in the history of the country." The gravity of the situation was further amplified by direct action: in 1997, Black farmers from at least five states converged on Washington, D.C., staging powerful protests directly in front of the USDA headquarters. These protests became a recurring and strategic tactic in subsequent years, serving to keep national attention firmly focused on the ongoing plight of Black farmers. The sheer political pressure mounted, leading to representatives of the National Black Farmers Association (NBFA) meeting with President Bill Clinton and other high-ranking administration officials at the White House. The NBFA's president also provided compelling testimony before the United States House Committee on Agriculture, detailing the systemic issues at play.

On April 14, 1999, U.S. Federal District Court Judge Paul L. Friedman formally approved the settlement and consent decree in Pigford v. Glickman. While the settlement acknowledged discrimination against 22,363 Black farmers, the NBFA, with a keen eye on the broader injustice, would later decry the agreement as incomplete, pointing out that over 70,000 farmers had been unjustly excluded. Nevertheless, this settlement was, at the time, recognized as the largest-ever civil rights class action settlement in American history, with lawyers estimating its total value to exceed $2 billion. A critical component for many was the promise of debt forgiveness, offering a chance at a clean slate. Judge Friedman, recognizing the need for ongoing oversight, appointed a monitor to ensure the terms of the settlement were properly executed. Farmers across Alabama, Mississippi, Arkansas, and Georgia were among those directly impacted by this landmark agreement.

Following the settlement, the NBFA's president was repeatedly invited to testify before Congress. On September 12, 2000, before the United States Senate Committee on Agriculture, he highlighted a persistent problem: many farmers had still not received their promised payments, and a significant number remained unjustly excluded from the settlement. A further scandal erupted when it was revealed that a Department of Justice (DoJ) staff "general attorney" handling Black farmers' cases was, astonishingly, unlicensed. The NBFA swiftly called for all such cases to be reheard, demanding accountability. A 2004 investigation by the Chicago Tribune brought into sharp relief the devastating consequences of this longstanding USDA discrimination, reporting that Black farmers had been forced out of business at a rate three times faster than their white counterparts. In 1920, one in seven U.S. farmers was African-American; by 2004, that number had plummeted to a mere one in one hundred. USDA spokesman Ed Loyd, while acknowledging the inherent unfairness of the USDA loan process for minority farmers, claimed it was difficult to precisely quantify the overall effect on these farmers—a rather convenient lack of clarity.

In 2006, the Government Accountability Office (GAO) released a scathing report, highly critical of the USDA's handling of the Black farmers' cases. This prompted renewed efforts by the NBFA to lobby Congress for further relief. John Boyd (farmer), the indefatigable president of the NBFA, successfully secured Congressional support for legislation that earmarked $100 million in funds specifically to settle the cases of late-filers. A bill was subsequently introduced in the House of Representatives and later in the Senate by Senator George Felix Allen. In 2007, Boyd testified before the United States House Committee on the Judiciary regarding this crucial legislation. As the organization gained significant traction and congressional supporters in 2007, a disturbing revelation surfaced: some employees within the USDA Farm Services Agency were actively engaged in covert activities aimed at blocking Congressional legislation intended to aid the Black farmers. This exposed a deep-seated resistance within the very agency designed to help. Barack Obama, then a U.S. Senator, lent his considerable support to the Black farmers' issues in 2007, and a bill he co-sponsored successfully passed the Senate that same year.

The struggle for justice continued. In early June 2008, hundreds of Black farmers who had been denied the opportunity to have their cases heard in the initial Pigford settlement filed a new lawsuit against the USDA, refusing to be silenced. The Senate and House versions of the Black farmers bill, which explicitly reopened discrimination cases, finally became law in June 2008. News reports at the time indicated that this new legislation could potentially impact up to 74,000 Black farmers, highlighting the immense scale of the historical injustice. In October 2008, the GAO once again issued a critical report, faulting the USDA's ongoing handling of discrimination complaints. The GAO's recommendation was clear: establish an independent oversight review board specifically to examine civil rights complaints, a direct indictment of the USDA's internal mechanisms.

After countless public rallies and an intensive lobbying effort by NBFA members, Congress finally approved, and President Obama signed into law in December 2010, legislation that allocated a substantial $1.15 billion to resolve the remaining outstanding Black farmers' cases. John W. Boyd Jr. of the NBFA was present at the White House bill-signing ceremony, a poignant moment of long-delayed recognition. However, the saga was not without its complications. As of 2013, a staggering 90,000 African-American, Hispanic, female, and Native American farmers had filed claims. While many were legitimate, it was reported that some claims were found to be fraudulent or transparently bogus. In Maple Hill, North Carolina, by 2013, the number of successful claimants was four times the actual number of farms, with one out of every nine African-Americans in the area receiving payment. A critical flaw in the process was highlighted: "claimants were not required [by the USDA] to present documentary evidence that they had been unfairly treated or had even tried to farm." This lack of stringent documentation was further complicated by the USDA's own practice of discarding denied applications after only three years, making retrospective verification incredibly difficult. It seems even when trying to right wrongs, the system can be deeply flawed.

Keepseagle v. Vilsack

Following the precedent set by the Pigford v. Glickman case, Native American farmers, having experienced similar patterns of discrimination from the USDA, initiated their own class-action lawsuit in 1999. Their complaint specifically alleged loan discrimination, citing violations under the Equal Credit Opportunity Act (ECOA) and the Administrative Procedure Act (APA). This case, Keepseagle v. Vilsack, drew heavily on the legal reasoning and framework established by its predecessor, demonstrating a clear pattern of discriminatory practices within the department. Ultimately, a settlement was reached between the plaintiffs and the USDA, amounting to a significant sum of up to $760 million, to be awarded through individual [damages](/Damages) claims. These claims were designed to provide monetary relief, debt relief, and/or tax relief, offering a measure of restitution for past harms. The filing period for these claims commenced on June 29, 2011, and remained open for 180 days. Claimants were categorized into two tracks: Track A claimants were eligible for up to$50,000, while Track B claimants, requiring a higher standard of proof, could receive up to $250,000. It was a complex, but necessary, attempt to address a long-standing injustice.

Garcia v. Vilsack

In a similar vein to Pigford v. Glickman, a distinct class-action lawsuit, Garcia v. Vilsack, was filed in 2000 in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia. This suit was brought on behalf of Hispanic farmers, who alleged that the USDA had systematically discriminated against them in critical areas such as credit transactions and disaster benefits, actions that constituted a direct violation of the Equal Credit Opportunity Act (ECOA). The resulting settlement allocated a substantial $1.33 billion for compensation, with awards ranging up to$50,000 or $250,000, depending on the specifics of each claim. Additionally, an extra$160 million was made available for debt relief, acknowledging the financial burdens imposed by discriminatory practices.

Love v. Vilsack

Not to be outdone by its predecessors, the Love v. Vilsack class-action lawsuit was initiated in 2001, filed in the same court as Garcia v. Vilsack. This particular case brought forward allegations of discrimination specifically on the basis of gender, highlighting yet another facet of the USDA's problematic historical practices. The Congressional response to this lawsuit was notably proactive, culminating in the passing of the Equality for Women Farmers Act. This significant legislation established a formalized system that would allow allegations of gender discrimination against the USDA to be properly heard and adjudicated, thereby enabling claims for damages and offering a pathway to redress for affected women farmers.

Environmental justice initiatives

In its 2012 environmental justice strategy, the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) articulated an ongoing, if somewhat belated, desire to integrate the principles of environmental justice into its fundamental mission and daily operations. Back in 2011, Secretary of Agriculture Tom Vilsack had already underscored the USDA's sharpened focus on Environmental justice (EJ) within rural communities across the United States. This also included a commitment to forge stronger connections with Indigenous Tribes and to actively ensure that they fully comprehend and receive their environmental rights—a recognition long overdue. While the USDA does indeed fund various programs with commendable social and environmental equity goals, it remains a curious fact that the department does not employ any staff members whose sole dedication is to EJ. One might infer that integrating such a cross-cutting principle requires more than just a passing nod.

Background

The formal impetus for federal agencies to address environmental justice came on February 16, 1994, when President Clinton issued Executive Order 12898, titled "Federal Actions to Address Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income Populations." This executive order was not a suggestion; it was a mandate, requiring that the achievement of EJ become an intrinsic part of every federal agency's mission. Under the directive of Executive Order 12898, federal agencies are explicitly required to:

• Rigorously enforce all existing health and environmental statutes in areas predominantly inhabited by minority and low-income populations, ensuring equitable protection.
• Actively ensure robust public participation in environmental decision-making processes, particularly from these vulnerable communities.
• Substantially improve the quality and scope of research and data collection specifically related to the health and environmental conditions of minority and low-income populations.
• Diligently identify and analyze differential patterns of consumption of natural resources among minority and low-income populations, understanding how environmental burdens disproportionately affect them.

To facilitate this monumental task, the Executive Order also established an Interagency Working Group (IWG), a collaborative body comprising the heads of 11 different departments and agencies, presumably to ensure that everyone was, at least nominally, on the same page.

2012 Environmental Justice Strategy

On February 7, 2012, the USDA unveiled its final Environmental Justice Strategic Plan, a document that meticulously identified new and updated goals and performance measures. These went beyond the department's initial 1995 EJ strategy, which had itself been adopted in direct response to E.O. 12898. Broadly speaking, the USDA maintains a belief that its existing technical and financial assistance programs are inherently capable of providing effective solutions to environmental inequity. This includes a range of initiatives focused on education, addressing the critical issue of food deserts, and fostering economic development within communities disproportionately impacted by environmental injustices.

Within the USDA's organizational hierarchy, Natural Resources and Environment Under Secretary Harris Sherman holds the primary political appointee responsibility for the department's EJ strategy. Working closely with him, Patrick Holmes, a senior staffer to the Under Secretary, plays a crucial coordinating role. However, the persistent detail remains: the USDA, despite its stated commitments, still does not have any staff members dedicated exclusively to environmental justice. One might ponder if this reflects a genuine integration, or simply a reluctance to create new, distinct roles.

EJ Initiatives in Tribal Communities

The USDA has, with varying degrees of success, taken on a significant role in implementing Michelle Obama's Let's Move campaign within tribal areas. This has involved a concerted effort to increase the participation of Bureau of Indian Education schools in federal nutrition programs, a logical and necessary step. Furthermore, the department has actively supported the development of community gardens on tribal lands, fostering local food sovereignty, and has worked to establish tribal food policy councils, empowering communities to shape their own dietary futures.

In terms of financial commitment, a substantial sum exceeding $6.2 billion in Rural Development funding has been specifically allocated for critical community infrastructure projects within Indian country. This funding is meticulously distributed through a network of 47 state offices, which collectively span the entire continental United States, Hawaii, and Alaska. Such funding has been strategically deployed for a diverse range of purposes, addressing core needs within these communities:

Rural housing

• Direct loans for single-family housing, making homeownership more accessible.
• Loan guarantees to facilitate private sector lending.
• Specialized loans for very-low-income homeowners, targeting the most vulnerable.
• Financing solutions for affordable rental housing, increasing available options.
• Dedicated financing for farm laborers and their families, recognizing their unique housing challenges.

Community facilities

• Funding for essential child and senior care centers, supporting vulnerable populations.
• Resources for emergency services, ensuring safety and rapid response.
• Investment in healthcare institutions, improving access to vital medical care.
• Support for educational institutions, fostering learning and development.
• Financing for tribal administration buildings, strengthening governance.

Business and cooperative programs

• Initiatives to increase access to crucial broadband connections, bridging the digital divide.
• Programs fostering tribal workplace development and employment opportunities, stimulating local economies.
• Support for sustainable renewable energy development, promoting environmental stewardship and energy independence.
• Development of regional food systems, enhancing local food security and economic resilience.
• Comprehensive financing and technical assistance for entrepreneurs, including direct loans and lending support.
• Increased access to capital through Tribal Community development financial institutions (CDFIs), empowering local financial growth.

Utilities

• Efforts to increase access to 21st-century telecommunications services, ensuring modern connectivity.
• Investment in reliable and affordable water and wastewater systems, a fundamental public health necessity.
• Financing for robust electric systems, ensuring consistent power supply.
• Integration of electric smart-grid technologies, enhancing efficiency and resilience.

Tribal relations

In a commendable effort to foster more respectful and effective engagement, the U.S. Forest Service (USFS) published a comprehensive resource guide in 1997. This guide was specifically designed to assist USFS officials in the delicate and complex task of developing and maintaining productive relationships with various tribal governments. This initiative was undertaken in direct coordination with the Forest Service's four-point American Indian/Alaska Native policy, which outlines how to:

• Diligently maintain a governmental relationship with Federally Recognized tribal governments, acknowledging their sovereignty.
• Implement Forest Service programs and activities in a manner that honors Indian treaty rights, and fulfill legally mandated trust responsibilities to the extent that they are determined applicable to National Forest System lands.
• Administer programs and activities with a profound awareness and sensitivity to traditional Native religious beliefs and practices, ensuring cultural respect.
• Actively provide research, facilitate the transfer of technology, and offer technical assistance to Indian governments, fostering self-sufficiency and shared knowledge.

The USFS strives to uphold good governmental relationships through a combination of regular intergovernmental meetings, a clear and consistent acknowledgment of pre-existing tribal sovereignty, and cultivating a deeper, more nuanced general understanding of tribal government structures, which, it must be noted, vary significantly from tribe to tribe. The commitment to honoring Indian treaty rights and trust responsibilities is demonstrated through proactive visits to tribal neighbors, engaging in open discussions of mutual interest, and making earnest attempts to honor and accommodate the legal positions of both Indian nations and the federal government. Addressing and demonstrating sensitivity to Native religious beliefs and practices involves more than just lip service; it includes respectful engagement with Native lands and a conscious acknowledgment of cultural needs when planning and implementing USFS activities. The provision of research, technology, and assistance to Indian governments is concretely manifested through collaborative ecological studies, the sharing of various environmental technologies, and, significantly, the inclusion of traditional Native practices within the contemporary operations of the USFS, recognizing indigenous knowledge as a valuable asset.

The Intertribal Technical Assistance Network, a vital conduit, works tirelessly to improve tribal governments, communities, and individuals' access to the often-complex array of USDA technical assistance programs.

Tribal Services/Cooperatives

The Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS) provides its Veterinary Services, which are specifically tailored to serve tribal communities. These services play a crucial role in promoting and fostering safe animal trade and care, a matter of both economic and cultural significance. This extensive mandate includes proactive prevention of pests and diseases from impacting herd animals and fisheries, as well as conducting vital surveys for diseases on or near Native American lands that could potentially affect traditionally hunted wildlife. Meanwhile, the APHIS also offers its Wildlife Services, which are dedicated to assisting with wildlife damage management on Native lands. This encompasses a range of support, including emergency trainings, outreach initiatives, consultation services, valuable internship opportunities for students, and general education on effective damage reduction strategies, livestock protection, and critical disease monitoring.

In a related and rather progressive initiative, the Agricultural Marketing Service (AMS) is currently exploring a program that would utilize bison meat raised on tribal lands to supply AMS food distribution programs specifically targeting tribes. This endeavor not only supports tribal economies but also leverages culturally significant food sources.

Other EJ Initiatives

Beyond specific tribal efforts, the USDA's commitment to environmental justice extends through various technical and financial assistance programs.

Technical and financial assistance The Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) Strike Force Initiative has strategically identified impoverished counties in Mississippi, Georgia, and Arkansas as areas to receive intensified outreach and specialized training regarding available USDA assistance programs. The USDA proudly attributes this enhanced outreach to a remarkable 196 percent increase in contracts, encompassing over 250,000 acres of farmland, within its Environmental Quality Incentives Program. This demonstrates that targeted efforts can indeed yield tangible results. Back in 2001, the NRCS also funded and published a seminal study titled "Environmental Justice: Perceptions of Issues, Awareness and Assistance." This research specifically focused on rural, Southern "Black Belt" counties, meticulously analyzing how the NRCS workforce could more effectively integrate environmental justice principles into the work carried out within these impacted communities, highlighting a proactive attempt at self-assessment.

The Farm Services Agency, in 2011, dedicated a significant $100,000 from its Socially Disadvantaged Farmers and Ranchers program budget. This allocation was specifically aimed at improving its outreach efforts to counties that have been plagued by persistent poverty, a recognition that some communities require extra attention. The USDA's Risk Management Agency has also initiated targeted education and outreach campaigns for low-income farmers, promoting the use of biological controls as a safer and more sustainable alternative to chemical pesticides for pest management. Furthermore, the Rural Utilities Service diligently administers water and wastewater loans, including specialized SEARCH Grants that are specifically directed towards financially distressed, small rural communities. They also provide other distinct opportunities tailored for Alaskan Native villages, acknowledging the unique challenges faced in remote areas.

Mapping The United States Forest Service (USFS) has established several Urban Field Stations, strategically positioned to conduct crucial research into the structure, function, stewardship, and the myriad benefits derived from urban natural resources. By meticulously mapping urban tree coverage, the agency harbors the hope of being able to precisely identify and prioritize environmental justice communities for targeted urban forest projects, thereby enhancing green spaces where they are most needed.

Another impactful initiative highlighted by the agency is the collaborative Food and Nutrition Service and Economic Research Service's Food Desert Locator. This invaluable digital tool provides a spatial, visual representation of food deserts, which are precisely defined as low-income census tracts where a substantial number or share of residents experience low access to a supermarket or a large grocery store. The ability to map these underserved areas allows for the direct and efficient channeling of agency resources, aimed at increasing access to fresh fruits and vegetables and other essential food assistance programs, directly addressing critical gaps in food access.

Meat and poultry hotline

The USDA Meat and Poultry hotline stands as a testament to the department's direct, if somewhat mundane, public service mission. It is a toll-free user assistance service, diligently operated to answer a constant stream of inquiries from consumers regarding the safe storage, handling, and preparation of meat, poultry, and egg products. Available at the memorable number 1-888-MPHotline (which is 1-888-674-6854), this hotline doesn't just address basic cooking questions. It also responds to a broader array of issues intrinsically linked to the core mission of the USDA's Food Safety and Inspection Service (FSIS), which is to rigorously ensure that the commercial supply of meat, poultry, and egg products is consistently safe, wholesome, and, crucially, correctly labeled and packaged.

Operating year-round on weekdays, excluding federal holidays (with the notable exception of Thanksgiving, when food safety concerns are arguably at their peak), the hotline is staffed by dedicated food safety specialists. These experts possess diverse backgrounds in home economics, nutrition, and food technology, ensuring a comprehensive and informed response to consumer queries. The service, which first commenced operations on July 1, 1985, has, as of 2024, answered an impressive two million calls, a clear indicator of its enduring utility and public demand. In 2002, recognizing the nation's growing linguistic diversity, the hotline added Spanish language support, and in April 2017, its operating hours were extended by two additional hours, further enhancing its accessibility. Beyond merely answering questions, the hotline plays a subtle but critical role in public health. It can help detect emerging public health threats and has been credited with significantly increasing Americans' awareness of foodborne bacteria and providing practical guidance on how to avoid them, thereby quietly preventing countless illnesses.

In a nod to modern communication preferences, the USDA also offers online text support through its digital assistant, "Ask Karen," providing an alternative avenue for consumers to access vital food safety information. Because, apparently, some questions can't wait for a phone call.

Other

Private sector relationships

A significant, and sometimes contentious, aspect of the USDA's multifaceted functions involves actively promoting the economic development and competitiveness of the agricultural sector. In their 2022 strategic plan, the department explicitly pledged:

To maintain a competitive agricultural sector, USDA will support farmers and ranchers' ability to start and maintain profitable businesses as well as offer financial support to producers affected by natural disasters. Furthermore, USDA's research agencies will continue to introduce high-performance plants, animals, and integrated management options that increase the efficiency of farming practices. Lastly, USDA will also provide tools to producers so that they are well-positioned to secure a share of a growing market for agricultural products.

This statement encapsulates a core tension: the role of a government agency in fostering private enterprise.

In 2018, the USDA formalized a relationship with the Global Food Safety Initiative (GFSI), a private organization where members of the powerful Consumer Goods Forum exert considerable control over benchmarking requirements for the recognition of private standards in food safety. By August 2018, the USDA proudly announced it had achieved "Technical Equivalence" against Version 7.1 of the GFSI Benchmarking Requirements for its Harmonized Good agricultural practice (GAP) Plus+ certification program. This "Technical Equivalence," however, is a specific designation limited to government-owned food safety certification programs. This alignment with a private entity's standards has raised eyebrows, as it appears to be misaligned with established U.S. Government Policy and OMB Circular No. A-119. This circular explicitly instructs federal agencies to prioritize the adoption of voluntary consensus standards before resorting to reliance upon industry standards (which private standards essentially are) or developing entirely new government standards.

The Harmonized Good agricultural practice (GAP) Plus+ Standard (V. 3.0), published in February 2021, notably referenced GFSI Guidance Document Version 2020, Part III, while conspicuously omitting any reference to established international standards and technical specifications such as ISO 22000 and ISO T/S 22002-3 Prerequisite Programmes for Farming. This apparent exception by the USDA to OMB Circular No. A-119 has been attributed by some to the considerable lobbying and influence wielded by Consumer Goods Forum members within the political corridors of Washington, D.C. In November 2021, the GFSI itself announced that its Technical Equivalence program was undergoing a "strategic review," candidly explaining that the assessment had "raised concerns across many stakeholders." One might infer that the line between public good and private interest can, at times, become rather blurred.

Dairy

The USDA maintains a watchful eye over American dairy production and markets, a complex and often politically charged sector. To fulfill this oversight, it operates a dedicated Dairy Board and a marketing branch known as Dairy Management Incorporated (DMI). DMI, in collaboration with the United Dairy Industry Association (UDIA) and the National Fluid Milk Processor Promotion Board, works to collect and disseminate crucial market information for the industry, ensuring that dairy producers have access to the data they need to navigate an often volatile market. The department's involvement underscores the critical economic and nutritional role of dairy in the American diet.

COVID-19 relief

The unprecedented global crisis of the COVID-19 pandemic sent seismic shocks through every sector of the economy, and agriculture was certainly no exception. In response to the profound disturbances rippling through the agricultural sector, Congress swiftly allocated substantial funding to the USDA. On April 17, 2020, then-U.S. Secretary of Agriculture Sonny Perdue announced the creation of the Coronavirus Food Assistance Program (CFAP), a critical intervention designed to stabilize a faltering system. Perdue articulated the program's dual purpose:

The American food supply chain had to adapt, and it remains safe, secure, and strong, and we all know that starts with America's farmers and ranchers. This program will not only provide immediate relief for our farmers and ranchers, but it will also allow for the purchase and distribution of our agricultural abundance to help our fellow Americans in need.

This initiative funneled $16 billion directly to farmers and ranchers, providing a much-needed financial lifeline in a time of severe uncertainty. Additionally,$3 billion was allocated for the purchase of surplus produce, dairy, and meat from farmers, which was then strategically distributed to charitable organizations. This not only prevented massive food waste but also addressed the escalating issue of food insecurity. As part of the broader legislative responses to the pandemic, specifically the Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security Act (CARES) and the Families First Coronavirus Response Act (FFCRA), the USDA was granted access to an additional $873.3 million in Section 32 funding. This further funding was designated for the purchase of a wide variety of agricultural products for distribution to food banks, along with$850 million specifically allocated to cover food bank administrative costs and support direct USDA food purchases. It was a massive, multi-pronged effort to keep the food system from collapsing and to feed a nation in crisis.

Related legislation

The operational framework and policy directives of the USDA are not merely suggestions; they are meticulously enshrined in a long and often bewildering series of legislative acts. This dense tapestry of laws, often referred to collectively as the United States farm bill (though many individual acts precede and supplement it), represents a continuous, sometimes contentious, effort by Congress to shape American agriculture, from its economic underpinnings to its environmental impact and social responsibilities. Understanding the USDA is, in part, understanding this legislative lineage.

• 1890, 1891, 1897, 1906 Meat Inspection Act
• 1906: Pure Food and Drug Act
• 1914: Cotton Futures Act
• 1916: Federal Farm Loan Act
• 1917: Food Control and Production Acts
• 1921: Packers and Stockyards Act
• 1922: Grain Futures Act
• 1922: National Agricultural Conference
• 1923: Agricultural Credits Act
• 1930: Perishable Agricultural Commodities Act
• 1930: Foreign Agricultural Service Act
• 1933: Agricultural Adjustment Act (AAA)
• 1933: Farm Credit Act
• 1935: Resettlement Administration
• 1936: Soil Conservation and Domestic Allotment Act
• 1937: Agricultural Marketing Agreement Act
• 1941: National Victory Garden Program
• 1941: Steagall Amendment
• 1946: Farmers Home Administration
• 1946: National School Lunch Act PL 79-396
• 1946: Research and Marketing Act
• 1947: Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act PL 80-104
• 1948: Hope-Aiken Agriculture Act PL 80-897
• 1949: Agricultural Act PL 81-439 (Section 416 (b))
• 1954: Food for Peace Act PL 83-480
• 1954: Agricultural Act PL 83-690
• 1956: Soil Bank Program authorized
• 1956: Mutual Security Act PL 84-726
• 1957: Federal Plant Pest Act PL 85-36
• 1957: Poultry Products Inspection Act PL 85-172
• 1958: Food Additives Amendment PL 85-929
• 1958: Humane Slaughter Act
• 1958: Agricultural Act PL 85-835
• 1961: Consolidated Farm and Rural Development Act PL 87-128
• 1964: Agricultural Act PL 88-297
• 1964: Food Stamp Act PL 88-525
• 1964: Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act Extension PL 88-305
• 1965: Appalachian Regional Development Act
• 1965: Food and Agriculture Act PL 89-321
• 1966: Child Nutrition Act PL 89-642
• 1967: Wholesome Meat Act PL 90-201
• 1968: Wholesome Poultry Products Act PL 90-492
• 1970: Agricultural Act PL 91-524
• 1972: Federal Environmental Pesticide Control Act PL 92-516
• 1970: Environmental Quality Improvement Act
• 1970: Food Stamp Act PL 91-671
• 1972: Rural Development Act
• 1972: Rural Development Act Reform 3.31
• 1972: National School Lunch Act Amendments (Special Supplemental Nutrition Program for Women, Infants and Children) PL 92-433
• 1973: Agriculture and Consumer Protection Act PL 93-86
• 1974: Safe Drinking Water Act PL 93-523
• 1977: Food and Agriculture Act PL 95-113
• 1985: Food Security Act PL 99-198
• 1990: Food, Agriculture, Conservation, and Trade Act of 1990 PL 101-624 (This act notably includes the Organic Foods Production Act of 1990, a significant step towards regulating organic agriculture.)
• 1996: Federal Agriculture Improvement and Reform Act PL 104-127
• 1996: Food Quality Protection Act PL 104-170
• 2000: Agriculture Risk Protection Act PL 106-224
• 2002: Farm Security and Rural Investment Act PL 107-171
• 2008: Food, Conservation, and Energy Act of 2008 PL 110-246
• 2010: Healthy, Hunger-Free Kids Act of 2010 PL 111-296

See also

• United States portal
• Politics portal
• Agriculture portal
• Adjusted Gross Revenue Insurance
• Alternative Agricultural Research and Commercialization Corporation
• Butter-Powder Tilt
• Congressional seed distribution
• Farm Credit Administration
• Institute of Child Nutrition
• United States farm bill, history of Congressional laws on agriculture
• United States Agricultural Society
• USDA home loan
• Food and Agriculture Councils

Notes and references

• This article incorporates public domain material from websites or documents of the United States Department of Agriculture .

1. ^ "United States Department of Agriculture FY 2024 Budget Summary" (PDF). U.S. Department of Agriculture. Archived from the original (PDF) on September 29, 2023.
   Retrieved August 5, 2023.
2. ^ "History of FNS" (PDF). usda.gov . Archived from the original (PDF) on September 12, 2016.
   Retrieved July 1, 2016.
3. ^ "USDA Agencies". USDA .
4. ^ "USDA Organization Chart" (PDF). U.S. Department of Agriculture. September 24, 2024. Archived from the original (.pdf) on April 12, 2025.
   Retrieved May 28, 2025.
5. ^ "FNS Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP)". June 21, 2013.
   Retrieved December 29, 2013.
6. ^ "United States Interagency Council on Homelessness". USICH . Archived from the original on April 24, 2012.
7. ^ It is not copyright and is online here for free download..
8. ^ "Agricultural Research Service" (PDF). USDA .
   Retrieved November 1, 2017.
9. ^ History of Human Nutrition Research in the U. S. Department of Agriculture . Government Printing Office. ISBN  978-0-16-094384-3 .
10. ^ Preliminary Inventory, Issues 187–195 . National Archives publication, 1977. Page 7.
11. ^ "Ellsworth, Henry Leavitt, 1791–1858 – Social Networks and Archival Context". snaccooperative.org .
    Retrieved September 19, 2020.
12. ^ "7 U.S. Code § 2201 – Establishment of Department". LII / Legal Information Institute .
    Retrieved February 7, 2024.
13. ^ 12 Stat. 387, now codified at 7 U.S.C. § 2201.
14. ^ Salvador, Ricardo; Bittman, Mark (December 4, 2020). "Opinion: Goodbye, U.S.D.A., Hello, Department of Food and Well-Being". The New York Times .
    Retrieved December 10, 2020.
15. ^ Evening Star – June 18, 1868 – page 4 – column 4
16. ^ 25 Stat 659 (February 9, 1889)
17. ^ Danbom, David B. (1986). "The Agricultural Experiment Station and Professionalization: Scientists' Goals for Agriculture". Agricultural History . 60 (2): 246–255. JSTOR 3743443.
18. ^ David M. Kennedy, Freedom from fear: The American people in depression and war, 1929–1945 (1999). p 203.
19. ^ Ziegelman, Jane; Coe, Andrew (2016). A Square Meal: A Culinary History of the Great Depression . HarperCollins. ISBN  978-0-06-221641-0 .
20. ^ "About Us : USDA ARS". ars.usda.gov .
    Retrieved February 26, 2025.
21. ^ "Agriculture Department Will Pay $4.7 Billion To Farmers Hit In Trade War". npr .
    Retrieved March 27, 2023.
22. ^ Erickson, Britt. "USDA commits $1 billion to climate-smart agriculture". Chemical & Engineering News .
23. ^ Pitt, David (October 18, 2022). "USDA announces $1 billion debt relief for 36,000 farmers". Associated Press .
24. ^ "A military vet and a scientist were securing America's food system. Trump fired them". NPR .
    Retrieved February 26, 2025.
25. ^ Treisman, Rachel (February 19, 2025). "The USDA fired staffers working on bird flu. Now it's trying to reverse course". NPR .
    Retrieved February 26, 2025.
26. ^ Cerullo, Megan; Picchi, Aimee (February 19, 2025). "USDA says it is trying to rehire bird flu experts the agency accidentally fired". CBS News .
    Retrieved February 20, 2025.
27. ^ Pichee, Aimee (March 13, 2025). "USDA cancels $1 billion in funding for schools and food banks to buy food from local suppliers". CBS News .
28. ^ "Secretary Perdue Announces Creation of Undersecretary for Trade". Archived from the original on June 29, 2025.
    Retrieved June 16, 2018.
29. ^ "Records of the Bureau of Plant Industry, Soils, and Agricultural Engineering [BPISAE]: Administrative History". Archives.gov.
    Retrieved December 29, 2013.
30. ^ "USDA – Problems Continue to Hinder the Timely Processing of Discrimination Complaints" (PDF). General Accounting Office. January 1999. Archived from the original (PDF) on February 24, 2009.
    Retrieved October 16, 2007.
31. ^ Brooks, Roy L. (2004). Atonement and Forgiveness: A New Model for Black Reparations . University of California Press. pp. 7–8. ISBN  0-520-24813-9 .
32. ^ a b c d Garcia v. Vilsack: A Policy and Legal Analysis of a USDA Discrimination Case , HeinOnline , heinonline-org.ezproxy1.lib.asu.edu
33. ^ Helms, Douglas. "Eroding the Color Line: The Soil Conservation Service and the Civil Rights Act of 1964." Agricultural History , vol. 65, no. 2, Agricultural History Society, 1991, pp. 35–53, jstor.org
34. ^ a b Johnson, Kimberley S. (October 2011). "Racial Orders, Congress, and the Agricultural Welfare State, 1865–1940". Studies in American Political Development . 25 (2): 143–161. doi:10.1017/S0898588X11000095.
35. ^ "United States: Black US Farmers Awaiting Billions in Promised Debt Relief". Asia News Monitor . Bangkok. September 3, 2021.
    ProQuest 2568289864.
36. ^ "GAO-06-469R Pigford Settlement: The Role of the Court-Appointed Monitor" (PDF).
    Retrieved March 2, 2022.
37. ^ a b Tadlock Cowan; Jody Feder (June 14, 2011). "The Pigford Cases: USDA Settlement of Discrimination Suits by Black Farmers" (PDF). Congressional Research Service.
    Retrieved December 1, 2011.
38. ^ "PBS The News Hour (1999)". PBS. Archived from the original on December 30, 2013.
    Retrieved December 29, 2013.
39. ^ Charlene Gilbert; Quinn Eli (2002). Homecoming: The Story of African-American Farmers . Beacon Press. ISBN  978-0-8070-0963-5 .
    Retrieved December 29, 2013.
40. ^ Treatment of minority and limited resource producers by the U.S. Department of Agriculture: ... U.S. G.P.O. January 1, 1997. ISBN  978-0-16-055410-0 .
    Retrieved December 29, 2013.
41. ^ M. Susan Orr Klopfer; Fred Klopfer; Barry Klopfer (2005). Where Rebels Roost... Mississippi Civil Rights Revisited . Lulu Press. ISBN  978-1-4116-4102-0 .
    Retrieved December 29, 2013. [ self-published source? ]
42. ^ a b "Judge Approves Settlement for Black Farmers". New York Times . ASSOCIATED PRESS. April 15, 1999.
    Retrieved December 29, 2013.
43. ^ "Black Farmers Lawsuit". NPR. March 2, 1999.
    Retrieved December 29, 2013.
44. ^ "Southern farmers among those affected by court case". Archived from the original on July 11, 2012.
45. ^ Daniel Pulliam (February 11, 2005). "Unlicensed Hire". GOVEXEC.com . Archived from the original on April 16, 2005.
46. ^ a b c "About us". National Black Farmers Association . Archived from the original on May 10, 2023.
    Retrieved March 27, 2023.
47. ^ Martin, Andrew (August 8, 2004). "USDA discrimination accused of withering black farmers". Chicago Tribune .
    Retrieved December 29, 2013.
48. ^ "Black Farmers Follow Up on USDA Grievances". National Public Radio. April 25, 2006.
    Retrieved December 29, 2013.
49. ^ "Allen Unveils Bill to Help Black Farmers". The Washington Post . Associated Press. September 29, 2006.
    Retrieved December 29, 2013.
50. ^ "Obama: USDA Should Not Undermine Legislation to Help Black Farmers". August 8, 2007. Archived from the original on November 11, 2008.
51. ^ "The Hill newspaper (2007)". Thehill.com. Archived from the original on October 11, 2007.
    Retrieved December 29, 2013.
52. ^ Ben Evans (December 17, 2007). "Senate Votes to Reopen Black Farmers' Lawsuits". Associated Press. Archived from the original on October 30, 2008.
    Retrieved April 26, 2013.
53. ^ Ben Evans (June 4, 2008). "Black farmers file new suit against USDA". FOXNews.com. Associated Press.
    Retrieved December 29, 2013.
54. ^ Ben Evans (June 28, 2008). "Reopening black farmers' suits could cost billions". USA Today . Associated Press.
    Retrieved December 29, 2013.
55. ^ "Help Ahead for Black Farmers". NPR. December 31, 2007.
    Retrieved December 29, 2013.
56. ^ Etter, Lauren (October 23, 2008). "USDA Faulted Over Minority Farmers". The Wall Street Journal . Archived from the original on June 26, 2013.
    Retrieved December 29, 2013.
57. ^ Fears, Darryl (October 23, 2008). "USDA Action On Bias Complaints Is Criticized". The Washington Post .
    Retrieved December 29, 2013.
58. ^ Sharon LaFraniere (April 25, 2013). "U.S. Opens Spigot After Farmers Claim Discrimination". The New York Times .
    Retrieved April 26, 2013. ...claimants were not required to present documentary evidence that they had been unfairly treated or had even tried to farm.
59. ^ "Native American Farmer and Rancher Class Action Settlement – Keepseagle v. Vilsack". Natural Resources Conservation Service Louisiana . Archived from the original on May 25, 2020.
60. ^ a b "Keepseagle settlement filing period open". Delta Farm Press, July 26, 2011. advance-lexis-com.ezproxy1.lib.asu.edu/api/document?collection=news&id=urn:contentItem:53F3-DGH1-DY7H-500C-00000-00&context=1516831. Accessed November 28, 2021.
61. ^ "Summary of Executive Order 12898 – Federal Actions to Address Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income Populations". Environmental Protection Agency . February 22, 2013. Archived from the original on April 26, 2013.
62. ^ USDA, Strategic Plan, dm.usda.gov Archived 2012-02-26 at the Wayback Machine
63. ^ a b c d Holmes interview.
64. ^ USDA, Strategic Plan at 6.
65. ^ "Collaborating for Prosperity With American Indians and Alaska Natives" (PDF). Federal Depository Library Program .
66. ^ a b Mitchell, Joe (1997). Forest Service National Resource Guide to American Indian and Alaska Native Relations . USFS.
67. ^ a b "Progress Report" (PDF). USDA. Archived from the original (PDF) on February 26, 2012.
68. ^ APHIS Veterinary Services : Helping Native Americans Protect Their Livestock and Fisheries. United States Department of Agriculture, Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service, 2012.
69. ^ APHIS Wildlife Services : Controlling Wildlife Damage on Native American Lands. United States Department of Agriculture, Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service, 2012.
70. ^ USDA, NRCS EJ Guidance, nrcs.usda.gov Archived March 8, 2021, at the Wayback Machine.
71. ^ USDA, Progress Report at 9, dm.usda.gov Archived 2012-02-26 at the Wayback Machine
72. ^ "Water and Environmental Programs Fact Sheet" (PDF). USDA. Archived from the original (PDF) on June 25, 2012.
    Retrieved July 2, 2012.
73. ^ USDA, Water and Environmental Programs Website, rurdev.usda.gov Archived 2012-06-21 at the Wayback Machine
74. ^ a b USDA, Strategic Plan at 6, dm.usda.gov Archived 2012-02-26 at the Wayback Machine
75. ^ "USDA ERS – Food Access Research Atlas". ers.usda.gov .
    Retrieved September 23, 2019.
76. ^ Velde interview.
77. ^ a b "What is the United States Department of Agriculture' Meat and Poultry Hotline?". USA. March 22, 2024.
    Retrieved April 30, 2024. This article incorporates text from this source, which is in the public domain.
78. ^ "USDA Meat & Poultry Hotline". USDA. September 5, 2004. Archived from the original on September 5, 2004.
    Retrieved April 30, 2024.
79. ^ a b c "USDA Meat and Poultry Hotline". USDA. October 5, 2023.
    Retrieved April 30, 2024. This article incorporates text from this source, which is in the public domain.
80. ^ a b "USDA expands 'Meat and Poultry Hotline' hours". Meat+Poultry . April 4, 2017.
    Retrieved April 30, 2024.
81. ^ "Making the Connection: Activity Report of the USDA Meat and Poultry Hotline for 2000 About the Meat and Poultry Hotline". USDA FSIS. March 2002. Archived from the original on October 17, 2004.
    Retrieved April 30, 2024.
82. ^ "USDA Hotline: A Food Safety Resource for Millions". USDA FSIS . Washington, DC. November 18, 2003. Archived from the original on October 17, 2004.
    Retrieved April 30, 2024.
83. ^ "Strategic Goal 2". USDA Strategic Plan FY2018-2022 (PDF). United States Department of Agriculture. May 2018. p. 15.
    Retrieved June 7, 2024.
84. ^ "GFSI Announces USDA AMS GAP Plus + Certification Programme Achieves Technical Equivalence". mygfsi.com/ . GFSI. [ dead link ]
85. ^ "OMB Circular A-119: Federal Participation in the Development and Use of Voluntary Consensus Standards and in Conformity Assessment Activities" (PDF). White House . The White House.
86. ^ "Harmonized GAP Plus+ Standard" (PDF). ams.usda.gov . USDA. Archived from the original (PDF) on April 13, 2021.
87. ^ Doering, Christopher. "Where the dollars go: Lobbying a big business for large food and beverage CPGs". fooddive.com . Food Dive.
88. ^ "GFSI Launches a Strategic Review of its Technical Equivalence Programme". mygfsi.com . GFSI.
89. ^ Freeman, Andrea (December 2013). "The Unbearable Whiteness of Milk: Food Oppression and the USDA". UC Irvine Law Review . 3 (4): 1251–1279 – via University of California, Irvine.
90. ^ Report to Congress on the National Dairy Promotion and Research Program and the National Fluid Milk Processor Promotion Program (PDF). United States Department of Agriculture. July 1, 2006. p. 6.
91. ^ "USDA Announces Coronavirus Food Assistance Program". United States Department of Agriculture. April 17, 2020.
    Retrieved November 23, 2021.
92. ^ a b "USDA Announces Coronavirus Food Assistance Program". usda.gov . Archived from the original on May 19, 2020.
    Retrieved April 30, 2020.
93. ^ "Laws and Regulations". usda.gov .
    Retrieved October 19, 2023.

Further reading

• Baker, Gladys L. ed. Century of service: the first 100 years of the United States Department of Agriculture (US Department of Agriculture, 1963), the standard history; online.
• Benedict, Murray R. (1950). "The Trend in American Agricultural Policy 1920–1949". Zeitschrift für die gesamte Staatswissenschaft . 106 (1): 97–122. JSTOR 40747300.
• Benedict, Murray R. Farm policies of the United States, 1790–1950: a study of their origins and development (1966) 546pp online; also another copy
• Cochrane, Willard W. The Development of American Agriculture: A Historical Analysis (2nd ed. U of Minnesota Press, 1993) 512pp.
• Cochrane, Willard W. and Mary Ellen Ryan. American Farm Policy: 1948–1973 (U of Minnesota Press, 1976).
• CQ. Congress and the Nation (1965–2021), highly detailed coverage of each presidency since Truman; extensive coverage of agricultural policies. online free to borrow
• Coppess, Jonathan (2018). The Fault Lines of Farm Policy: A Legislative and Political History of the Farm Bill . U of Nebraska Press. ISBN  978-1-4962-0512-4 .
• Gardner, Bruce L. (1996). "The Federal Government in Farm Commodity Markets: Recent Reform Efforts in a Long-Term Context". Agricultural History . 70 (2): 177–195. JSTOR 3744532.
• Griesbach, Rob (2010). "BARC History: Bureau of Plant Industry" (PDF).
• Matusow, Allen J. Farm policies and politics in the Truman years (1967) online
• Orden, David; Zulauf, Carl (October 2015). "Political Economy of the 2014 Farm Bill". American Journal of Agricultural Economics . 97 (5): 1298–1311. doi:10.1093/ajae/aav028. hdl:10919/96941.
• Phillips, Sarah T., et al. "Reflections on one hundred and fifty years of the United States Department of Agriculture." Agricultural History 87.3 (2013): 314–367. doi.org
• Sumner, Daniel A. "Farm Subsidy Tradition and Modern Agricultural Realities" (PDF). University of California Agricultural Issues Center . CiteSeerX 10.1.1.411.284.
• Winters, Donald L. Henry Cantwell Wallace as Secretary of Agriculture, 1921–1924 (1970)
• Zulauf, Carl; Orden, David (2016). "80 Years of Farm Bills—Evolutionary Reform" (PDF). Choices . 31 (4): 1–2. JSTOR choices.31.4.16.

Historiography

• Jones, Arnita A, and Wayne D. Rasmussen. "Wayne Rasmussen and the Development of Policy History at the United States Department of Agriculture" The Public Historian 14#1 (1992), pp. 11–29 online
• Zobbe, Henrik. "On the foundation of agricultural policy research in the United States." (Dept. of Agricultural Economics Staff Paper 02–08, Purdue University, 2002) online

Primary sources

• Rasmussen, Wayne D., ed. Agriculture in the United States: a documentary history (4 vol, Random House, 1975) 3661pp. vol 4 online

External links

• Wikimedia Commons has media related to United States Department of Agriculture.

• Official website

• Department of Agriculture on USAspending.gov

• Department of Agriculture in the Federal Register

• National Archives document of the USDA's origins