Proposed USDA Budget Cuts Stir Concerns Among Nebraska’s Agricultural Community
The Trump administration’s recent proposal to slash the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) budget by 19% in 2027 has sparked significant concern among farm and ranch advocates. With Nebraska’s agricultural sector already facing challenges due to prior federal cuts to the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP), further reductions could exacerbate an already difficult year.
The administration’s budget outlines a $4.9 billion cut, with program eliminations partially offsetting the reduction. Additional cuts across various agency budgets would be necessary to achieve the full proposed reduction.
According to Jon Hansen, President of the Nebraska Farmers Union, farmers are grappling with low commodity prices, high input costs, and natural disasters, necessitating continued USDA support. Hansen emphasized the need for an updated Farm Bill to navigate these economic challenges. “All of the farm and commodity organizations are saying we need an updated and an improved Farm Bill to help us weather the challenges,” Hansen said.
Hansen further expressed concern that the cuts might hinder federal relief efforts. “And what we need is more positive partnership, and we need more services,” he added. He criticized the administration’s agenda as one that seeks to dismantle critical infrastructure for farm and ranch families.
The budget proposal describes the USDA as a “bloated Washington D.C. bureaucracy” with unnecessary management layers and programs. It labels certain programs as “extraneous,” claiming they promote ideologies unrelated to the department’s core mission, such as “radical transgender and Green New Scam ideologies.”
Angie Lauritsen, State Director of the nonprofit federal economic policy coalition Nebraska for Us, argues that the USDA’s focus should be on supporting agricultural producers, food safety, and security. “Those things are a distraction and have nothing to do with providing food to hungry people. And that’s where the focus should be,” Lauritsen stated.
Lauritsen highlighted the reliance of Nebraskans on the programs targeted for elimination. “A lot of [staff] are the people that really service our communities and help them navigate federal grants or help them get those farm loans that are super beneficial to them,” she explained.
Programs like SNAP and Medicaid faced cuts under the One Big Beautiful Bill Act last year, impacting Nebraskans financially. Lauritsen noted a 9.1% decline in SNAP participation in Nebraska from December 2024 to December 2025, representing nearly 14,000 fewer people accessing benefits, as reported by the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities reports.
Lauritsen stressed the importance of these benefits for vulnerable groups, saying, “This is food for them to be able to put on their table – for elderly veterans and kiddos within those families.”
The One Big Beautiful Bill introduced work requirements for program enrollment in February 2026 and restricted access for most refugees and undocumented immigrants. Lauritsen explained that some immigrants with legal status have stopped applying for fear of jeopardizing their immigration status.
Lauritsen also noted the impact of staff cuts on access to government services. The USDA experienced sweeping staff reductions of approximately 27% under the “Department of Government Efficiency” initiative. There are concerns that relocating staff from Washington D.C. to rural areas, as suggested in the budget, could lead to workforce attrition. “Their hope is that some of these people will quit because they don’t want to move to a state that they’re not familiar with,” Lauritsen said.
One proposed cut targets a program that purchases agricultural commodities to provide food aid to food-insecure children globally. Lauritsen emphasized the program’s benefits for farmers, noting that many producers view their work as a noble profession. “You’re providing food. You’re providing to those that really drastically need that food,” she said.
Hansen urged Nebraska’s Congressional delegation to resist cutting USDA funding, expressing concern that compromises could still result in significant reductions. “Too many times, folks are willing to compromise with half a loaf, and unfortunately, in this case, half a loaf is still an awful lot of bread,” Hansen observed.
Steep reduction “will never happen”
The proposed cuts extend to various federal departments, primarily to fund increased defense spending. Congress will ultimately determine the final budget allocations through debate.
Lauritsen expressed hope for a bipartisan appropriations process, similar to previous years. Nebraska’s District 2 Rep. Don Bacon commented on the budget proposal, stating, “I do not support the proposed cuts to the USDA budget. USDA programs funded through annual appropriations are vital for Nebraska’s farmers and ranchers who help feed the world. The President’s proposed 19% reduction to USDA funding will never happen.”
Sen. Pete Ricketts shared a similar sentiment, emphasizing the legislative branch’s control over funding. “I will fight to ensure farmers and ranchers have robust funding, especially with low corn prices and after the devastating wildfires,” Ricketts stated.
Rep. Mike Flood, Rep. Adrian Smith, and Sen. Deb Fischer also expressed their commitment to working with Congress to develop a balanced budget that prioritizes investments in agriculture.
