Rebuttal of Department of Agriculture
by: Daren Bakst
Rebuttal to Project 2025: Department of Agriculture by Daren Bakst
Daren Bakst’s vision for the Department of Agriculture (USDA) in Project 2025 emphasizes deregulation and market-driven policies that prioritize corporate interests over small farmers, environmental sustainability, and the long-term resilience of the agricultural sector. While Bakst frames his proposals as a way to increase efficiency and reduce government interference, his approach threatens to exacerbate inequality in the farming sector, degrade natural resources, and ignore the pressing challenges of climate change and food security. Bakst’s vision, which champions deregulation at the expense of oversight, risks undermining the USDA’s vital role in promoting a fair, sustainable, and resilient agricultural system.
Deregulation: Favoring Corporate Agribusiness Over Small Farmers
A central theme in Bakst’s vision is the aggressive push for deregulation, which he argues would free farmers and agribusinesses from what he considers burdensome government oversight. However, this deregulatory approach would primarily benefit large agribusinesses, leaving small and mid-sized farms at a severe disadvantage. Deregulation often favors corporations that have the resources to adapt to, or exploit, relaxed regulatory environments, while small farmers rely on many USDA regulations to level the playing field, ensuring fair competition and protecting their interests.
Large agribusinesses have historically used deregulation to consolidate market power, engage in environmentally harmful practices, and suppress competition. Bakst’s plan to reduce oversight on issues like pesticide use, food safety, and animal welfare will further enable corporate giants to dominate the market, while small farmers are left with fewer protections. The rollback of critical environmental and labor regulations, such as those governing pesticide application and working conditions, would harm not only farmers but also farmworkers and rural communities who bear the brunt of these risks.
Additionally, Bakst’s emphasis on reducing regulations ignores the vital role that oversight plays in safeguarding public health, protecting workers, and ensuring sustainable farming practices. Without adequate regulations, the agricultural sector risks increasing soil degradation, water contamination, and loss of biodiversity, all of which threaten the long-term viability of farming. Small farmers, who tend to adopt more sustainable practices than industrial-scale farms, are especially vulnerable to these environmental impacts, and weakening regulations will only exacerbate these challenges.
Neglecting Rural Communities and Undermining Food Security
Bakst’s focus on deregulation also neglects the critical support that the USDA provides to rural communities through infrastructure development, financial assistance, and technical expertise. Rural America faces significant economic and social challenges, including poverty, limited access to healthcare, and declining infrastructure. USDA programs that support broadband internet access, clean water systems, rural hospitals, and educational resources are essential for the well-being of these communities.
By reducing the role of the USDA in rural development, as Bakst proposes, his plan would likely result in significant cuts to these crucial programs, further marginalizing rural areas that are already struggling. Access to high-speed internet, for example, is essential for rural businesses to compete in the modern economy and for farmers to adopt new technologies that increase productivity and sustainability. Cutting USDA programs that support rural broadband infrastructure would widen the digital divide, exacerbating economic inequality between urban and rural areas.
In addition, Bakst’s vision overlooks the USDA’s role in ensuring food security for millions of Americans. Food insecurity is a growing issue, driven by climate change, supply chain disruptions, and economic inequality. The USDA administers programs like the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) and the Women, Infants, and Children (WIC) program, which provide essential nutrition support to low-income families. By advocating for reduced government intervention, Bakst’s plan threatens the funding and stability of these vital safety net programs, potentially leaving millions of Americans without access to nutritious food.
Ignoring the Urgent Need for Climate Action
One of the most significant omissions in Bakst’s vision for the USDA is his failure to adequately address the existential threat of climate change. Agriculture is both a major contributor to greenhouse gas emissions and one of the sectors most vulnerable to climate-related disruptions. Extreme weather events, shifting growing seasons, and water shortages are already affecting farmers across the country, and these challenges will only intensify in the coming years.
Bakst’s focus on deregulation ignores the critical need for the USDA to lead on climate action by supporting sustainable farming practices, investing in climate resilience, and reducing the environmental impact of agriculture. Programs like the Conservation Reserve Program (CRP) and initiatives that promote regenerative agriculture are essential for protecting soil health, conserving water, and sequestering carbon. However, Bakst’s vision downplays the importance of these programs, instead prioritizing short-term economic gains over long-term sustainability.
By neglecting the USDA’s role in addressing climate change, Bakst’s proposals leave farmers and rural communities unprepared for the challenges ahead. The agricultural sector needs robust government support to transition to more sustainable practices, adapt to changing climate conditions, and reduce its carbon footprint. Bakst’s deregulatory approach, which prioritizes profits over sustainability, threatens to exacerbate the impacts of climate change on agriculture, leading to more frequent crop failures, economic instability, and food shortages.
Prioritizing Corporate Interests Over Public Health and Safety
Bakst’s proposals for the USDA also raise concerns about the potential impact on public health and food safety. By advocating for the rollback of regulations governing food production, processing, and safety, Bakst’s plan risks compromising the integrity of the U.S. food supply. The USDA plays a critical role in ensuring that the food Americans consume is safe, nutritious, and responsibly produced. Deregulating key areas like meat inspection, pesticide residues, and food labeling would open the door to increased risks of foodborne illness, chemical contamination, and misleading labeling practices.
Public health regulations are not mere bureaucratic red tape—they are essential safeguards designed to protect consumers from harmful practices and ensure that food products meet high standards of quality and safety. Weakening these protections, as Bakst proposes, would undermine consumer confidence in the food system and potentially lead to public health crises. The USDA’s role in enforcing these standards is crucial, and rolling back these regulations would jeopardize the health and well-being of millions of Americans.
Undermining Equity in Agriculture
Another significant issue with Bakst’s vision is its failure to address the persistent inequities in the agricultural sector. Historically, small farmers, particularly farmers of color, have faced significant barriers to accessing USDA resources, financial assistance, and land ownership opportunities. The USDA has made strides in recent years to address these disparities through programs aimed at increasing diversity and inclusion in farming.
Bakst’s deregulatory approach does nothing to address these systemic issues and, in fact, could worsen them by removing the government’s ability to ensure fair access to resources. Without targeted interventions, small farmers and farmers of color will continue to face disproportionate challenges in competing with large agribusinesses. The USDA must continue to play a proactive role in leveling the playing field for all farmers, not just those with the financial resources to thrive in an unregulated market.
Conclusion: A Vision for Corporate Gains, Not Sustainable Agriculture
Daren Bakst’s vision for the Department of Agriculture, as outlined in Project 2025, is a short-sighted and dangerous approach that prioritizes deregulation and corporate interests at the expense of small farmers, rural communities, and environmental sustainability. By promoting the interests of large agribusinesses, Bakst’s proposals would further entrench inequality in the agricultural sector, degrade natural resources, and ignore the urgent need for climate action.
The USDA plays a critical role in ensuring food security, protecting public health, promoting rural development, and leading the fight against climate change. Bakst’s vision would undermine this role, leaving farmers and rural communities vulnerable to the impacts of deregulation, corporate consolidation, and environmental degradation. Instead of rolling back essential regulations and support programs, the USDA should be strengthened to promote a resilient, equitable, and sustainable agricultural system that benefits all Americans.
Bakst’s approach fails to recognize the complexities of modern agriculture and the need for a balanced, forward-thinking strategy that prioritizes both economic growth and environmental stewardship. If the U.S. is to meet the challenges of the 21st century, the USDA must remain committed to promoting sustainable farming practices, supporting small farmers, and addressing the growing threat of climate change—none of which are addressed in Project 2025’s narrow, corporate-focused vision.