The U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) oversees a vast network of programs designed to support farmers, enhance U.S. agriculture, safeguard the food supply from risks, and protect our natural resources from agricultural pollution. In a recent op-ed in Iowa, Secretary of Agriculture Brooke Rollins introduced a two-year initiative to modernize data systems. This effort aims to create a unified record system that follows farmers across the USDA network, promising to reduce bureaucracy, speed up grant approvals, and deliver funds to farmers with the swiftness of sprouting seeds.
While I find myself unusually aligned with Rollins on this initiative, I have reservations. Connecting the various subsidy programs within the USDA, which are currently managed separately, is a step in the right direction. However, the underlying issue lies in the misaligned goals of these programs. They often work against each other, failing to provide lasting benefits to farmers, the economy, taxpayers, and the public. True integration of program goals and outcomes is needed, which Rollins’ plan does not address.
Additionally, I am concerned about the administration’s method of revamping these information systems under the guise of efficiency. Specifically, they have contracted Palantir Technologies, a company with a controversial reputation, to execute this task (more on this later).
US agriculture depends heavily on taxpayer support
Let’s consider what these USDA programs share: the distribution of public funds to farming operations. Despite common perceptions of agriculture as a free-market enterprise, it’s heavily subsidized. According to USDA data, USAFacts estimates that since 1933, federal agricultural subsidies have averaged 13.5% of net farm income.
The USDA offers a variety of farm payment programs, typically categorized into three main types:
In 2024, the Government Accountability Office (GAO) examined these programs, revealing that $161 billion in taxpayer dollars were distributed to farmers and ranchers over the previous five years, averaging $32 billion annually.
Recent crises have spurred more farm payments, but distribution has been unequal
The GAO report highlighted that over 40% of payments to farmers from 2019 to 2023 addressed income losses due to international trade issues, the COVID-19 pandemic, and natural disasters. For instance, the USDA allocated $28 billion in 2018 and 2019 through the Market Facilitation Program to aid farmers affected by tariffs on soybeans, pork, and other commodities following the trade conflict with China.
Unfortunately, the largest subsidies have disproportionately benefited the largest, most industrial farms. The libertarian Cato Institute remarked that while most welfare programs target low-income families, farm welfare benefits high-income families. This was evident during the Trump administration: a 2020 analysis by the Environmental Working Group found that over half of all MFP payments went to the top 10% of income-earning farms. Similarly, nearly a quarter of the Coronavirus Food Assistance Program payments in 2020 were directed to the top 1% of farm operations.
Despite significant spending, nearly all of the U.S. Treasury’s tariff revenue from China ended up as payments to farmers. Yet, farm bankruptcies rose by 20% in 2019 and remained high through 2020.
USDA payments to farmers are skyrocketing
The USDA’s Economic Research Service recently calculated annual direct payments to farmers from 2022 onward and projected spending through 2026. The graph shows that while conservation payments have remained stable, price support and other payments, after a slight decline post-pandemic, are set to surge this year.
Linking subsidies to pollution prevention would have wide-ranging benefits
This discussion leads us back to the USDA’s One Farmer, One File initiative. In a recent interview (paywalled), a USDA undersecretary explained that this initiative aims to streamline paperwork, such as program applications and eligibility documents across agencies, while updating internal software and data systems. The goal is to reduce administrative time for farmers and USDA staff, with full implementation expected by 2028.
While the effort to streamline is positive, the real transformation would occur if these programs’ missions were interconnected, collectively promoting lasting sustainability and value for farmers. This isn’t the current reality and won’t be achieved solely through data system upgrades.
Consider the relationship between the NRCS’s conservation programs and the RMA’s crop insurance. Research shows that conservation practices that align with natural processes—like planting cover crops, expanding crop rotations, and diversifying crop and livestock production—enhance soil health and protect farmers from events like flooding and drought, which often trigger insurance payouts and increase premiums. A January 2023 GAO report explored ways to link conservation, climate resilience, and crop insurance policy incentives. Later that year, the Biden administration’s USDA improved crop insurance rules to better support resilience-building practices.
More needs to be done to create a cohesive policy framework that requires all producers to meet higher soil, water, and climate stewardship standards as a condition for receiving farm subsidies, as I suggested in a 2024 blog post. An integrated policy should also enhance technical and financial support for farmers who have been excluded from conservation programs or hesitant to adopt them.
Implementing such changes would benefit all farmers by reducing dependence on fertilizers and other inputs, improving flood and drought resilience through healthier soil, and increasing profitability. For instance, an Iowa farmer who voluntarily adopted conservation practices saw notable improvements in financial outcomes.
Taxpayers would also see benefits through lower crop insurance costs related to extreme weather, while local water utilities and their customers would face reduced expenses for removing agricultural pollution from drinking water, leading to better health outcomes. Additionally, commercial fisheries would experience smaller dead zones, and outdoor enthusiasts would enjoy cleaner rivers and streams for recreational activities and improved waterfowl habitats. Consumers would gain better food access from diversified farms.
But . . . the USDA’s contractor raises the specter of authoritarian surveillance
Achieving the comprehensive integration of farmer assistance programs remains a long-term goal. In the interim, updating these programs’ IT systems must prioritize participant privacy and data security. Despite Secretary Rollins’ emphasis on “putting farmers first,” I was not entirely shocked to learn that the USDA has contracted with Palantir, an AI-based company described as “the most dangerous corporation in America,” to develop the One Farmer, One File system.
Palantir was founded by Peter Thiel, a billionaire venture capitalist, Trump donor, and Epstein correspondent, who has often voiced anti-democratic views and criticized diversity. Palantir has been involved in some of the Trump administration’s most controversial data-gathering and surveillance projects, including contracts with U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE), the Internal Revenue Service, and the Pentagon. Many have raised concerns about Thiel’s and Palantir’s involvement in the emergence of an authoritarian surveillance state and threats to human rights across the globe.
With Palantir now in charge of USDA farmer data, the potential for misuse is a serious concern. What could possibly go wrong?
