Policy Corner

As you might have been reading, hearing, or seeing in the news, the federal government is in the midst of a limited shutdown following a lapse in appropriations legislation. In plain terms, this means Congress has failed to pass the bills that keep the lights on; and when that happens agencies can’t spend money they don’t have.

Most federal employees are placed on furlough until funding is restored. Some, deemed essential, are required to continue working without pay until a deal is reached. For some historical context, the last government shutdown occurred during the 2018 Appropriations debate, which also coincided with the Farm Bill debate (time is a flat circle). Once funding resumes, all employees typically receive backpay (although that is now being called into question), but the programs they administer lose time that can’t be made up.

This particular standoff stems from broader political battles over domestic spending, primarily subsidies that make health insurance under the Affordable Care Act more . . . affordable. But whatever the cause of a shutdown, the result is the same: a complete freeze in all federal work which impacts the entire country. We’re in a historic period of partisan brinksmanship, and it is directly affecting the nation’s programming at USDA, especially for organic producers and the agricultural research they depend on.

Organic Programming During a Shutdown

For organic producers, this shutdown hits several critical programs at once, including:

• The Organic Certification Cost Share Program (OCCSP), which helps farmers recoup part of the cost of certification, and operates through the Farm Service Agency (FSA). With nearly all county FSA offices closed, farmers may find it hard to submit and process their cost-share applications.
• The National Organic Program, the regulatory and enforcement agency operated by the Agricultural Marketing Service (AMS), has furloughed nearly all of its roughly 40 staff members. That means no compliance, no enforcement, no rulemaking, and no certification review or accreditation activities until the government reopens.
• Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) staff, who provide critical in-the-field conservation support have also been sidelined. This affects all farmers, but hits organic operations as well. Farmers use NRCS conservation programs to address resource concerns on their operations, like erosion control and biodiversity conservation.

The delays stemming from the shutdown will ripple across the entire agricultural sector, but especially the organic sector. From the small diversified producer waiting for their NRCS or OCCSP cost-share funding, to the certifier waiting for regulatory guidance.

Impacts on Research Programming

The shutdown does not only impact the programming that directly serves producers, but also the underlying research infrastructure that provides the foundation for all regulatory frameworks for agricultural systems.

At the National Institute of Food and Agriculture (NIFA), the agency that administers competitive grant programs, only 13 of roughly 400 employees remain on duty. That means functionally no work is able to be continued on releasing Requests for Applications (RFAs), and no new awards can move forward. Many competitive grant programs, like the Organic Research and Extension Initiative (OREI), are already running nearly a full year behind their normal grant cycle.

Meanwhile, the Agricultural Research Service faces similar disruptions. This can be particularly harmful at this agency given that it manages long-term research trials vital to understanding soil health, pest management, livestock research, and climate adaptation. When these programs pause, data collection and continuity is lost, impacting the ability for these projects to deliver results to farmers.

Even data collection efforts like the Economic Research Service (ERS) and National Agricultural Statistics Service (NASS) are affected. The organic sector depends on ERS and NASS for production and market data, which informs everything from policy development to private investment. Losing access to this data hampers strategic planning for an entire sector. It is also worth noting some of dissonance here: this shutdown comes just months after a 100% increase in funding for the Organic Market and Production Data Initiative was included in the budget reconciliation package, a recognition by both Congress and the Executive branch how vital this work is.

What Happens Next?

No one can predict how long this shutdown will last. We do know that the deadlock in Congress is real, and it’s being played out at the expense of federal workers, farmers, researchers, and the general public alike. The USDA exists to carry out the policies Congress enacts and provides funding for. The current shutdown doesn’t just interrupt that process, it undermines it. The longer it continues, the more it erodes public trust in the government’s ability to deliver for rural America.

There isn’t a clear path forward for action yet, but OFRF will continue tracking these developments closely, and sharing what they mean for organic producers and researchers across the United States. In the meantime, we are looking forward to sharing good news regarding legislative work next month!

Until then, eat well and breathe deeply,

Gordon

Three piglets, one for each of the comments we submitted to the USDA last month.

At OFRF, we know that strong, transparent, and farmer-informed federal agencies are essential for the success of all U.S. agriculture, but especially organic agriculture. This month, we acted on that knowledge when we submitted three different comments on USDA actions: one to the USDA on their reorganization plan and two to the National Institute of Food and Agriculture (NIFA) on proposed changes to the Application Kit and Scientific Review Process. Each of these actions may seem bureaucratic and technical on the surface, but together they shape the future of agricultural research and technical service delivery.

NIFA Comments

Earlier this summer, NIFA announced that they are requesting public input on proposed changes to its Application Kit and Proposal Review Process. These processes, and the changes described, directly affect the accessibility, quality, and impact of all USDA-funded research projects.

OFRF raised concerns with the proposed addition of a “Disclosure of Foreign Relationships” form added to the Application Kit, related to a recent memo from the Secretary. While framed as a transparency measure, this new requirement risks chilling international collaborations and excluding non-citizen scientists who have long contributed to the strength of the United States’ agricultural research system. Already, we are seeing foreign-born researchers being impacted. Rather than strengthening national security, this has the risk of hollowing out our research capacity and weakening America’s leadership in agricultural innovation. OFRF urged NIFA to pause implementation of this requirement and engage with agricultural communities, from farmers to university researchers, in assessing its real-world impacts on research quality, workforce development, and international collaboration.

In a second Notice and Comment opportunity, OFRF emphasized the importance of peer review as the cornerstone of scientific integrity and accountability. NIFA’s competitive grants depend on fair, transparent, and diverse review processes that balance scientific merit with on-farm relevance. We recommended a variety of pathways for improving the process’s ability to respond to the needs of farmers and reflecting observations applicable to real-world farm operations. These improvements are not just about improving the administration of NIFA’s research grant programs, they are about making sure that USDA research funding is awarded to projects that matter to farmers, communities, and the environment.

Reorganization Comments

In a less formal comment opportunity, OFRF weighed in on the USDA’s proposed reorganization plan, announced on July 25, 2025. This plan threatens to further erode the research and technical service capacity farmers depend on. Our comments highlighted major risks relating to scientific capacity and program administration, and the very public-interest scientific mission this plan aims to achieve. We learned from the relocation of NIFA and ERS in 2018 that when relocation takes place rapidly and without community engagement, there are significant staff losses that persist for years into the future. We called on USDA to halt this reorganization until it engages in a transparent, public process with a cost-benefit analysis, regional listening sessions, and clear justifications for how changes will improve core services.

OFRF’s Commitment

OFRF works to engage in both legislative and administrative advocacy to reaffirm our commitment to ensuring agricultural research is led with scientific merit, farmer relevance, and diverse perspectives. Whether it is protecting the integrity of peer review, opposing exclusionary policies in grant applications, or defending USDA’s research and service capacity, we will continue to ground our policy priorities in the needs of organic farmers as well as the researchers and technical service professionals that support them.

Take Action, Support Our Work

The future of organic research depends on strong, transparent, and farmer-centered federal institutions. If you want to help defend that future:

• Stay engaged with OFRF by subscribing to our newsletter for updates and action alerts.
• Make your voice heard through signing up for our Communicating with Legislators course, where we can help you better understand how to engage with legislative offices.
• Consider making a donation to support our advocacy efforts.

Together, we can ensure that USDA research and services remain a public good that builds a future for resilient farms and thriving communities.

Eat well and breathe deeply,

Gordon

L-R: Mark Schonbeck, Gordon Merrick, Ashley Dulaney

This past week, Ashley Dulaney, our Communications Director, Mark Schonbeck, our Research Associate, and I attended the National Sustainable Agriculture Coalition’s Summer Meeting. This year, they decided to bring the meeting to the rolling mountains of Vermont, which has been subject to the impacts of climate change, and where I call home.

The week was full of strategy meetings and creating spaces to share the impacts of the changing federal policy landscape, but also to break bread with each other, connect as people doing the work, visit local farms, and give me the opportunity to share the joy that are maple creemees with the sustainable agriculture community.

But, frozen dairy treats aside, there were real opportunities for us as a sustainable agriculture community to expand beyond our niche silos of policy expertise and hear how the impacts we’re experiencing in agricultural research are also being felt in other areas of policy and law.

Over the course of three and a half days, we discussed strategy related to appropriations, the Farm Bill, potential future Reconciliation bills, and administrative actions; each affecting our work at OFRF and how we conduct our advocacy.

What’s at Stake: Farm Bill, Appropriations, and More

For those just tuning in or needing a quick reminder, here is what each of those terms means:

• Appropriations is the process Congress uses to allocate funding between different priorities that do not have “mandatory funding.” This process must occur every year; if it doesn’t, a government shutdown will happen.
• The Farm Bill is historically the piece of legislation that provides mandatory funding for food and agriculture programs, as well as authorizations for spending on other related programs that must go through the appropriations process.
• Reconciliation is a complex legislative process that Congress can use to “reconcile” its new and emerging priorities with the appropriations and mandatory funding provided either by a previous Congress or even the same Congress’s actions. Unlike appropriations and the Farm Bill process, reconciliation doesn’t require a filibuster-proof majority to pass in the Senate, but only a simple majority, and it is subject to strict rules regarding scope and limitations.
  • The most recent reconciliation bill, The One Big Beautiful Bill, was passed on July 4, 2025. For more details on what it includes, read NSAC’s blog post, “What’s Really Inside the Final Budget Reconciliation Bill: A Breakdown of Food and Agriculture Provisions.”
• From an administrative standpoint, when Congress appropriates money, legislates policy with mandatory funding, or completes a reconciliation process, these actions effectively serve as marching orders for the Executive branch to implement those programs and priorities. As we’ve written in recent months, there is growing concern about the USDA’s ability to administer those priorities and programs—especially with a staff estimated to be 16,000-18,000 members smaller than on January 20, 2025.

The Clock is Ticking — Here’s How to Act

As the dust continues to settle from the first six months of the new administration, it’s becoming increasingly clear that we have entered a new status quo for the relationship between Congressional authorization and instruction, and the Administration’s interest in following those. OFRF continues to deepen our engagement in both spaces, Congressional and Administrative, and will ensure you stay informed about what we are hearing and doing. Additionally, we want to make sure that we can bring the experiences and stories you are living to the Halls of Congress and the USDA.

We are entering a crucial time for the Farm Bill and Appropriations bills, as both expire at the end of September. Since Congress is in recess throughout August, this is a great opportunity to meet in person with your representatives while they are in their districts, along with any USDA officials who may be with them.

Relatedly, at the end of the fiscal year on September 30, all unspent funds the administration has refused to or is unable to distribute generally return to the U.S. Treasury.

So, if you’re a researcher relying on USDA competitive grant research programs to do your work, a Technical Service Provider who depends on that research to help farmers overcome challenges, a farmer who has seen an already complex support system become more complicated, or simply an eater concerned about how all of this will impact your grocery bill and the ability of local farmers to survive—now is the time to act.

Please contact me or any member of our policy team to share your stories, experiences, or concerns so we can bring them to Congress and the USDA to add context to their decisions and actions.

Eat well and breathe deeply,

Gordon

P.S. Enjoy these pictures from our time at the Summer Meeting in beautiful Stowe, VT. Thank you to NSAC for organizing such an impactful gathering.

By Gordon Merrick, OFRF Policy & Programs Director

If the past six months in the federal policy spheres have felt more like six years, know that you’re not alone. With endless stops and starts, shifting deadlines, and overlapping processes, it can be hard to track what actually matters and what is just noise. At OFRF, we want to keep our community grounded in the real implications for organic research and the systems that support and benefit from it. This month’s Policy Corner aims to give some brief updates on some of the processes we have been and continue to be engaged in, and how you can help support that work.

Reconciliation, the Farm Bill, and Legislative Movement

The reconciliation process is officially done, for now. While some Farm Bill programs were included in the final package, committee leadership has reiterated that they intend to try and pass the policy-focused Farm Bill provisions that were eliminated in the Senate’s “Byrd Bath.” This limited Farm Bill seems increasingly aspirational, with no clear floor time windows, mounting fractures in the traditional Farm Bill coalitions, and future reconciliation packages on the horizon, the outlook for passing a full, robust Farm Bill in the immediate term remains uncertain, and passing another extension of the 2018 Farm Bill increases in likelihood.

Meanwhile, the FY26 appropriations process is slowly moving ahead, but is significantly behind the normal schedule. OFRF worked with House offices on both sides of the aisle to ensure the House Report included important language supporting organic research and technical assistance. We’re now watching closely how that bill moves through the entire House as well as how the Senate version shapes up.

Programmatic Delays and Pending Announcements

We, like the entire research community, are still awaiting the release of the Organic Research and Extension Initiative (OREI), Organic Transitions Program (ORG), and all of the National Institute for Food and Agriculture’s (NIFA) Competitive Grant Requests for Applications. These funding opportunities were generally all posted earlier this year, then retracted for administrative review in February. After months of delay, time is running out to allow for a strong application window (at least 30 days), peer review (~60 days), and award process by the end of the Fiscal Year (Sept. 30th). We will continue to monitor this closely, and if you’re a researcher or a farmer working with researchers, keep an eye out for urgent updates from both NIFA as well as us.

NRCS Comment Period is Open

Right now, NRCS is accepting comments on its Conservation Practice Standards (CPSs) that have been selected for review this year. We’ll be submitting detailed comments, especially on CPS-595: Pest Management Conservation System, which still has room for improvement to allow for organic systems management. We want to hear from you if you’re a researcher or practitioner with insights on organic pest management, or other areas that are covered in the CPSs that are open for review.

Keeping You Connected

Regardless of legislative delays or agency slowdowns, our mission stays the same. We work every day to ensure that organic research, and the farmers and researchers behind it, receives more-robust support through federal and state programming. That includes helping our community connect with elected officials to help educate them on what they do, why they do it, and how it impacts their District, State, and oftentimes the entire Nation’s food system.

Want to get involved? Check out our free, email-based Communicating with Legislators course! If you have a story or a data point that you would like to share, please reach out and we are here to help.

Eat well and breathe deeply,

Gordon

P.S. You can catch up on recent editions of Gordon’s Policy Corner here.

By Gordon Merrick, OFRF Senior Policy & Programs Manager

In today’s political environment, defined by complexity, shifting political winds, and consistently competing interests, clarity and consistency matter more than ever. That’s why it is all the more important that OFRF stays grounded by always adhering to one simple principle: our work must be rooted in the real needs of the organic farming and research community. Whether we’re advocating for research funding in the halls of Congress, submitting comments to the USDA, or analyzing the impacts of federal programs and decisions, we’re guided by what we hear directly from farmers, researchers, and partners across the United States.

OFRF Policy Priorities

OFRF’s policy work centers around three core goals:

1. Invest in Organic Research that supports all farmers in building ecologically resilient, economically viable farming operations
2. Expand access to technical assistance and financial tools that empower producers to implement research-backed, systems-based practices
3. Grow organic as an economic engine, especially in rural communities, by ensuring federal policy recognizes and supports organic production systems as a public good

These priorities aren’t abstract, they’re rooted in field experience, producer feedback, and a clear-eyed assessment of what it takes to make organic agriculture succeed on the ground and in communities across the United States.

Our commitment to our community’s needs

OFRF does not set our policy agenda from an ivory tower or an echo chamber. We’ve committed to revisiting and updating our priorities annually in direct response to feedback from the communities we serve. We take seriously our responsibility to represent the diverse perspectives within the organic sector. That means staying connected to the farmers navigating certification, the researchers searching for funding that will facilitate their work, and the businesses and communities that depend on organic production.

That’s why we brought these priorities to our recent Organic Stewardship Council meeting. Producers like Anna Jones-Crabtree of Vilicus Farms reminded us that while organic systems offer tremendous benefits, too many federal programs still fail to recognize or accommodate how organic works. This on-the-ground story mirrors national research findings: current USDA programs are not designed with organic and agroecological systems in mind. This results in lost support, unfair pricing assumptions, and policies that treat organic like an outlier, rather than a proven system that feeds people and restores land (for reference, about 15% of our produce is organic by volume, but organically managed land represents less than 1% of all farmland).

The real experiences and stories shared in this discussion weren’t one-offs. They are part of the intentional work we do at OFRF in every conversation, farm visit, and research partnership. We aim to update our priorities annually in collaboration with farmers, researchers, and movement leaders. Through OFRF’s work with grass-tops organizations and directly with farms across the country, we work to build spaces for people to tell us their stories about what is changing on the ground. Whether it’s ensuring USDA’s technical and financial assistance programs are applicable to organic farms or fighting for parity in research investments, OFRF’s priorities are shaped by what people tell us they need, not what sounds good in D.C.

What you can do

There’s a reason this work feels more urgent right now. As several farmers noted in our recent conversations, organic is at an inflection point. Market premiums are narrowing. Other labels and claims are muddying consumer understanding. And more than 15,000 USDA staff are leaving the agency, threatening institutional memory and slowing urgently needed reforms.

OFRF doesn’t have all the answers; but we do have a clear mission: to cultivate organic research, education, and federal policies that bring more farmers and acreage into organic production.

If you are a farmer with organic acreage, a researcher studying organic agriculture topics, or just someone who has a story to share on the importance of organic agriculture, we are here to listen. If you want to make sense of the current policy landscape, we are here to help: our new, free, self-paced Communicating with Legislators email course is designed to support you in telling your story loudly and clearly. Farmers are doing the work. Our job is to make sure policy catches up. 

We’re here to make sure your voice is not only heard, but acted on.

Eat well and breathe deeply,

Gordon

P.S. You can catch up on recent editions of Gordon’s Policy Corner here.

Written by Gordon Merrick and Vinnie Trometter

If you have been following the twists and turns of the recent policy developments in Washington, D.C., you may have heard about something called “reconciliation.” It’s a powerful tool used by Congress to “reconcile” current revenue & spending priorities with past revenue & spending allocations. Reconciliation is a process that is largely out of the public’s eye, primarily due to the rushed nature in which this tool is usually employed. For advocates of organic farming and publicly-funded agricultural research, reconciliation can have profound implications on the future of important programs.

What is Reconciliation? What’s going on right now?

Reconciliation is a fast-track budget process that allows Congress to adjust spending, revenue, and debt limits with a simple majority vote, bypassing the usual 60-vote threshold for policy changes in the Senate. While reconciliation bills are limited to budget matters (generating revenue, adjusting spending, or amending the debt limit), they can have sweeping policy implications by changing the structure or availability of funding that critical programs and agencies rely on.

Right now, House and Senate leaders are exploring reconciliation as a vehicle for securing spending cuts and tax reforms before the end of the fiscal year. Speaker Johnson and conservative members of the House have pushed for a total cut of $1.5 trillion across federal spending, with the House Agriculture Committee tasked with up to $230 billion of that total. That places major Farm Bill programs, especially those tied to nutrition, commodities, conservation, and research, squarely at issue in this process.

To make this all more urgent, the goal of this process is to get legislation on the President’s desk by Memorial Day, May 26. That is an astoundingly fast timeline with long-lasting implications.

What’s at Stake for Organic Research?

Like most of American agriculture, the Farm Bill authorizes most of the research, extension, and data work that supports organic agriculture. This includes funding for the Organic Agriculture Research and Extension Initiative (OREI), the Organic Markets and Data Initiative (ODI), and broader programs that also fund organic agriculture projects like the Agriculture and Food Research Initiative (AFRI) and the Specialty Crop Research Initiative (SCRI).

All of these programs ensure that organic and transitioning to organic producers have access to regionally-relevant science, economic tools, and opportunities for system-level innovation. They fund partnerships between farmers, researchers, Land-Grant Universities, and nongovernment organizations to answer practical questions and improve long-term viability of the U.S. organic sector. But, if the longstanding Farm Bill coalition is fractured by including some controversial funding changes without bipartisan buy-in, then any incentive to pass a robust, bipartisan Farm Bill in the 119th Congress could evaporate. That would leave these essential research programs running on authorities from 2018 legislation written for a radically different moment in time.

An Already Strained System

The Research, Education, and Economics (REE) agencies are already strained: over 15,000 USDA employees are accepting the USDA’s second Deferred Resignation Program. This includes over 1,600 in the REE agencies, representing a massive loss of institutional knowledge and capacity, particularly in agencies already short-staffed like Agricultural Research Service (ARS) and the National Institute of Food and Agriculture (NIFA).

At the same time, organic research funding is already disproportionately low. Organic products account for over 6% of U.S. food sales and more than 15% of produce sales, yet less than 2% of USDA’s research budget and less than 1% of ARS’ funding goes to organic topics. That gap has helped fuel a surge in organic imports, while U.S. acreage and exports stagnate. New data from the USDA’s 2025 Organic Situation Report reinforces that, without major investments, the U.S. will fall further behind in meeting growing domestic and export demand with homegrown production.

Organic farmers and the researchers and extension professionals they rely on deserve better than a legislative game of chicken. Reconciliation wasn’t designed to replace the Farm Bill, and without a new Farm Bill that responds to today’s challenges, we risk the opportunity to meet the needs of today’s farmers to overcome tomorrow’s challenges.

Call to Action

We don’t need to shoehorn Farm Bill legislating into reconciliation cost-saving. We need a Farm Bill built on bipartisan cooperation, one that reinvests in rural communities, public research, and organic agriculture systems.

The coming weeks are going to be critical. As committees move toward decisions, it is essential that members of Congress hear from constituents who care about the future of organic agriculture. Public investments in organic research are not a luxury, they are a backbone of a resilient, regionally-adapted, and economically-vibrant food system.

Call your Representative and Senators. Show up at district events. Tell your story. A far-reaching and forward-looking Farm Bill is still possible; but only if we demand it.

Eat well and breathe deeply,

Gordon & Vinnie

By Vinnie Trometter, OFRF Policy Fellow

Hi! I’m Vinnie Trometter, the new policy fellow at OFRF. I want to take a moment to introduce myself: Prior to coming to OFRF, I worked in policy fields related to pesticide safeguards, reference prices, and crop insurance. I also have a background in the commodities trade and have worked in international trade organizations around the world. I have also had multiple op-eds about agriculture and the steel industry published in outlets like the Chicago Tribune, Pittsburgh Post-Gazette, and the Boston Herald. It seems only fitting then that my first blog post for OFRF be about the elephant in the room, tariffs.

Few sectors of the economy will feel the brunt of the ongoing trade war more than agriculture. Retaliatory tariffs placed on our producers will drive foreign buyers of U.S. agricultural products elsewhere while the tariffs we place on other countries will make import products farmers depend on more expensive. To make matters worse, there is little clarity on how the White House plans to support farmers during this period of uncertainty.

In terms of exemptions, thankfully all food products coming from Mexico and Canada that are United States-Mexico-Canada Agreement (USMCA) compliant have been exempted. Many agricultural inputs, such as fertilizer, potash, and herbicides, have also been exempted. However, these victories do nothing to lessen the blow for farmers who trade with countries other than Canada and Mexico or depend on items that have escaped duties.

Organic farmers, who are less dependent on exports and almost devoid of reliance on foreign agricultural inputs, will still face challenges caused by the trade war. Tariffs could cause inflation and eat away consumer demand for organics that are priced at a premium compared to their conventional alternatives. Things like farm equipment will go up in price since those items, and the parts for those items, are made all over the world.

Ultimately, the total list of foreign items tariffed, exempted, and then the items created in the United States which have been tariffed as retaliation is extensive. All tariff-affected items on a country-by-country basis can be found here. 

How can Organic Farming Research help Mitigate Costs Associated with the Trade War?

Prior to the trade war, demand for organics was poised to grow significantly. According to the Organic Trade Association (OTA)’s 2024 Organic Survey, sales in organic products were projected to grow by 28% through 2025 compared to 2021 numbers. This trend is consistent with a recent 2025 Economic Research Service (ERS) study showing that the organic market in the United States has grown from $11 billion to almost $64 billion over the last two decades.

However, funding for organic research is less than one percent, or $15 million, of the total Agriculture Research Service (ARS) research budget. Furthermore, less than two percent of the National Institute of Food and Agriculture (NIFA)’s competitive grants go towards researching organic topics.

Increases in funding for programs that focus on organic production and competition, like the Organic Transitions Program (ORG) and the Organic Research and Extension Initiative (OREI), could be a way to help both conventional and organic producers weather the storm. Since chemical application is restricted for organic farmers, resource optimization and leveraging a farm’s natural environment are critical for success. Organic farming research innovations around production can help conventional operations reduce input costs and improve soil health to maintain or increase yields. In this way, conventional operations can mitigate risk caused by supply chain disruptions.

The Organic Science and Research Investment Act (OSRI)

The most direct path for increasing the funding for OREI and ORG funding is through the passage of the Organic Science and Research Investment Act (OSRI). First introduced by Senator John Fetterman in 2023 in the 118th Congress, and reintroduced April 10th, 2025 by Senators John Fetterman (PA) and Adam Schiff (CA), the OSRI Act would:

• Provide stair-stepped funding increases for OREI from $60 million to $100 million through the duration of the Farm Bill.
• Provide Congressional authorization and direction for the Researching the Transition to Organic Program (RTOP), currently known as the Organic Transition Research Program (ORG), with an authorization for appropriations of $10 million a year for the next two years and $20 million the following year.
• Bolster funding for the Organic Production and Market Data Initiative (ODI). Providing $10 million over the life of the Farm Bill. ODI data is essential for risk management products and targeted market development.
• Direct ERS to conduct a full, systematic evaluation of the economic impact organic agriculture has on rural and urban communities, taking into account economic, ecological, and social factors.

Organic and conventional producers would greatly benefit from the passage of OSRI because organic research findings are applicable to all agriculture. It would also help producers mitigate supply chain risks by replacing the function of foreign chemical products with natural solutions. Find out if your Senators have signed on to support the OSRI act and reach out to thank them or ask them to do so. Contact gordon@ofrf.org for more info.

Eat well and breathe deep,

Vinnie

Gordon’s Policy Corner, March 2025. By OFRF & NSAC Staff

In much of the country, spring is on its way. For farmers and ranchers, it’s time for planting decisions, for calving and lambing, for lining up their financial capital and markets for a busy season, and more.

But this year, it’s different: across the country, tens of thousands of farmers and farmer-serving organizations have been thrown into limbo by an unprecedented freeze of federal funding and subsequent mass firings of USDA employees. The United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) is currently withholding payments owed under signed, lawful contracts, causing turmoil across the food system. And in a move that will have far-reaching consequences–including disrupting critical research, data collection, and economic analysis that farmers, the businesses they sell to, and policymakers rely on–the administration has dismissed hundreds of thousands of federal employees.

We wrote about The Consequences of Mass Firings Across the USDA in a recent blog, and now we’re taking space in this month’s Policy Corner to share an important action alert from our allies at the National Sustainable Agriculture Coalition (NSAC):

Our Farmers and Neighbors Need Your Voice, Now More than Ever 

The disruption of USDA programs is already having serious consequences for farmers, food systems, and our communities:

• Farmers who’ve already installed new irrigation equipment or planted cover crops with support from USDA are now unable to receive the reimbursements they were promised, jeopardizing their financial stability.
• Programs that pair local farmers with local food banks are pausing their procurement plans, at the exact time growers most need to know their markets for the season.
• Organizations who train and support beginning farmers are instead having to lay off staff.
• Families are anxious about grocery store prices and the availability of food long term.

These immediate impacts could compound and lead to further suffering without swift intervention from Congress.

None of this should be happening: these are signed agreements with the federal government, and USDA must follow through on its commitments before impacts worsen in communities nationwide. Congress has the ability to ensure that USDA restores access to critical programs and funding, and they need to hear directly from folks who are affected – along with all of us who care about our local farmers and ranchers, our fellow neighbors, and the organizations that help us strengthen our communities.

Calling takes only 60 seconds: can you call and email your members of Congress, urging them to protect our farmers and communities from further harm?

Our OFRF Advocacy Page has a new #GetActive Guide to help you prepare to stay active and engaged in policy issues impacting food and farmers at this critical time.

A Blow to Agricultural Research and Rural Communities

Written by Gordon Merrick and OFRF staff

Editor’s note: Since the publication of this post, the USDA has announced plans to reinstate affected employees. However, the situation remains fluid, and the long-term impacts on agricultural research funding and capacity are still unfolding. OFRF remains committed to advocating for strong, stable investment in organic research to ensure farmers and researchers have the resources they need to innovate and thrive.

In a sweeping, indiscriminate move that has sent shockwaves through the agricultural community, the administration has dismissed thousands of federal employees with the stated goal of reducing government spending and increasing operational efficiency. While the full scope of these staff cuts is still emerging, recent communications requesting employees justify their continued employment have added to the uncertainty. What is already clear, however, is that the USDA has been acutely impacted, particularly within the agencies that form the backbone of our nation’s agricultural research and farmer technical and financial assistance programs.

The Role of USDA Research Agencies and the Impacts of These Firings

The agencies within the Research, Education, and Economics division of the USDA (USDA-REE) are the Agricultural Research Service (ARS), the National Institute of Food and Agriculture (NIFA), the Economic Research Service (ERS), and the National Agricultural Statistics Service (NASS). These agencies are cornerstones of our agricultural assistance systems, conducting and awarding grants for high-quality research that informs and improves our conservation, risk management, and market development programming in other USDA mission areas.

As these mass firings unfold, it remains difficult to assess the full extent of the cuts, with many agency personnel pages having been taken down. What’s already evident is that these mass firings will have far-reaching consequences—disrupting critical research, data collection, and economic analysis that farmers, the businesses they sell to, and policymakers rely on.

The United States Congress covered with snow.

Among the agencies most directly affected by these cuts is ARS, which plays a crucial role in advancing agronomic research. ARS is the sole intramural research agency at the USDA, conducting long-term research that will undoubtedly face disruptions due to these firings. Reports indicate significant staffing reductions at ARS stations, with sources stating that 10-50% of the workforce at different stations has been dismissed, reportedly due to performance-related concerns. While the scope and rationale for these firings remain unclear, they have already disrupted critical research programs across the country.

It is still unclear how NIFA has been affected by these firings. NIFA doesn’t conduct its own research but rather operates competitive grant programs that fund research conducted by farmers themselves (SARE), land-grant institutions, and nonprofits across the country (OREI). As we’ve written about in the past weeks, the RFAs for these grant programs are still under review, and application portals, including for grants that were supposed to be open for applicants, are not currently available, impacting critical funding for universities and other institutions.

Focused more on understanding the past, present, and future status of agricultural markets and related information are the USDA’s NASS and ERS agencies. NASS works to collect and publish raw data about the agricultural system in the United States through their Census of Agriculture and supplemental surveys, like the Organic Survey. ERS provides crucial economic analyses on agriculture, food markets, and the environment. Their research has led to a better understanding of the economic impact of publicly-funded agricultural research: every $1 invested triggers $20 of economic activity, a massive return on investment (ROI). This fact highlights the point that cutting research dollars will negatively impact the agricultural economy.

Immediate Consequences

The abrupt firing of USDA scientists and their lab staff at ARS has thrown vital research projects into chaos. Initiatives aimed at critical topics like improving crop resilience, combating pests and diseases, and improving livestock production systems are now jeopardized, facing setbacks due to reduced research capacity. This is not isolated to any one region or station, derailing research projects that have been able to continue for decades, even through the COVID pandemic, due to the dedication of the civil servants that are now being cast aside.

These firings not only impact the research projects, though; they impact the local and often rural communities that host the research stations and the employees who work there. As mentioned above, the massive ROI of agricultural research will be drastically reduced. In one case, the research station in Salinas, California, has had four researchers and seven lab staff fired, reflecting hundreds of thousands of dollars that will no longer be circulating in that community, meaning that the industries that provide supplies and services to these staff will also be taking a significant hit.

Long-term Consequences

The long-term ramifications of these mass firings are profound. Aside from the economic impacts on the businesses directly involved with the research, this will impact the agricultural industry for decades to come. The United States risks falling even farther behind in meeting the growing demand for organic products as domestic production struggles to keep pace without the support of robust research programming. For example, if NIFA does not award funds through their competitive grant programs, this will lead to significant setbacks at land-grant universities across the nation, simultaneously affecting both the institutions that conduct the research while also hurting the farmers that rely on the research that these programs fund.

Most privately-funded research conducted is focused on generating patentable genetics and compatible products, not the public-welfare-oriented research that NIFA competitive grants fund and ARS conducts. Put simply, cutting federal research funding and personnel undermines the economic engine and weakens the resilience of the agricultural systems against climate change and supply chain disruptions.

Why This Matters

Agricultural research is the backbone of the technical and financial assistance programs operated by the USDA that ensure food security, food safety, environmental sustainability, and economic vitality for the United States. Disruptions in research will lead to higher food prices, reduced innovation in sustainable agriculture systems, and ultimately weakened rural economies. It is imperative to recognize that supporting agricultural research is an investment in the nation’s future success, ensuring that our domestic food supply is stable and resilient, especially in the face of a continually unpredictable international trade environment.

But, it is important to highlight that these firings were not just in USDA-REE’s agencies. The Natural Resource Conservation Service (NRCS), the primary conduit for free technical assistance for farmers, had over 1,200 field staff fired; the Farm Service Agency (FSA) has been significantly impacted, in some cases being forced to close entire county offices; and the Risk Management Agency (RMA), which supports farms securing of insurance products and other risk-reduction assistance, have seen significant firings which are just starting to be understood. Ultimately, these firings are impacting these programs’ ability to access high-quality agronomic research and economic information that improves their operation, as well as their specific on-the-ground operation.

OFRF’s Commitment to Farmers

The Organic Farming Research Foundation (OFRF) has a longstanding history of advocating for policies, research, and programs that support organic farmers, both certified and non-certified. Our efforts have directly led to increased USDA funding for organic research, the development of conservation programs tailored to organic producers, and the inclusion of organic priorities in federal farm policies and appropriations allocations. Looking ahead, we have outlined our key policy priorities to strengthen organic research and ensure farmers have the resources they need to succeed.

In this current environment of uncertainty, OFRF is actively working to both understand and address the challenges posed by these mass firings by engaging with policymakers, providing resources to affected communities, and amplifying the voices of farmers and researchers who have been affected.

We have already been working to get in contact with researchers and their support staff who have been unjustly fired during this time. If you have a story or experience you are willing to share, please reach out directly to our Senior Policy & Programs Manager at gordon@ofrf.org or through his Signal account at 207.408.3086.

How To Take Action

Staying informed and taking action right now is crucial to counteract these impacts.

• Get Educated: We at OFRF have developed a newly updated advocacy page that will help you understand the issues and access resources. We will be continually updating this webpage as new materials and resources are developed.
• Contact Your Representatives: Share your concerns about the impact of these layoffs on agricultural research, the technical and financial assistance that it impacts, and the rural communities that benefit from these investments. Personal stories about what these mean are oftentimes more important than impersonal data. Find their contact information here.
• Engage in Community Advocacy: Participate in local meetings that help raise awareness of these impacts, write Letters to the Editor and opinion pieces in your local news outlets, and collaborate with organizations like OFRF to raise awareness.
• Support Affected Workers: Offer assistance to those who have lost their jobs, whether through networking opportunities or whatever is possible given your current situation.

By taking these steps, you can contribute to a collective effort to uphold the rule of law and the integrity of agricultural research, the technical and financial assistance programs that it bolsters, and the communities that depend on it.