Trump’s Agriculture Department Is Downplaying Its Own Climate Research When Farmers Need It Most

As growers strain under the effects of global warming, “the federal government should be doing everything it can.”

In April, flood waters from the Missouri River destroyed grain silos and washed soybeans out of them, on a farm in Bellevue, Neb. Nati Harnik/AP Photo

Fight disinformation: Sign up for the free Mother Jones Daily newsletter and follow the news that matters.

Since President Donald Trump took office, the US Department of Agriculture has “refused to publicize” its own scientists’ research on the impact of climate change on farming. That’s according to an investigation by Politico’s Helena Bottemiller Evich, published earlier this week. The report, while jarring, is not surprising. The USDA secretary, former Georgia Gov. Sonny Perdue, has called fixation on climate change a “running joke” and publicly opined as recently as 2017 that “we don’t know definitively” what causes it. 

Even as the USDA downplays its own research on climate change, farmers are straining under extreme weather events like the one’s predicted to occur under global warming. On Monday, the USDA released its latest weekly crop bulletin showing that corn and soybean plantings remain way behind schedule after heavy rains and floods all spring left the Midwest’s farms a muddy mess. Brian Corkhill, who farms 1,300 acres of corn and soybeans in northwestern Illinois, told me that as of June 7, he had experienced “basically six weeks straight of rain,” giving him only two days that were dry enough for planting the entire spring. 

This spring’s chaos, marked by frequent storms and epic floods, is “not a one-off event” in corn-and-soybean country, says Richard Rood, a meteorologist and professor of climate research at the University of Michigan. Over the past decade, “we’ve been seeing more and more extreme precipitation in that part of the country,” Rood says—not just wetter springs overall, but also “more and more precipitation coming in extreme events,” like the bomb-cyclone storm that caused severe flooding in March. The Midwest’s spring rains are driven mainly by evaporated water from the Gulf of Mexico. Rood says that as the climate warms, more water evaporates. Warmer air, in turn, can hold more water.

With those forces in place, the Midwest is set up for more wild springs, Rood says. The Midwest boasts one the globe’s richest stores of topsoil, and farmers there use it to churn out the the corn and soybeans that suffuse our supermarkets—providing much of the fat and sweetener for processed food, and the feed for the cows, pigs, and chicken that stock the meat case. The region’s current two-crop (corn and soybeans) system developed and became central to our food supply during the second half of the 20th century—a period of relative climate stability. Those days our over, and farmers are going to have to tweak their practices to adjust, Rood says. He adds: “It’s not your father’s climate.” 

Rood’s analysis echoes the Fourth National Climate Assessment, a Congressionally mandated, once-every-four-years report by the US Global Change Research Program. The Trump administration did its best to bury it, quietly releasing on the Friday after Thanksgiving last year. The report found that winter and spring precipitation “have increased in frequency and intensity since 1901” and are “projected to increase by up to 30 percent by the end of this century.” As for farming, “increases in humidity in spring through mid-century are expected to increase rainfall, which will increase the potential for soil erosion and further reduce planting-season workdays due to waterlogged soil,” the report found. Meanwhile,  heat stress from warmer temperatures will likely cause corn and soybean yields to drop by as much as 25 percent by mid-century. 

In this context, Bottemiller Evich’s Politico report about the USDA’s downplaying its own climate research from its own Agricultural Research Service scientists is harrowing. She found a “persistent pattern in which the Trump administration refused to draw attention to findings that show the potential dangers and consequences of climate change,” including “at least 45 ARS studies related to climate change since the beginning of the Trump administration that did not receive any promotion.” In response, a USDA spokesperson told Bottemiller that the department “has several thousand scientists and over 100,000 employees who work on myriad topics and issues; not every single finding or piece of work solicits a government press release.”

The Politico report comes the heels of Perdue’s controversial decision to move two other crucial USDA research agencies from the capital to Kansas City. One is the Economic Research Service, which crunches data and produces widely read analyses, including on climate change. The other is the National Institute of Food and Agriculture, which funds agricultural science. The plan to relocate has crushed morale within those agencies, leading to an ongoing exodus of scientists. ERS and NIFA employees both voted to unionize in the wake of the decision, and an internal union survey found that as many as 80 percent of ERS employees will quit rather than move to Kansas City, Politico reported Tuesday afternoon. 

Meanwhile, Democrats in Congress are moving to defend USDA’s climate research. Rep. Chellie Pingree (D-Maine) released a letter Tuesday morning requesting that the department’s internal watchdog, the Office of the Inspector General, investigate the “suppression of valuable climate research” conducted by the Agriculture Research Service. “Farmers are already experiencing the effects of climate change, and the federal government should be doing everything it can to give farmers the research they need to stay in business,” she added. 

Sen. Amy Klobuchar (D-Minn.), a candidate for the Democrat presidential nomination, released a letter she wrote to Perdue, asking him to explain why the department hasn’t been publicizing its climate research. She also asked: “What actions has the agency taken to empower farmers, ranchers, and rural communities to plan for the consequences of climate change?” 

One anonymous USDA researcher told Bottemiller that “you can only postpone reality for so long.” The reality of climate change is already asserting itself in a key region for food production. 

WE'LL BE BLUNT

It is astonishingly hard keeping a newsroom afloat these days, and we need to raise $253,000 in online donations quickly, by October 7.

The short of it: Last year, we had to cut $1 million from our budget so we could have any chance of breaking even by the time our fiscal year ended in June. And despite a huge rally from so many of you leading up to the deadline, we still came up a bit short on the whole. We can’t let that happen again. We have no wiggle room to begin with, and now we have a hole to dig out of.

Readers also told us to just give it to you straight when we need to ask for your support, and seeing how matter-of-factly explaining our inner workings, our challenges and finances, can bring more of you in has been a real silver lining. So our online membership lead, Brian, lays it all out for you in his personal, insider account (that literally puts his skin in the game!) of how urgent things are right now.

The upshot: Being able to rally $253,000 in donations over these next few weeks is vitally important simply because it is the number that keeps us right on track, helping make sure we don't end up with a bigger gap than can be filled again, helping us avoid any significant (and knowable) cash-flow crunches for now. We used to be more nonchalant about coming up short this time of year, thinking we can make it by the time June rolls around. Not anymore.

Because the in-depth journalism on underreported beats and unique perspectives on the daily news you turn to Mother Jones for is only possible because readers fund us. Corporations and powerful people with deep pockets will never sustain the type of journalism we exist to do. The only investors who won’t let independent, investigative journalism down are the people who actually care about its future—you.

And we need readers to show up for us big time—again.

Getting just 10 percent of the people who care enough about our work to be reading this blurb to part with a few bucks would be utterly transformative for us, and that's very much what we need to keep charging hard in this financially uncertain, high-stakes year.

If you can right now, please support the journalism you get from Mother Jones with a donation at whatever amount works for you. And please do it now, before you move on to whatever you're about to do next and think maybe you'll get to it later, because every gift matters and we really need to see a strong response if we're going to raise the $253,000 we need in less than three weeks.

payment methods

WE'LL BE BLUNT

It is astonishingly hard keeping a newsroom afloat these days, and we need to raise $253,000 in online donations quickly, by October 7.

The short of it: Last year, we had to cut $1 million from our budget so we could have any chance of breaking even by the time our fiscal year ended in June. And despite a huge rally from so many of you leading up to the deadline, we still came up a bit short on the whole. We can’t let that happen again. We have no wiggle room to begin with, and now we have a hole to dig out of.

Readers also told us to just give it to you straight when we need to ask for your support, and seeing how matter-of-factly explaining our inner workings, our challenges and finances, can bring more of you in has been a real silver lining. So our online membership lead, Brian, lays it all out for you in his personal, insider account (that literally puts his skin in the game!) of how urgent things are right now.

The upshot: Being able to rally $253,000 in donations over these next few weeks is vitally important simply because it is the number that keeps us right on track, helping make sure we don't end up with a bigger gap than can be filled again, helping us avoid any significant (and knowable) cash-flow crunches for now. We used to be more nonchalant about coming up short this time of year, thinking we can make it by the time June rolls around. Not anymore.

Because the in-depth journalism on underreported beats and unique perspectives on the daily news you turn to Mother Jones for is only possible because readers fund us. Corporations and powerful people with deep pockets will never sustain the type of journalism we exist to do. The only investors who won’t let independent, investigative journalism down are the people who actually care about its future—you.

And we need readers to show up for us big time—again.

Getting just 10 percent of the people who care enough about our work to be reading this blurb to part with a few bucks would be utterly transformative for us, and that's very much what we need to keep charging hard in this financially uncertain, high-stakes year.

If you can right now, please support the journalism you get from Mother Jones with a donation at whatever amount works for you. And please do it now, before you move on to whatever you're about to do next and think maybe you'll get to it later, because every gift matters and we really need to see a strong response if we're going to raise the $253,000 we need in less than three weeks.

payment methods

We Recommend

Latest

Sign up for our free newsletter

Subscribe to the Mother Jones Daily to have our top stories delivered directly to your inbox.

Get our award-winning magazine

Save big on a full year of investigations, ideas, and insights.

Subscribe

Support our journalism

Help Mother Jones' reporters dig deep with a tax-deductible donation.

Donate