USDA relocates economists whose work challenges Trump's policies

The Ministry of Agriculture addresses almost all its researchers to the economic effects of climate change, trade policy and food stamps – controversial topics of the Trump administration's initiatives – outside Washington, a part of what the employees claim to be a political repression against economists whose assessments have raised questions about the president's policies.

Since last year, employees of the department's economic research department have been waiting for news from members of their agency who would be forced to move after Secretary of Agriculture Sonny Perdue stunned them by saying he was transferring most of the agency to a location outside the capital. This announcement has led to claims that Perdue would try to put pressure on economists to leave the agency rather than move their families.

History continues below

On March 5, the ministry began informing those authorized to stay in Washington, but did not provide an exhaustive list. He only told the employees in person if they had made the reduction.

Nevertheless, current and former employees have compiled one, covering the 279 staff members, 76 of whom are allowed to stay in Washington.

Current and former employees, all of whom have asked for anonymity for fear of reprisal, claim that the specialties of those being moved are closely aligned with the areas in which economic evaluations often conflict with policies. from the President, including tax policies, climate change, and the agricultural economy. The list, communicated exclusively to POLITICO, shows that there has been a clear focus on retaining employees whose work covers relatively uncontroversial issues such as planting crops compared to those whose research focuses on sensitive to the administration.

"It was a clear politicization of the agency that many of us liked for its non-partisan research and analysis," a current ERS employee told POLITICO, saying department heads would choose those whose work was more likely to offend the administration and force them to move. "Go out or leave."

A former researcher who left last month in anticipation of his move was: "You can conclude that these are the least useful activities undertaken by ERS. They view the RHS as useful in that it produces data and statistics that can inform policy, but the research done by ERS economists, geographers and statisticians is less useful and does not fear deterioration. significant of its ability to do research. "

A spokeswoman for the USDA declined to respond directly to allegations of political bias by employees, but provided a written statement from Perdue stating that the moves were not motivated by the work being done by ERS.

"None of this reflects the work done by us. . . my employees and, in fact, I often tell my cabinet colleagues that the USDA has the best workforce in the federal government, "said Perdue. "These changes are a further step towards better service for our customers and will help us realize our informal motto" Do what's right and feed everyone. " . . "

"We do not undertake these moves lightly and we do this to improve the performance and services provided by these agencies. We will bring important USDA resources to many stakeholders, most of whom live and work away from Washington, DC. We will save money for taxpayers and improve our ability to retain more employees over the long term. And we increase the likelihood of attracting highly qualified personnel with training and agricultural interests, many of whom come from universities conceding land. "

Employees claim, however, that the department, including Perdue, has turned against the research service after an estimate made early last year suggesting that the Republican-backed tax plan would largely benefit the wealthiest farmers.

Perdue's decision to change the ERS system comes several months after news organizations highlighted the USDA study on changes in Republican taxation. In response to Perdue's decision, cities across the country have offered to host the SRE and the National Institute of Food and Agriculture, which will also be relocating. The finalists, announced on May 3, were the Kansas City Metropolitan Area, North Carolina Research Triangle Park, and many locations in Indiana.

Along with the announcement of his final selection, which should take place as early as this week, Perdue promised to provide Congress with a cost-benefit analysis explaining why the USDA said this decision was financially justified. .

The imminent announcement comes as pressure builds on Capitol Hill to stop the move. On Thursday, the House Appropriations Committee is expected to consider a spending bill with a provision prohibiting the Ministry of Agriculture from moving the two agencies in the National Capital Area. It would also block Perdue's decision to place ERS under the control of the chief economist of the USDA, which would bring agency oversight closer to the secretary's office.

Employees said that the move of almost all Washington researchers would have a clear impact on the work of the agency. The researchers said they usually used information from other USDA divisions, congressmen and Washington-based stakeholder groups, which would be harder from a remote location. . Allowing 76 members of the agency to stay in Washington while the other left also has an impact on morale, they said, thus limiting collaboration.

Among the remaining employees in Washington, there are senior analysts who make estimates of the global market and crop prospects, as well as administrative staff. According to the list, about 49% of agricultural economists will be allowed to stay in Washington, compared with 14% of researchers.

Rumors had been circulating for months among staff about who would be allowed to stay in Washington when all ERS employees were summoned to an auditorium in March to be briefed by Acting Administrator Chris Hartley. He then read aloud the names of those who were qualified to stay. But it was only when the employees had compiled a complete list of who was left and who was leaving, that they had a clear idea of ​​the division of the agency.

Decisions on the choice of stay in Washington were made by ERS management and approved by Perdue, according to a document titled "Frequently Asked Questions" distributed at the March meeting. The FAQ states that "every ERS employee had the ability to give their opinion" on the road. Senior executives "proposed critical ERS functions" which they thought would remain in Washington.

Some employees stated that the description of the decision-making process justified their fears that Perdue was behind the move.

"They came in and chose the ones they wanted and called them" critical, "said a current ERS employee.

Neil Conklin, former senior administrator at ERS under George W. Bush, said the agency would be fundamentally altered by the move.

"This is going to be very destructive for the agency, as certainly as we know it," Conklin said.