In today’s analytics-driven world, it rarely feels like a lack of data is a concern. And yet, as farmers struggle to adjust to a changing climate that has led to an increased frequency of droughts, floods, and other extreme weather events, incomplete or inaccurate public data has become a growing concern, and federal programs designed to provide farmers with information have been pared back. The Trump administration has decreased funding and staffing levels for federal agencies, which has likely reduced their capacity for data collection. The U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) eliminated public surveys such as the Agriculture Farm Labor Survey (FLS) and the Household Food Security Report, while others have been cut back. Programs designed to provide technical assistance, such as the USDA Climate Hubs, have seen funding slashed.
Multiple massive revisions in government estimates have rattled markets and farmers alike. The USDA seems to acknowledge the problem, having issued a Request for Information (RFI) on ways to improve data collection, analysis, and research. However, current Farm Bill discussions are largely missing concrete ideas on improving data and analysis and do not address staffing shortages. The combination of unreliable data and climate volatility could impede farmers from the planning and investments necessary for a just transition into long-term sustainable farming practices. As publicly sourced data becomes scarcer and less trustworthy, the use of privately funded data risks giving farmers biased information skewed to benefit corporate interests over the interests of farmers and taxpayers.
Less data and slashed research programs make decision-making harder for farmers
In 2011, 68% of farmers polled believed that climate change was happening. By 2023, that number had risen to 80%. Most farmers, regardless of political affiliation, are already experiencing the impacts of climate change, and are seeking reliable information on which to base their business decisions and climate adaptation efforts. In response to farmers’ concerns, multiple federal agencies created a guide meant to assist farmers in climate mitigation and adaptation efforts, only to have the USDA refuse to release it in 2019.
Over the past two years, much of the data used to make such decisions has been pared back or eliminated completely. In April 2024, NASS lessened the level of detail they provide in several surveys focused on livestock due to resource constraints. Reports on cattle inventory, hogs and pigs, and milk production were reduced from providing information on all 50 states to providing detailed data on 31, 16, and 17 states, respectively. Before being eliminated, FLS data helped farmers assess farmworker wage information in their part of the country and was used to calculate the Adverse Effect Wage Rate (AEWR), which helps to accurately determine a fair minimum wage for H-2A temporary farmworkers.
While federal survey information is essential, much of the data farmers have relied on in recent years has been obtained through federally funded programs, which have also experienced steep cuts. In April 2025, USDA announced the cancellation of the Partnerships for Climate-Smart Commodities program, which had helped to fund projects aimed at improving climate resilience for farmers and disseminating agricultural information. Cuts have also been made to 11 USDA-funded regional Climate Hubs. Created in 2014, these hubs were designed to help relay existing climate data to farmers, to help farmers share data across different regions, and to help researchers obtain funding for climate-related data collection and analysis. Many of these projects have now been ended or put on hold, with more cuts to climate hubs proposed for 2026.
Revised estimates worsen market volatility and paint an inaccurate picture
In September 2025, USDA released a report showing a projected total net farm income of $179.8 billion for all U.S. farmers, an encouraging rebound after sharp declines in 2023 and 2024. After a December update was skipped entirely, a February 2026 report revised this number downwards by over $25 billion. When setting aside a steep increase in federal government direct payments, incomes barely improved over 2024, painting a starkly different picture of farming outcomes from the rosy September estimate. Five months ago, farmers were led to believe that an industry-wide recovery was in progress. Now they see that the farm crisis continues, reflecting the truth of what they are experiencing on the ground. Propping up this system are government assistance payments, which have ballooned in part because of disaster relief funding, prompted by the droughts and other extreme weather events experienced in recent years.
The other factor cited by USDA as causing increased government assistance was falling crop prices, which can trigger increased commodity assistance or revenue protection payments. Corn prices fell sharply in June 2025 tied to projections from the National Agricultural Statistics Survey (NASS) estimating that 95.2 million acres of corn had been planted. With most planting completed, many farmers delayed sales hoping for price increases, only to see NASS corn planting projections repeatedly increasing throughout the year, with a price decrease accompanying every revision. Even in January 2026, when the focus of projections turned to how many acres had been harvested, an additional 1.3% increase in corn acreage compared to earlier 2025 estimates was reported by NASS, causing corn prices to plunge by over 5% in a single day. USDA listed unusually favorable weather conditions as a reason for the bigger-than-expected harvests.
This is part of an emerging, troubling pattern of industry shocks caused by faulty projections, leading NASS to announce an internal review of their projection methods. It is therefore not surprising that a recently published survey from Farm Journal AgWeb titled the “Ag Economists’ Monthly Monitor” showed that economists are highly concerned about revisions in USDA data, while farmers remain worried about low crop prices.
USDA caught in a bad data feedback loop
When projections are missed and data is incomplete, the information provided becomes hard to trust. In the Farm Journal survey, 78% of producers stated they are not confident in USDA data in 2026 and stated that they no longer believe this data reflects what is happening on farms. It is therefore not surprising that farmers have become increasingly unlikely to participate in surveys. In the 1990s, over 80% of producers surveyed responded to USDA’s quarterly Agricultural Production survey. By 2024, the response rate dropped to 46%. These survey results are used both by individual farmers and by institutions and organizations to develop projections. Similar drops in response rates have been seen in surveys relating to animal production.
Response rates will only worsen as farmers continue to lose trust in USDA data, which will make the data even less reliable. If these trends continue, more privately funded, often proprietary third-party data will be needed. Agribusiness, food companies, and commodity groups have helped to fund research and provide data, but producers must account for possible biases when making decisions based on figures from these sources, especially when considering climate risks. Public institutions should collect data for the benefit of all taxpayers and the food systems upon which we rely, whereas businesses will be looking to maximize their profits and could leverage or skew private data to do so.
Unreliable data makes a just transition more challenging for farmers
In the Farm Journal survey, when producers were asked about the key to success in 2026, their responses were chilling for those hoping to see a just transition towards agroecological farming practices. Farmers plan to limit spending as much as possible and keep new capital expenditures near zero. A vision for the future requires an understanding of the present.
Issuing an RFI to gather insight from producers is a good first step, but if Congress and USDA are to truly regain trust, stronger steps will be needed, such as:
- Passing a Farm Bill that restores prior staffing levels for NASS, FSA, ERS, and other data collection agencies within the USDA.
- Building up programs such as Conservation Innovation Grants and Sustainable Agriculture Research and Education grants that center farmers as the researchers and data collectors.
- Mandating accountability and transparency when estimates are missed so that farmers can feel confident that methodologies are consistent and reliable.
A food and farming data environment with missed projections, dwindling resources, and untrustworthy information is a recipe for stasis at a time when investments in diversification will be essential to building resilience.
