USDA is moving to adjust how it collects and communicates agricultural data following an April 22 meeting with stakeholders in Kansas City, pairing expanded farmer surveys, increased transparency efforts and new performance tracking with a sweeping reorganization that will relocate staff closer to agricultural regions.
Leading into the USDA Data Users meeting on Wednesday, Farm Journal spoke one-on-one with USDA Deputy Secretary Stephen Vaden. While he wasn’t in the room physically on Wednesday, instead joining virtually, Vaden made clear he intended to play an active role in the discussion.
“I’m excited about that because one of the things that both the Secretary and I are committed to is better transparency, especially when it comes to our data,” he says. “USDA data needs to be the gold standard, and we need to be brave enough to take feedback. Everyone can always improve.”
That theme, being “brave enough” to hear criticism, carried through both the meeting and the department’s broader outreach effort. As USDA, ERS, NASS, World Board and others participated in a panel on stage followed by Q&A, they had unified message that they’ll do whatever it takes to rebuild farmer trust and restore confidence in USDA data and reporting.
Earlier this month, USDA closed a public comment period inviting anyone who interacts with its data to weigh in on how it could improve.
“What we have done is we had a public comment process which just closed on the 9th of April, where we asked everyone who has any interaction with our data, tell us what you think,” Vaden says. “Are there ways that we can collect data better? Are there ways that we can report data better?”
Data Users Meeting Highlights Concerns Over Participation, Accuracy
At the Kansas City meeting, one issue stood out: falling farmer participation in USDA surveys and what that means for the reliability of widely watched reports.
Officials from USDA’s National Agricultural Statistics Service (NASS) acknowledged that response rates have dropped to historically low levels. The March 31 planting intentions report drew responses from just 37.6% of surveyed producers, down from 44.3% a year earlier and the lowest on record. But they also talked about plans to improve those numbers.
That decline has raised concerns across the agriculture sector, particularly after USDA made sizable revisions to 2025 corn acreage estimates earlier this year. Because markets rely heavily on USDA data for price discovery, risk management, and policy decisions, even small questions about accuracy can ripple widely.
In response, NASS plans to significantly expand its farmer survey efforts in an attempt to rebuild participation and improve data quality.
USDA Plans Expanded Farmer Surveys to Improve Data Reliability
According to NASS Administrator Joseph Parsons, the agency intends to increase the number of farmers surveyed for major acreage reports, pending approval from the Office of Management and Budget.
The most immediate change would come with the June 30 acreage report, where USDA plans to boost its sample size by roughly 35%. Additional increases of about 10% are planned for the September, December, and March reports.
The goal is straightforward: generate more usable responses and improve the precision of crop estimates.
Beyond simply expanding outreach, USDA is also working to improve how it communicates uncertainty in its reports. Parsons says the agency will incorporate more “plain language” explanations to help producers, traders, and policymakers better understand confidence levels and potential variability in the data.
Reorganization Announcement Follows Immediately After Data Meeting
Just one day after the Data Users meeting, USDA underscored how quickly change is unfolding across the department by announcing a sweeping reorganization that will relocate major divisions, including positions tied to data and research, out of Washington, D.C.
The agency announced the broad reorganization and relocation of staff, saying it will modernize operations. But some stakeholders warn the changes could strain staffing levels and institutional expertise at data-focused offices, including NASS and the World Agricultural Outlook Board, following recent departures tied to the Deferred Resignation Program.
According to USDA’s Thursday announcement, the overhaul will shift key components of the Food Safety and Inspection Service (FSIS) and the Research, Education, and Economics (REE) mission area closer to agricultural regions, in what officials describe as an effort to modernize operations and better align staff with the producers they serve.
At the center of the changes is the creation of a new National Food Safety Center in Urbandale, Iowa, which will serve as the primary hub for FSIS administrative, technical, and support functions. The facility is expected to house roughly 200 employees and become the agency’s largest office. A separate science center in Athens, Georgia, will expand capabilities in microbiology, chemistry, and epidemiology.
USDA officials emphasize that frontline inspection operations, which account for roughly 85% of FSIS personnel, will not be affected, and no reductions in force are planned. Additional staff tied to international operations will be located in Fort Collins, Colorado, while about 100 positions will remain in Washington for policy and congressional work.
The restructuring also reaches into the department’s data and research arms.
The Economic Research Service (ERS) and National Institute of Food and Agriculture (NIFA) will relocate additional positions to Kansas City, reinforcing a move first initiated during the previous Trump administration. NASS will also shift certain Washington-based roles to St. Louis and other regional offices while maintaining its nationwide data collection network.
Meanwhile, the Agricultural Research Service (ARS) will begin decommissioning the Beltsville Agricultural Research Center in Maryland, redistributing research programs across the country to better align with regional agricultural needs and modernize aging infrastructure.
USDA leaders frame the reorganization as a move to reduce duplication, improve accountability, and strengthen connections between federal agencies and the agricultural sector. Deputy Secretary Stephen Vaden says the changes are intended to better align staff with mission needs, while agency leaders emphasize improved workforce support, training, and recruitment.
Greater Transparency and Accountability Ahead
The timing of the reorganization, coming immediately after a meeting focused on data credibility, highlights the broader scope of USDA’s efforts to rebuild trust and improve performance.
Alongside expanded surveys and structural changes, the department is also taking steps to more directly evaluate its forecasting accuracy.
Vaden says USDA is planning to launch an annual report, potentially beginning this fall, that will compare its crop forecasts against final production totals after the marketing year concludes. The effort is designed to give stakeholders a clearer picture of how USDA estimates stack up over time.
“This is not something that will be solved in a day,” Vaden says. “But we have to be brave enough to take feedback and issue public reports on how we did and how our numbers ended up stacking up against the final facts, so that we can begin the process of ensuring that there is continuous improvement with regard to the quality of USDA data.”
Behind the scenes, that process is already underway. Vaden says he is receiving internal briefings on the feedback submitted through the Request for Information and is meeting directly with trade groups and farmer representatives.
“I, as a matter of fact, am receiving a briefing later today on what the comments that came in as part of our request for information show, and how we can have further areas of improvement,” he says. “And I am meeting with some of the commenters… to hear from them personally about how we could do our job better.”
Is USDA’s Reorganization Impacting Data Accuracy?
Even before the formal announcement, questions had already been circulating about whether internal restructuring could affect USDA reporting.
Vaden dismisses that idea.
“Well, first, with regard to your question about whether there’s a link to the data, the answer is no,” he says. “Our WASDE professionals are professionals in the Office of the Chief Economist. They are unbothered by the reorganization. It doesn’t affect their day-to-day work at all.”
In practical terms, he suggests the impact on those teams is minimal.
“The only thing they’re going to have to do is leave the South Building and come over here to the Witten Building for lockup,” he says.
Still, the scale of the changes is significant. USDA is looking to shrink its Washington footprint, where the South Building is more than 70% vacant and carries over $1.6 billion in deferred maintenance, while relocating employees closer to rural communities.
“No private sector company in the world would pay for real estate that is more than 70% vacant,” Vaden says.
Q&A Underscores Concerns Over Trust, Participation, and Transparency
The question-and-answer session at the close of the Data Users meeting made clear that concerns about USDA data go beyond methodology.
Several attendees pressed officials on how the agency plans to reverse declining farmer response rates, with some noting that lower participation could introduce bias into key reports. NASS officials acknowledged the concern and pointed to expanded survey efforts as a primary solution, while also emphasizing outreach to better explain why farmer participation matters.
Officials say they are exploring additional ways to engage producers directly, including clearer communication about how survey data is used and stronger assurances around confidentiality.
Questions also focused on large revisions to recent crop estimates, with market participants asking whether those changes signal deeper issues in data collection or modeling. USDA representatives stressed that revisions are a normal part of the statistical process but acknowledged the need to better communicate why those adjustments occur and what they mean for users.
Another recurring theme was transparency, specifically, how USDA conveys uncertainty in its reports. Attendees urged the department to provide clearer indicators of confidence levels and potential variability, particularly during periods of market volatility. NASS officials pointed to planned “plain language” additions as one step toward making reports more accessible and easier to interpret.
Some participants also raised concerns about whether internal changes, including the department’s broader reorganization, could disrupt data quality or continuity. USDA officials reiterated that statistical staff and processes remain intact and said efforts are being made to ensure consistency regardless of organizational shifts.
Finally, several questions centered on accountability, and how USDA evaluates its own performance over time. Officials confirmed that the department is working toward publishing a regular assessment comparing forecasts to final outcomes, a move widely viewed by attendees as a meaningful step toward rebuilding confidence.