Trump’s Cabinet and Top Economic Hands: A Report Card
Strong execution and tighter alignment define the team’s second-term profile — though messaging missteps, media strategy gaps, and a few headline controversies still shape perceptions
As President Donald Trump’s second term nears its one-year anniversary, his Cabinet has been a major focus of both support and controversy. The administration’s overall job approval has been tepid, with roughly 40% of Americans approving of Trump’s performance — a level near the lowest of his political career.
Public opinion of his Cabinet reflects similar polarization: many appointees are viewed favorably by Republicans but unfavorably by Democrats and independents.
Trump’s second-term governing team is increasingly viewed as more disciplined and agenda-aligned than the first-term revolving-door stereotype, with several senior officials earning credit for execution, access to the Oval Office, and market or stakeholder confidence. Meanwhile, the administration’s communications approach — and a few high-profile episodes — continue to generate avoidable friction with Congress, commodity markets, and traditional policy constituencies.
Secretary of State – Marco Rubio
Report Card: A-
Rubio has become the administration’s central foreign-policy quarterback — a trusted adviser whose influence extends beyond diplomacy into national security coordination and geopolitical risk management. His close working relationship with Trump is reflected in the breadth of responsibility and reliance the White House places on him. Rubio’s blend of loyalty and realism has made him a stabilizing presence in an otherwise high-volatility global environment.
Rubio has become one of the most trusted and influential figures in President Trump’s Cabinet, far beyond the traditional role of Secretary of State. His expanded portfolio and foreign policy leadership have made him a central architect of the administration’s international strategy in 2025.
Expanded role and close relationship with Trump. One of the clearest signs of Rubio’s stature is that he has not only served as Secretary of State but, since May 2025, has also acted as the President’s National Security Adviser, as well as interim administrator of USAID and, briefly, overseer of the National Archives — positions that have led some observers to call him the “Secretary of Everything.”
Trump’s trust in Rubio is evident from this consolidation of roles — the first time since Henry Kissinger that one official has served as both Secretary of State and National Security Adviser at the same time. This reflects Trump’s confidence in Rubio’s judgment and his willingness to have Rubio speak for the administration on both foreign policy and national security.
Trump reportedly values Rubio not just for his policy alignment but also for personal rapport. Insiders note that Trump routinely turns to Rubio on complex foreign policy issues, demonstrating a working relationship where Rubio is seen as a problem-solver and a reliable messenger.
A major value-add has been Rubio’s sound counsel urging Trump to stay wary of Vladimir Putin. While Trump remains open to engagement with Moscow, Rubio is widely seen as a guardrail — pushing for verification, sequencing, and allied alignment, and cautioning against overconfidence in Putin’s intentions. That stance has helped temper expectations around quick breakthroughs and reinforced allied cohesion. According to administration officials and foreign-policy observers, Rubio has repeatedly urged Trump to remain wary of Putin’s intentions, especially amid periodic optimism around negotiations or cease-fire discussions tied to Ukraine and broader European security.
Rubio’s guidance has emphasized several core realities:
• Putin views negotiations tactically, often to buy time, divide allies, or reset battlefield conditions rather than to reach durable settlements
• Russian economic and military pressure points matter, but only when paired with credibility and enforcement
• Any diplomatic engagement must be grounded in verification, sequencing, and allied alignment, not personal assurances
This approach reflects Rubio’s long-standing Russia skepticism dating back to his Senate career and stands in contrast to some voices urging faster rapprochement.
How this has mattered:
• Rubio has helped temper expectations around rapid breakthroughs with Moscow
• He has reinforced the importance of NATO cohesion and intelligence coordination, even as Trump presses allies on burden-sharing
• His counsel has contributed to a more measured U.S. posture, avoiding sudden concessions that could unsettle allies or markets
While Trump remains open to dialogue with Moscow, Rubio is widely seen as a guardrail figure — ensuring engagement does not drift into over-confidence about Putin’s reliability.
Why this strengthens Rubio’s standing. This dynamic has further solidified Rubio’s relationship with Trump:
• Trump values Rubio as someone who will support engagement without naïveté
• Rubio has shown he can deliver hard truths without alienating the president
• The trust placed in Rubio — reflected in his expanded responsibilities — suggests Trump sees him as a strategic realist, not an ideologue
Key Accomplishments in 2025
1. Reasserting an “America First” foreign policy
Rubio has been a leading voice in articulating and implementing the Trump administration’s recalibrated foreign policy — one that stresses national interest, strategic prioritization, and diplomatic efficiency. He has emphasized that U.S. foreign engagement should make America “safer, stronger, and more prosperous.”
2. Strengthening regional security and counter-narcotics partnerships
Throughout the Caribbean and Latin America, Rubio has led diplomatic efforts to bolster cooperation on anti–drug trafficking, border security, and intelligence sharing, deepening ties with Costa Rica, Panama, and other regional partners to address shared challenges.
3. Diplomatic wins and global engagement
At his year-end press briefing, Rubio highlighted several foreign policy achievements under Trump’s leadership, including responses to global security challenges and efforts to strengthen international partnerships even as the administration prioritizes U.S. interests abroad.
4. Decisive actions on international norms
Under Rubio’s leadership, the State Department has taken high-profile stands on issues like imposing travel restrictions on foreign officials tied to digital censorship campaigns, sending a clear signal about U.S. priorities in free speech and technology policy.
5. Advocacy on Venezuela and hemispheric policy
Rubio has been vocal in labeling the Maduro regime as illegitimate and advocating for stronger hemispheric cooperation on immigration, security, and economic policy following elections in Honduras that the U.S. supported.
Challenges and criticisms. While Rubio’s influence is strong, he hasn’t been without controversy:
• Multiple hats & concentration of power: Some ethics and governance observers have expressed concern about Rubio holding multiple major roles simultaneously, arguing this concentration of authority and overlapping responsibilities can create conflicts and dilute accountability.
• USAID & foreign aid turmoil: The Trump administration’s dramatic reductions in foreign aid and near-freeze on USAID operations drew criticism; Rubio later issued waivers for humanitarian support, highlighting tensions within the broader foreign assistance strategy.
These critiques, while notable, have not significantly dented Trump’s confidence in Rubio or his standing within the Cabinet.
Perception: serious, disciplined, trusted — one of the strongest performers in Trump’s orbit.
Secretary of the Treasury – Scott Bessent
Report Card: B+ (with notable caveats)
Scott Bessent has increasingly emerged as one of the most consequential — and quietly effective — members of Trump’s Cabinet, particularly as tariffs, fiscal policy, and financial market stability dominate the economic agenda.
Bessent is viewed as a market-fluent stabilizer who has helped keep financing conditions orderly even as tariffs, deficits, and geopolitical risk elevate uncertainty. His credibility with investors and global capital is a meaningful asset, and he’s generally seen as a counterweight to more volatile instincts in economic policymaking.
1. Market confidence during policy volatility
Bessent has played a central role in reassuring bond markets and institutional investors amid aggressive tariff actions, shifting trade relationships, and elevated deficit concerns. Treasury auctions have remained orderly, volatility has been contained, and there has been no sustained loss of confidence in U.S. debt, even as Washington pursues a more confrontational trade posture.
2. Tariffs without financial disruption
Unlike earlier trade episodes that rattled markets, Bessent has helped ensure that tariff escalation has not translated into systemic financial stress. He has consistently framed tariffs as strategic, revenue-positive tools rather than ad hoc penalties — a message that has resonated with investors, especially compared with the uncertainty of Trump’s first term.
3. Credibility with global capital
As a former hedge fund manager and macro investor, Bessent brings deep credibility with global capital markets, sovereign wealth funds, and foreign finance ministries. That background has helped insulate the administration from sharper market backlash, even as U.S. policy departs from post-1990s free-trade orthodoxy.
4. Internal balance to trade hawks
Within the administration, Bessent is widely viewed as a counterweight to more aggressive trade and industrial-policy voices, helping calibrate policy so that it advances domestic objectives without triggering financial instability or a dollar crisis.
Negatives that have stuck:
- Argentina bond swap controversy: His announcement around a $20 billion bond swap concept with Argentina drew scrutiny for rolling out before details, structure, and authority were clearly explained — creating confusion and political blowback, especially from the U.S. ag sector, which saw Argentina axe its export taxes and China then buying billions of dollars’ worth of Argentine soybeans during the timeframe the United States was expected to sell into.
- China soybean purchase timeline confusion: Early messaging on China purchases of U.S. soybeans lacked clarity on timing/structure, stirring frustration in ag markets that trade on precision. Timelines were unclear; Volumes were not well defined; “Seasonal” versus calendar-year commitments were poorly explained. This misstep undercut confidence among agricultural stakeholders who rely heavily on precise signaling.
- 45Z Clean Fuel Production Credit: a growing frustration. One of the most persistent criticisms of Treasury under Bessent — particularly from agriculture, biofuels, and renewable diesel stakeholders — has been the lengthy delay in finalizing guidance for the 45Z program, formally known as the Clean Fuel Production Credit. Despite being a centerpiece of post-IRA clean fuels policy, the program entered its statutory start date (Jan. 1, 2025) without final operational rules, leaving producers, lenders, and investors operating in a policy gray zone.
- Slow divestment optics: Questions lingered over why it took so long for him to sell/divest his soybean farming operation, creating avoidable ethics optics while he was shaping trade and tariff policy affecting agriculture. The delay was avoidable as it distracted from otherwise strong market credibility. It gave critics ammunition despite eventual compliance.
How he’s viewed
• Financial markets: Increasingly positive; seen as steady, pragmatic, and fluent in market mechanics
• Business community: Respected for predictability and clear signaling, even amid tougher trade policy
• Trump allies: Trusted executor who supports tariffs without undermining growth or market confidence
• Public profile: Intentionally low — viewed as a feature, not a weakness, and has grown in the job from a communications perspective.
Policy footprint so far
• Oversight of Treasury debt issuance amid rising deficits
• Coordination with USTR and the White House on tariff sequencing
• Messaging discipline on inflation risks tied to trade and fiscal policy
• Maintaining dollar stability despite global geopolitical stress
Perception: strong operator whose credibility remains high, but whose rollout discipline has had a few costly stumbles.
Secretary of Agriculture – Brooke Rollins
Report Card: B
Brooke Rollins has become one of President Trump’s most visible and politically aligned Cabinet members, particularly on food prices, nutrition policy, and the administration’s broader “Make America Healthy Again” (MAHA) agenda. She is widely viewed as energetic, decisive, and well-connected to the White House, but her leadership style has also drawn quiet frustration within parts of the agriculture sector.
Rollins has been effective at ensuring agriculture has a voice inside the White House. Supporters credit her with moving fast on major USDA priorities and defending farmers forcefully in broader political debates over food prices and regulation.
Strengths Driving Her Solid Rating
Rollins is credited with moving quickly on large-scale farmer assistance, USDA reorganization (although that is also a controversial negative to some), and cross-agency coordination with HHS and EPA. Many farm groups appreciate her access to the Oval Office and her ability to elevate agriculture issues directly to President Trump — something not every USDA secretary achieves.
She has also been effective in defending farmers politically, particularly in high-profile debates over food prices, nutrition policy, and environmental regulation. Her media presence has helped reinforce the administration’s message that inflation, not farm policy, is the primary driver of higher grocery prices.
Supporters say:
• USDA is more responsive and centralized
• Decisions are being made faster, but that has been altered somewhat with the arrival of some top USDA officials
• Agriculture has a louder voice inside the White House
Key critiques:
- Not always telling Trump what he needs to hear: Some in the livestock and cattle community argue Rollins does not sufficiently level-set expectations — particularly that herd rebuilding takes time and that beef prices won’t come down quickly due to biological and supply-cycle constraints. Some producers privately worry that USDA messaging has leaned too heavily into short-term political expectations, rather than clearly explaining why market forces and production cycles limit how fast prices can adjust. Bottom-line concern: Rollins is seen by some as reinforcing optimistic timelines rather than delivering the tougher, slower truth the president may not want to hear, but should.
- Media imbalance: While Rollins is a frequent presence on Fox News/Fox Business and national conservative outlets, some ag stakeholders say she gives too few interviews to agriculture media, limiting detailed explanations on program mechanics and trade/market realities that producers and traders want to hear directly. She has limited engagement with farm broadcasters, commodity press, and regional ag media and relies heavily on political messaging rather than technical explanation. This has fueled perceptions that USDA communication is being filtered through a political lens, leaving producers and markets with fewer direct answers on program mechanics, timelines, and trade expectations. Ag media figures privately note that:
- Access is tighter than under past secretaries
- Detailed policy walk-throughs are less common
- Messaging often prioritizes national politics over producer-level clarity
- Internal USDA unease about pace and centralization. Inside USDA, some career officials and outside stakeholders have expressed concern that Rollins’ rapid restructuring efforts risk sidelining institutional expertise. While supporters see efficiency, critics warn that:
- Speed may come at the expense of consultation
- Long-standing USDA processes are being compressed
- Morale concerns could emerge if staff feel bypassed
This criticism remains muted — but persistent.
How she’s viewed overall
• White House: Highly trusted, aligned, and politically effective
• Farm groups: Mixed — appreciation for access, concern over realism
• Cattle sector: Respectful but skeptical on price and supply messaging
• Ag media: Increasingly frustrated by limited engagement
• Political base: Strongly positive
Perception: effective advocate with real access — needs tougher internal candor on timelines and broader engagement with ag press to sustain credibility. Rollins is a powerful and influential USDA secretary, particularly in terms of access and political alignment. However, her leadership style carries risks: over-optimism on complex market realities, limited engagement with traditional ag media, and a tendency to prioritize political messaging over sector-specific nuance. She may need to deliver more uncomfortable truths and broaden her communication strategy to maintain long-term credibility with producers and markets.
Note: During my interviews with various people for this endeavor, several said they did not think Rollins would be Ag Secretary at this time next year. Hmmm.
U.S. Trade Representative – Jamieson Greer
Report Card: A- (with execution critiques)
Greer is viewed as the “adult in the room” version of Trump trade policy: enforcement-driven, legally grounded, and more predictable than the ad hoc shocks markets feared. His background and methodical approach earn respect across many industry and agricultural constituencies.
Greer has emerged as one of the most effective and disciplined trade officials in the Trump administration, earning respect across industry, agriculture, and even among some longtime skeptics of U.S. trade policy. While less publicly visible than some Cabinet figures, Greer is widely viewed as a substance-first operator whose influence is felt in the structure and execution of U.S. trade strategy.
Background & credentials. Greer brings deep institutional and legal experience to the USTR role:
• Former Chief of Staff to USTR Robert Lighthizer, where he helped design and execute Trump’s first-term trade strategy
• Veteran trade lawyer with extensive experience in WTO litigation, Section 301 actions, and bilateral negotiations
• Deep familiarity with agriculture, manufacturing, and supply-chain disputes, particularly with China, the EU, and emerging markets
This background has made Greer especially effective at turning presidential priorities into legally durable trade actions.
Key strengths and accomplishments
1. Discipline and follow-through in trade enforcement
Greer is credited with restoring a sense of procedural rigor to USTR, ensuring that tariffs, quotas, and enforcement actions are:
• Legally defensible
• Clearly sequenced
• Coordinated with Treasury, USDA, and State
This has reduced the policy whiplash that markets and exporters feared earlier in Trump’s first term.
2. Credibility with agriculture and commodity markets
Unlike some trade officials who treat agriculture as an afterthought, Greer is viewed as deeply conversant in ag trade mechanics, including:
• Seasonal vs. calendar-year purchasing commitments
• SPS barriers and technical trade restrictions
• Export credit, tariff-rate quotas, and retaliation dynamics
Farm groups and ag traders note that Greer’s office is clearer and more precise in its language than in past cycles, even when outcomes remain uncertain.
3. Clear-eyed approach to China
Greer has been central to shaping a more realistic U.S. posture toward China, emphasizing:
• Enforcement over aspirational pledges
• Verification of purchases and compliance
• Recognition that trade with China is now structural, not transitional
While he supports engagement, Greer is not viewed as naïve about Beijing’s incentives or tactics.
4. Strong internal standing with Trump’s economic team
Inside the administration, Greer is seen as a trusted executor, not a political showman. He works closely with:
• Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent on tariff sequencing and market impact
• USDA on ag-specific trade exposure
• The White House on messaging discipline
His ability to operate without generating unnecessary headlines has increased confidence among both markets and allies.
Criticisms:
- China soybean purchase timeline: Greer was criticized for not initially detailing timing and structure of China soybean purchases—leaving markets to infer whether commitments were seasonal vs. calendar-year and how they would be tracked.
- USMCA review flip-flops: Stakeholders cite mixed signals and rhetorical shifts on the upcoming USMCA review — At different points, Greer has: Emphasized continuity and enforcement; suggested tougher leverage over Canada and Mexico; then walked back expectations of major renegotiation. This shifting tone has unsettled: North American ag exporters, Auto and manufacturing supply chains, Canadian and Mexican counterparts.
How he’s viewed
• Agriculture: Positive; respected for understanding timing, volumes, and realities
• Industry: Tough but predictable
• Markets: Prefer his structured approach to ad hoc trade shocks
• White House: Trusted, aligned, and effective
• Foreign counterparts: Serious and technically prepared
Leadership style. Greer is often described as:
• Low ego
• Detail-oriented
• Legalistic in the best sense
• Focused on execution rather than messaging
That approach contrasts sharply with the perception of trade policy as chaotic, and has helped normalize enforcement-heavy trade policy without destabilizing markets.
Perception: strong, disciplined enforcer — needs cleaner, more consistent framing when markets are hypersensitive to timing and treaty process. Greer represents the maturation of Trump-era trade policy — tough, enforcement-driven, but increasingly disciplined and predictable. His deep experience, legal rigor, and understanding of agriculture and supply chains make him one of the administration’s quiet strengths, particularly as trade disputes become longer-term and more structural.
EPA Administrator – Lee Zeldin
Grade (Agriculture & Business): A-
Grade (Environmental Activists): D
Lee Zeldin’s tenure at the Environmental Protection Agency is a clear example of one official being judged through two entirely different lenses. Among farmers, biofuel producers, and regulated industries, Zeldin is often seen as one of the most effective EPA administrators in years. Among environmental advocacy groups, he is viewed as one of the administration’s most objectionable figures.
Why agriculture and business give Zeldin high marks
1. WOTUS: long-sought regulatory clarity
Zeldin has earned substantial goodwill across agriculture for reining in the scope of the Waters of the United States (WOTUS) rule. Farmers, ranchers, and landowners credit him with:
• Narrowing federal jurisdiction in line with Supreme Court guidance
• Reducing fear that routine farming practices could trigger federal permitting
• Restoring a sense of predictability for land management decisions
For many in agriculture, WOTUS under Zeldin represents a return to common sense, limiting federal reach over ditches, ephemeral streams, and isolated features that producers argue were never meant to fall under Clean Water Act authority.
Bottom line for ag: Zeldin delivered on one of the sector’s longest-running regulatory grievances.
2. Renewable Fuel Standard (RFS): more engagement, less ideology
Biofuel producers and farm-state interests also give Zeldin credit for engaging seriously with the Renewable Fuel Standard, rather than treating it as an afterthought. EPA under Zeldin is viewed as:
• More receptive to ethanol and biodiesel industry concerns
• Willing to acknowledge the RFS’s role in farm income and rural investment
• Less hostile to conventional biofuels than some prior administrations
That said, the praise is not unqualified.
3. Frustration over timing and details on 2026–2027 RFS and related issues
A growing complaint within agriculture and biofuels is how long it is taking EPA to finalize details for the 2026 and 2027 RFS, including:
• Final volume obligations
• Small refinery exemption (SRE) reallocations
• Carryover and compliance mechanics
Producers and blenders say the policy direction is encouraging, but markets need final numbers, not signals. Delays have complicated planning, investment decisions, and credit markets tied to Renewable Identification Numbers (RINs).
Ag sector view: Zeldin is philosophically aligned, but execution speed matters.
Why environmental activists give Zeldin low marks
Environmental groups are deeply critical of Zeldin’s approach, arguing that:
• WOTUS revisions weaken Clean Water Act protections
• EPA has deprioritized climate and environmental justice initiatives
• Regulatory rollbacks favor industry at the expense of ecosystems
From this perspective, Zeldin’s emphasis on regulatory certainty is seen as regulatory retreat, and his openness to agriculture and energy concerns is viewed as industry capture.
Environmental activist view: Zeldin is dismantling safeguards rather than modernizing them.
Zeldin is broadly viewed as effective at executing a deregulatory mandate — especially popular with many rural, landowner, and business constituencies who value regulatory clarity and narrower interpretations of federal authority. Environmental groups and many Democrats strongly disagree with the direction, but within Trump’s coalition, he’s seen as delivering.
Bottom Line: Zeldin’s EPA is doing exactly what the Trump administration intended: prioritizing regulatory clarity, limiting federal overreach, and treating agriculture and energy producers as partners rather than adversaries. That makes him highly effective with farm and business constituencies — and deeply unpopular with environmental activists.
For agriculture, the remaining test is execution, especially on the 2026–2027 RFS timelines and reallocations. Directionally, Zeldin has delivered; operationally, stakeholders want faster closure.
Perception: polarizing nationally, but regarded as a strong agenda-executor for deregulation and compliance relief.
Energy Secretary: Chris Wright
Overall grade (Ag & Biofuels): B+
Chris Wright’s first year at the Department of Energy has been broadly welcomed by agriculture and biofuels stakeholders for restoring a more production- and market-oriented posture at DOE. While EPA still drives many biofuel outcomes, DOE’s stance on fuels, innovation, and infrastructure has mattered — especially for ethanol, renewable diesel, and sustainable aviation fuel (SAF).
Breakdown by Issue Area
1. Ethanol & the Renewable Fuel Standard (RFS)
Grade: B
What ag likes
• DOE has aligned with farm-state priorities by emphasizing liquid fuels as a strategic asset, not a legacy problem.
• Wright has supported interagency coordination that avoids undercutting ethanol demand through aggressive electrification mandates.
• DOE modeling and lifecycle analysis has been more neutral toward corn ethanol, helping blunt pressure from anti-biofuel narratives.
Lingering concerns
• DOE has stayed largely in a supporting role while EPA drags out final RFS volumes for 2026–2027.
• Ethanol groups would like DOE to more forcefully defend E15 infrastructure expansion and fuel-choice parity.
2. Sustainable Aviation Fuel (SAF)
Grade: A-
What ag likes
• Strong backing for SAF feedstocks that benefit farmers: corn ethanol-to-SAF pathways, soybean oil, animal fats, and cover-crop-based biomass.
• DOE has treated SAF as a national competitiveness issue, not just a climate program—music to ag ears.
• Continued funding for conversion technologies that allow ethanol plants to bolt on SAF capacity.
Why not an A: Producers want faster clarity on carbon intensity scoring alignment with Treasury’s 45Z rules to unlock private investment.
3. Bioenergy R&D & rural investment
Grade: A
What ag likes
• Expanded DOE support for biorefineries, carbon utilization, and co-product innovation.
• Focus on farm-adjacent energy projects rather than urban-only clean-energy priorities.
• Strong signal that rural America is part of the energy solution, not an afterthought.
4. Relationship with agriculture & farm-state lawmakers
Grade: B+
Strengths
• Wright has built credibility with corn, soybean, and biofuel groups, a sharp contrast with prior DOE leadership.
• Consistent message: “energy abundance includes agriculture.”
Room to improve
• Some farm groups want DOE to be more visible in public fights over lifecycle modeling and indirect land-use change assumptions.
Bottom Line for agriculture: Secretary Wright has reset DOE’s posture toward agriculture and biofuels in a constructive way. While EPA still controls the biggest regulatory levers, DOE under Wright has stopped being a headwind — and in several areas has become a tailwind — for ethanol, biodiesel, renewable diesel, and SAF.
Key takeaway: Farmers and biofuel producers may not always see DOE in the headlines, but under Wright, the department is quietly helping keep biofuels viable, investable, and strategically relevant.
Secretary of the Interior – Doug Burgum
Report Card: A-
Doug Burgum is widely regarded as one of President Trump’s most effective and least controversial Cabinet picks, bringing executive competence, private-sector credibility, and a pragmatic governing style to the Interior Department at a time of intense debate over energy, land use, and federal permitting.
Background & credentials. Burgum entered the administration with a résumé that resonated strongly with Trump’s economic and energy agenda:
• Former two-term Governor of North Dakota, a major energy- and agriculture-producing state
• Successful technology entrepreneur, having built and sold Great Plains Software to Microsoft, then serving as a senior Microsoft executive
• Deep experience balancing resource development with land stewardship, forged in a state heavily dependent on oil, gas, mining, and agriculture
That blend of business discipline and resource-state governance has shaped his Interior leadership.
Key strengths and accomplishments
1. Energy development with operational discipline
Burgum has been a leading advocate for expanded domestic energy production on federal lands, emphasizing speed, certainty, and permitting reform rather than ideological battles. Energy producers credit Interior under Burgum with:
• Faster lease processing
• Clearer timelines for approvals
• Reduced regulatory whiplash
His approach aligns closely with Trump’s view that energy abundance underpins economic and national security.
2. Credibility with Western states and tribes
Unlike some Interior secretaries who arrive with little regional grounding, Burgum is seen as fluent in Western land-use realities. Governors, state agencies, and tribal governments describe him as accessible and pragmatic, even when disagreements arise.
That credibility has helped ease tensions around:
• Federal–state land management
• Mineral development
• Infrastructure siting
3. Businesslike management of a complex department
Interior oversees everything from national parks to offshore drilling. Burgum’s private-sector background has translated into:
• Emphasis on measurable outcomes
• Delegation with accountability
• Reduced internal bottlenecks
Career staff note that while policy direction is clear, Burgum avoids micromanagement and focuses on execution.
4. Strong alignment With Trump, without theatrics
Burgum is firmly aligned with Trump’s priorities but is not a headline-driven operator. He has avoided public clashes, ideological grandstanding, or policy freelancing — traits Trump values highly in second-term appointees.
How he’s viewed
• Energy sector: Highly positive; predictable and competent
• Western governors: Respectful, practical, engaged
• Tribes: Mixed on outcomes, but generally positive on access and consultation
• Markets: Favorable; seen as reducing regulatory risk
• White House: Trusted executor
Critiques (limited but present)
• Environmental groups argue Interior has tilted too far toward development
• Conservation advocates worry about long-term impacts on public lands
These critiques are expected given the administration’s priorities and have not significantly dented Burgum’s standing with Trump or key stakeholders.
Bottom Line: Burgum exemplifies the administration’s preference for competence over confrontation. His blend of business acumen, energy/state governance, and quiet execution has made him one of the strongest performers in Trump’s Cabinet, particularly on energy and land management. He is a steady, effective Interior secretary whose credibility with states, industry, and the White House has strengthened the administration’s energy agenda.
Secretary of Health & Human Services – Robert F. Kennedy Jr.
Grade (Agriculture & Food Sector): C-/D+
Grade (Food & Public-Health Activists): B/B-
Robert F. Kennedy Jr.’s tenure at HHS has been among the most unconventional and polarizing of any Cabinet member. While food activists and reform advocates largely applaud his willingness to challenge entrenched interests, the agriculture and food sector views him with cautious concern, shaped by controversial rhetoric, regulatory uncertainty, and high-stakes decisions still to come.
How agriculture and the food sector view RFK Jr.
Background: A longtime critic of modern agriculture. Kennedy arrived at HHS with decades of advocacy that often put him at odds with mainstream agriculture, including:
• Sharp criticism of pesticide use, particularly glyphosate
• Repeated attacks on industrial food systems
• High-profile comments portraying certain ag practices as harmful to public health
Those positions immediately set off alarms across farm groups, food manufacturers, and commodity organizations.
Key controversies driving sector unease
1. Pesticides: rhetoric vs. regulatory reality
Kennedy’s past statements linking pesticides to chronic disease and environmental harm continue to loom over his tenure. While HHS does not directly regulate pesticides (EPA does), ag groups worry his influence could:
• Shape interagency health assessments
• Feed litigation narratives
• Pressure EPA or USDA indirectly
Farm-state stakeholders argue his rhetoric often fails to distinguish between hazard and real-world exposure, risking policy driven more by advocacy than science.
2. Sugar: comments that rattled producers
Kennedy has made highly critical statements about sugar, including framing sugar consumption as a public-health crisis and questioning industry influence over dietary guidance.
For sugar producers and food manufacturers, those remarks raised concerns about:
• Potential policy bias
• Future dietary guideline shifts
• Stigmatization of specific commodities rather than balanced nutrition
The sugar sector, in particular, has watched Kennedy warily, given the crop’s sensitivity to public-health narratives.
Working relationship with USDA Secretary Brooke Rollins. One area that has moderated agricultural concern is Kennedy’s ongoing coordination with Brooke Rollins, who is widely seen as a buffer and translator between Kennedy’s reform instincts and agricultural realities. Their collaboration has:
• Helped ensure USDA has a seat at the table on food and nutrition policy
• Prevented abrupt policy moves that could disrupt producers
• Added a political and economic lens to MAHA-related discussions
Ag groups credit Rollins (and White House Chief of Staff Susie Wiles) with slowing and shaping Kennedy-driven initiatives into something closer to a cross-agency process rather than a unilateral push.
Why food activists rate RFK Jr. more favorably. Food and public-health advocates largely see Kennedy as a long-overdue disruptor:
• Willing to challenge food manufacturers
• Focused on diet-related chronic disease
• Skeptical of industry influence over health policy
For these groups, Kennedy’s confrontational style is a feature, not a bug.
The MAHA Commission: the pivotal test ahead. The most consequential unresolved issue for both camps is the work of the MAHA Commission and, specifically, how it will define “ultra-processed foods.”
Why this matters so much to agriculture and food. The definition adopted by MAHA could:
• Influence dietary guidelines
• Shape labeling, procurement, and school nutrition rules
• Affect litigation risk
• Shift demand away from entire categories of food products
For agriculture, the concern is that an overly broad or vague definition could:
• Sweep in commodity-based foods unintentionally
• Penalize processing steps that improve safety, shelf life, and affordability
• Create de facto market discrimination without formal regulation
Industry is pressing for:
• A science-based, narrow definition
• Clear distinctions between processing for safety vs. formulation
• Recognition of affordability and food security tradeoffs
The outcome will be a major signal of whether Kennedy’s tenure evolves toward pragmatism or remains activist-driven.
Two grades, two very different perspectives
• Agriculture & food sector: Concern over rhetoric on pesticides and sugar; watching MAHA definitions closely; reassured somewhat by Rollins’ involvement
• Food & public-health activists: Applaud disruption, skepticism of industry influence, and focus on diet-related disease
Bottom Line: Robert F. Kennedy Jr. is reshaping the food and health policy conversation, but whether that translates into workable policy remains an open question. For agriculture and food producers, the verdict is not yet final. Much will hinge on:
• How MAHA defines ultra-processed foods
• Whether science outweighs advocacy
• And how effectively Brooke Rollins continues to balance health goals with farm and food-system realities
For now, RFK Jr. remains a high-impact but high-risk figure for the ag and food sector — influential, unpredictable, and still very much a work in progress.
Trump administration border & deportation report card (with an ag/labor lens)
Grading approach: Scoring each official on two axes — (1) Agriculture/employer view (labor availability, predictability, compliance risk) and (2) Farmworker/immigrant-advocate view (rights, due process, workplace impacts). Border security outcomes matter, but for ag, the “can we staff the field workers (specialty crops in particular) and keep meat plants running?” question often dominates.
Kristi Noem — Secretary of Homeland Security (DHS)
- Ag/employer grade: B-
DHS has projected an “all-of-government” posture that many producers read as stronger border control + clearer enforcement priorities, but the tone and scale of interior enforcement still injects uncertainty for labor-intensive agriculture. - Farmworker/advocate grade: D+
DHS’s year-end messaging emphasizes tougher enforcement and restrictions, which advocates argue increases fear and instability in mixed-status workforces.
Ag takeaway: DHS is the “umbrella” brand — if Noem’s DHS can credibly de-conflict farm labor needs from headline deportation pushes, her ag grade rises fast. If not, uncertainty persists. Noem remains a core figure for immigration enforcement and internal security priorities. She is highly aligned with Trump’s base and border agenda, drawing strong support from conservatives and significant criticism from opponents. She is effective within mission and coalition; nationally polarizing.
Tom Homan — White House “Border Czar”
- Ag/employer grade: C
Ag employers value enforcement clarity more than maximalism. Homan’s repeated signals that enforcement could expand sharply — including at workplaces— keeps growers and processors wary. A recent farm-state report citing Reuters attributed to Homan includes language that arrests will “explode” and that workplace enforcement would “absolutely” occur. - Farmworker/advocate grade: F
From an advocate standpoint, the combination of aggressive deportation rhetoric + workplace focus is the definition of destabilizing policy.
Ag takeaway: Homan’s credibility with ag rises when the White House pairs enforcement with lawful, scalable work authorization pathways (and communicates them clearly). Without that, he’s a volatility driver.
Rodney Scott — Commissioner, U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP)
- Ag/employer grade: B
For agriculture, CBP matters most on border throughput (produce, livestock, inputs) and operational control that reduces policy whiplash. Scott’s confirmed leadership is a “steady hand” signal to many shippers. - Farmworker/advocate grade: D
Advocates typically view CBP crackdowns and tighter processing as increasing humanitarian risk and limiting access to relief.
Ag takeaway: CBP stability helps trade flow and reduces chaos at ports—real value to produce and protein supply chains.
Todd M. Lyons — Acting Director, Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE)
- Ag/employer grade: D+
Even when farms aren’t directly targeted, the threat of worksite actions chills hiring and retention across rural communities. Reporting and analysis from immigration policy groups note the return of worksite raids in 2025. - Farmworker/advocate grade: F
ICE’s direction is widely criticized for fear, family disruption, and alleged due-process concerns — especially as detention capacity expands.
Ag takeaway: ICE can raise its ag grade quickly by making worksite strategy predictable and employer-focused (audits/penalties for bad actors) rather than high-visibility raids that spook entire regions.
Joseph Edlow — Director, U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS)
- Ag/employer grade: B-
USCIS is pivotal for lawful labor channels and processing. Edlow’s confirmed leadership and DHS messaging emphasize system tightening, but agriculture’s practical metric is whether adjudications and rules become faster and less error prone. - Farmworker/advocate grade: C-
Advocates tend to view USCIS under a restriction-first posture as narrowing relief and increasing denials, though USCIS is not the “raid” agency.
Ag takeaway: If USCIS can deliver speed + certainty on employment-related adjudications, it’s one of the few “pressure-release valves” for ag labor.
Lori Chavez-DeRemer — Secretary of Labor (DOL)
- Ag/employer grade: B (on costs), C+ (on predictability)
DOL is at the center of the H-2A cost fight. The administration has moved to ease hiring/reshape wage rules in ways that employers argue are necessary. - Farmworker/advocate grade: D
Worker groups argue wage-rule changes cut pay and weaken protections (with large, estimated impacts cited by labor economists).
Ag takeaway: Employers appreciate cost relief, but uncertainty from litigation/implementation churn can wipe out gains in real time.
Pam Bondi — Attorney General (DOJ)
- Ag/employer grade: C+
DOJ shapes the legal environment (sanctuary disputes, employer enforcement posture, immigration-linked prosecutions). Agriculture usually wants de-escalation and clarity to avoid collateral disruption. DOJ controversies tied to deportation/prosecution decisions add risk. - Farmworker/advocate grade: D
Advocates worry about politicized or retaliatory enforcement; a newly unsealed court order highlighted concerns in a mistaken deportation/prosecution sequence.
Ag takeaway: DOJ is a “second order” ag actor — its biggest impact is whether it fuels uncertainty for employers and workers alike.
Cross-cutting scorecard themes for agriculture
- Labor uncertainty is the tax. Even selective enforcement can spook entire rural labor markets, affecting produce, dairy, and meat processing most.
- Legal pathways are the pressure valve. When the administration pairs enforcement with workable guest-worker administration, ag can live with tougher rhetoric; without it, ag gets squeezed.
- 2026 flashpoint: worksite enforcement + detention scale. Some reports describe ICE planning major detention expansion, which signals deportation capacity rising—exactly what alarms labor-dependent sectors.
