USDA’s Brooke Rollins and the Rise of Small, Family Farms Rhetoric
A more populist GOP approach to agriculture?
Since becoming USDA Agriculture Secretary, Brooke Rollins has firmly inserted the language of “small, family farms” into the core of her department’s policy messaging, highlighting repeated references to the phrase as both a policy priority and political signal. This focus — and how some observers frame it — marks a notable shift in how a Republican-led USDA talks about the farm economy compared with past GOP agrarian policy approaches.
Rollins’s Small Family Farm Focus: What, Where, and When
At a major policy rollout on May 19, 2025, Rollins unveiled the Farmers First: Small, Family Farms Policy Agenda, which she described as a toolkit of solutions to help smaller-scale family farms start, stay in business, and thrive for generations. The initiative highlights actions such as streamlining application processes, improving access to credit and markets, and promoting farm succession planning — all with an explicit focus on small, family farms as the backbone of American agriculture. Rollins noted that about 86% of U.S. farms fall into this category and emphasized that USDA should “put farmers first” by removing rather than adding bureaucratic barriers.
The language in the official policy document underscores the symbolic and practical intent: “Small, family farms are described as the heart of our communities and our nation.” The plan calls for concentrating USDA efforts on issues disproportionately affecting smaller operations — such as land access, risk management, and business planning tools — and provides a structure to measure progress annually.
In additional opinion pieces and public commentary, including recent comments made on the Will Cain Show (link) Rollins has extended the theme, spotlighting farmers, ranchers, and agriculture heritage through op-eds celebrating local farmers markets and the values of farming families as central to the nation’s identity.
How This Messaging Compares to Prior Republican Agriculture Leadership
More populist in rhetoric but still aligned with traditional GOP priorities?
Rollins’ emphasis on small, family farms has led some analysts and commentators to view her messaging as more populist in tone than is typical of mainstream Republican agricultural policy in recent decades. Traditionally, GOP farm policy — particularly since the 1970s and 1980s — has emphasized efficiency, market expansion, and deregulation, often at the expense of smaller producers. Critics of past USDA leaders, such as during the Nixon administration under Secretary Earl Butz, argue that policies favoring consolidation and large-scale agribusiness contributed to the decline of family farms. Contemporary critics note that Rollins’s agenda appears to push back against that narrative by elevating the rhetoric of “small, family farms” as foundational to America’s rural economy and culture.
Meanwhile, it would be an oversimplification to call Rollins a pure populist. Some of her broader policy stances and institutional actions — such as support for deregulatory measures that benefit larger agricultural operations — remain consistent with core GOP principles that emphasize free markets, reduced regulatory burdens, and trade expansion. For instance, critiques of Rollins by environmental and consumer groups have highlighted her alignment with big-ag interests at times, such as endorsing industry-favored legislative priorities before her confirmation.
This dual character — pairing pro-small-farm rhetoric with wider deregulatory and expansionist objectives — complicates simple categorization.
Populist Undertones and Political Strategy
The persistent emphasis on small, family farms resonates with a broader populist political strategy within the GOP’s current leadership ecosystem, which seeks to tie national policy directly to the economic concerns and cultural identities of rural voters. Many family farm producers have historically felt neglected by Washington and skeptical of large agribusiness influence; by framing USDA policy around their struggles and signaling USDA intends to dismantle “roadblocks” rather than impose them, Rollins taps into this sentiment.
This rhetoric has broad political appeal in rural states and swing districts where small farms are numerous, but it has also drawn scrutiny over whether the underlying resource allocations and program cuts in other USDA areas (e.g., local food programs, certain grant initiatives) will weaken the very communities Rollins professes to champion. For instance, while promoting support for small farms, the USDA under her leadership has also pursued budget cuts and program reorganizations that some local agriculture advocates argue disadvantage smaller producers who rely on USDA-supported infrastructure and grants.
Conclusion: Messaging vs. Table Stakes
Secretary Rollins’ repeated invocation of small, family farms represents a deliberate messaging choice — one that resonates with populist tones and reflects a conscious effort to dignify and prioritize the concerns of small producers within the broader GOP policy brand. Whether this rhetorical posture translates into measurable shifts in regulatory priorities, funding streams, and program outcomes remains an open question, and observers across the political spectrum continue to debate its substantive impact on the future of U.S. agriculture policy.
Surely Rollins knows that most full-time family operations have to be large if that’s their only source of income. Typically, the smaller operations have off-farm income to supplement.
Where does that leave the vast majority of full-time family operations that don’t meet USDA’s definition of “small” — including most full-time farms even in Rollins’ own home state? There’s a real irony here. Those larger family farms were already penalized under former USDA Secretary Tom Vilsack, through progressive payment formulas, pressure to cap benefits, and policy designs that implicitly treated scale as a liability. In that sense, Rollins’ rhetoric to some feels less populist than progressive — and in some ways lifted straight from the Vilsack playbook.
Bottom Line: Most understand the political appeal: most farms are technically “small.” But they account for only a fraction of total production. Elevating them rhetorically while sidelining the operations that actually produce the bulk of U.S. food and fiber is hard to reconcile — and harder to justify as sound farm policy.
Some stats from Rollins’ USDA: While about 86% of farms are classified as “small,” roughly 10–12% of operations produce around 65% or more of U.S. agricultural output, underscoring the disconnect between farm counts and production reality.
In other words: The bulk of U.S. food and fiber comes from a small minority of farms — roughly one in ten operations — while the vast majority of farms contribute only a modest share of total production. Most think those one in ten are some sort of gigantic mega farm that is controlled by a foreign entity. The reality is that the vast majority are just large full-time family operations… the backbone of many rural communities.
