Brooke Rollins, Secretary of Agriculture | All-In DC

Secretary Rollins, thank you for joining me here.

Can you call me Brooke?

Brooke.

I didn't, I mean, I'm wearing a tie.

There's a degree of formality.

You just came from a cabinet meeting.

Food security is national security.

America is the largest ag exporter in the world.

These farmers don't want all these checks.

No one wants a handout.

Exactly.

No one wants a handout.

$15 billion a year is spent on soda.

Taxpayer dollars be spent on sugary drinks and junk food that's making our kids sick?

Absolutely not.

Does that mean we shut them down?

Does that mean, no, of course not.

Part of that was having 300 executive orders drafted.

We did it all very quietly.

No one really knew it was happening.

We're not here for the people to serve us like some monarchy.

We're here to serve the people.

I'm here in Washington, D.C.

at the U.S.

Department of Agriculture.

to interview the 33rd Secretary of Agriculture, Brooke Rollins.

We just had an amazing conversation talking about Brooke's background, the work she's doing at the USDA, the impact Doge is having, food stamps, the sentiment of the American farmer, tariff and trade, and everything in between.

Really amazing conversation.

Thank you to Secretary Rollins for allowing me here today.

I hope you'll enjoy the conversation.

I'm going all in.

All right, besties.

I think that was another epic discussion.

People love the interviews.

I could hear him talk for hours.

Absolutely.

We crushed your questions a minute.

We are giving people ground truth data to underwrite your honesty.

What'd you guys say?

That was fun,

I'm going all in.

Congrats on your first 100 days.

First 100 days.

Yesterday was the 100th day of President Trump.

I'm back 70 days.

But I'm President Trump yesterday, but today we celebrated together at the cabinet meeting.

And we're about, I'm going back over to the White House right after we finished to do more celebrating.

Great.

Well, we appreciate it.

The USDA is an incredible agency.

It was founded under Abraham Lincoln, I believe.

It was established under Lincoln.

I think, I was talking to your staff, I think 60% of American workforce was in agriculture at the time.

That's right.

And it's a really critical agency for American prosperity and has been really important for food security and for the interests of America around the world as a trade partner, as the largest ag exporter in the world.

The agency is incredible in terms of the scale, 29 sub-agencies,

over 100,000 employees.

4,500 locations, and an over $200 billion

annual budget.

So really an incredible department to oversee.

But before we get into the USDA and talk a little bit about some of the work you're doing and have been doing, maybe we can talk a little bit about your background.

Did you grow up on a farm?

How did you get into agriculture?

So yes, I grew up in a really small town in Texas.

We

were

not farmers or ranchers per se in Texas.

I grew up on a small farm.

We raised animals, we bailed hay.

But my family, my mom's side of the family, my grandmother, they had a big row crop farm in Minnesota.

So I spent every summer on that farm, corn, wheat, soy, pretty much everything you could consider and think of.

So that was my row crop, which has actually been very, very helpful because coming from Texas and being more of a cattle raiser and being in cattle more, which is what I meant in Texas, it's really great to have sort of both sides of the house.

And I'm very appreciative to that.

But yes, grew up in a very small town.

We didn't have much.

I was raised by a single mom, but we did have the land.

And on that land, we raised our animals.

Again, we bailed our hay.

I barrel raced every Friday night.

I grew up in 4-H in FFA, went to Texas A ⁇ M on an agriculture scholarship, studied soil science and meats and feeds and feeding and really dove way into agriculture.

Knowing I would go to law school, I really had a heart for understanding.

policy and the people, but thought I would really stay an ag for the rest of my life.

And obviously, sometimes the path diverts and changes, but even over the, you 20 years since I last worked 100% in agriculture, which was for Rick Perry when he was first governor,

then quickly moved into all the policy.

But I've always stayed very much in touch and involved in ag and always really worked in ag policy, but as part of a much broader portfolio until this job.

But no, listen, the USDA is the people's department.

That was what President Lincoln's vision was.

The American founding had four key agencies, of course, the Attorney General, Justice, State, and Defense, which was war, state, you know, Department of War at the time, but defense.

And that was really the beginning of our country were those four.

Interior was added a couple decades later, and then agriculture.

That was sort of the cadence of building a new government and creating some sort of self-governing structure that you want the power to remain with the people.

But certainly, as America moved from a frontier republic into, as we know, the world's greatest economic superpower, certainly you needed some kind of governing structure.

And so Abraham Lincoln in the 1860s believed sincerely that the, you know, the majority of Americans then were rural, they were agriculture related, and that they needed representation here in Washington.

So the People's Department was formed.

And this building was built in the early 1900s, 1920s.

And here we are today.

Now, through the years, as you mentioned, it has grown and grown and grown.

I do believe it became a bit of a catch-all

in some ways.

You know, we run the food stamp program, the SNAP program, the supplemental nutrition program.

We run the forests.

Of course, the forest service is under forestry is under USDA.

So that's tens of thousands of firefighters as an example.

And of course, all of the farming and agriculture related from rural development loans to farm loans to crop insurance.

And then, of course, moving all of the economic relief, et cetera, that sometimes is often needed.

I am still getting my arms around, you know, two months in, exactly everything that we're working on here.

But in President Trump's greatest vision and in his bold leadership, one of my top priorities is how we realign the USDA around its original purpose, which was serving the people and especially the farmers and ranchers.

So really looking forward to continuing that work.

But you were in the first Trump administration?

I was in the first Trump administration.

I think I was the only ag major in the building.

And I was doing a lot of different hats.

I was working with Jared Jared Kushner in the Office of American Innovation

and then was doing all the strategy.

So kind of the big picture, you know, for the president and the policy, especially on the domestic side, eventually ran the domestic policy team.

Eventually, towards the end, took on Kelly and Conway's team and some other portfolios.

So really, over the course of those three years in Trump One.

How did you end up in Trump One?

Well, that is a really crazy long story.

I, for my entire policy, and my heart is in public policy.

I have just, I first thought I may end up at seminary and be a pastor, a youth pastor, and that was really where I was felt very called

after college, but then realized that if I lean into public policy, And I didn't know what that meant.

I didn't even know what a think tank was, but that I could perhaps change more and help more people

going that route than if I just worked at a church.

And so

I really kind of

got excited about that idea.

And I was a big firm litigator for a couple of years after law school, did a clerkship, a federal clerkship for a judge in Dallas in the Northern District.

And then got a call from Rick Perry, also another big time Texas Aggie, Ag major

from an Ag background, a rural town.

And he'd just become governor.

And in Texas, George W.

Bush had just become president.

They had the whole hanging Chad.

You know,

think the election integrity issues are new to today, they are not new to today.

This goes way back.

But Rick Perry became governor.

He was lieutenant governor.

And he called me.

And I was sitting billing my every six minutes, the billable hour for this big law firm in Dallas.

Loved the firm.

Didn't love the work.

And he said, why don't you come join my new team down here in Austin?

I was 28 years old.

I'd only been out of law school for a couple of years.

And he made me his deputy general counsel.

Sort of shocking to everybody, but I'd known him.

I met him when I was 15 as a future farmer of America, and he believed in me.

And so that was really how the pivot, as I was trying to figure out what was next, I really leaned into public policy.

And I found in the governor's office, it was a great experience.

I only did it for two years at the very beginning of his administration, Rick Perry's,

that you could make such a difference.

But what I realized was that there was no one at that moment in Texas governance that was lobbying for freedom and for liberty and for God and for family.

That all of those people that would come see me every day wanted something, even in Texas, looking for a specific law or wanting a little bit more taxpayer money.

And I was, I wasn't even 30 yet.

So I was sort of new to all of it, but I was put in a pretty, a pretty highly, you know, responsible area.

And it was so instructive to me.

So anyway, long story short, I ended up planning to sort of step away from

any sort of official work.

And my husband and I were ready to start a family.

And I was going to do that for 20 years and then perhaps think about re-entering the workforce.

Again, having no idea what that even meant.

But I got a call from Wendy Graham, who was then Senator Phil Graham's wife, chair of this organization I had never heard of called the Texas Public Policy Foundation.

And only had a couple of employees.

based in San Antonio.

I was the governor's policy director at the time.

I went from being deputy general counsel to taking on all the policy for Rick Perry.

And she said, Would you like to come do this?

I didn't have any kids at the time.

I thought, well, you know, I could do it for a year or two.

And I didn't even know what a think tank was, but I did know that based on my experience in Rick Perry's office, I'm not an academic, I'm an ag major from Texas AM, but that if there were significant efforts to build a policy apparatus, I couldn't have articulated this 20 years ago, but I can now into what my instinct was.

If there were a significant policy policy apparatus or apparatuses, I guess,

that were strategic and intentional and that didn't have clients that weren't paid to advocate for certain things.

We only advocated for what was right, that it could change everything in Texas, everything.

I'd just been the policy director.

I had no one telling me what the right thing to do was.

I just had the industry and lobby in my ear.

And so I thought, well, yeah, let me go do this Texas public policy thing for a year or two and that'll be fun.

And And then I'll really step away once my kids start coming, hopefully.

And I looked up 15 years later with four kids, Luke, Jake, Anna, and Lily.

I was doing the flexible work before it was a thing.

My board at TBPF was wonderful, went from two employees to about 120, became, I believe, the most effective public policy organization in the country.

Moved Texas because I had been in the sausage making.

So I knew, wasn't, again, wasn't an academic, which at the time most think tanks were run by, but I understood innately how to stop bad things and how to move good things.

And that was really the bottom line and how to hire really, really good people.

So I got a call from Jared Kushner, whom I had never met.

I had been on the president candidate Donald Trump's economic team.

Got a call when he was running against Hillary Clinton.

Would you help us just build out our economic tax plan, deregulation plan, et cetera?

And I said, of course, but I run a nonpartisan think tank.

And I'm always happy to help because obviously I think we thought Donald Donald Trump was going to be more conservative than Hillary, but no one really knew, right?

He'd been a Democrat

very early, not very long ago.

And I said, but yes, if anyone calls and helps, I want them to understand the Texas model, what we did and cutting taxes and deregulating and the job growth that happened and how it helped poor people the most, going back to my original idea of going to seminary.

And so he won.

I was on that economic team.

I was not interested in coming to D.C.

or the White House.

I told the team that.

They said, what would you like to do?

You were on the team when a lot of people weren't.

And I said, no, no, no, I'm going to stay in Texas and help.

Then I got a call from my now very good friend, but then at the time didn't know him, Jared Kushner, who said, whatever you're doing, this is about six months into term, year one of term one.

What is that thing y'all are doing in Texas?

You know, criminal justice reform, deregulation, tax cuts.

I mean, whatever.

all of the great things you've done, that's sort of, can you come just talk to me about how you did it?

And so I flew up to DC and flew up again and flew up again.

And he started saying, we really need you in the White House.

We want you to build something very similar to what you built in Texas, a relentless,

super strategic, very intentional policy apparatus that could move things.

And I said no, and then I said no again, and then I said no again.

And then my family and I finally said yes.

And so that's how I ended up in the last White House.

And that transitioned into this term.

Obviously, you've kept in touch with the president.

Well, it's a much bigger and more interesting story than that, I think.

So the final year of term one,

I took it upon myself.

I sort of anointed myself as the person that would ensure that when President Trump won the second term on November 3rd of 2020, that we would be ready, unlike we were not in the first term.

And so I spent the year with Larry Kudlow, who ran the National Economic Council, Scott Robert O'Brien, who ran National Security Council, and I was domestic policy at that point, and really drove an effort to put together an agenda in the teams that would be ready for that second term.

And so when that didn't happen, and everyone else was discouraged, no one would hire Trump people,

it was a very dark time.

January 6th happened.

In November of 2020, I realized that what I had been blessed to build in Texas, what the Trump first White House asked me to help do within the West Wing,

that that's what I needed to do on the national scale.

Never, never thinking for a second at that moment that President Trump was going to run again.

But the whole idea that we had just had four incredible years, that we had a team of people in the cabinet, Trump won, senior staff, Trump won.

that finally not only knew how to talk about conservative issues, but knew how to govern from a free market, America-first perspective.

And that couldn't be lost.

If we lost that team, if we lost that thinking, if we lost that know-how, I didn't know if we'd ever get it back.

And the Democrats are really good.

The left is really good at government.

We, our side, is really good at raising families and building business.

And so this happens every time that we're put into government.

We have a team of people that have the best intentions, but we lose years because we don't know how to run a bureaucracy, how to deconstruct it and how to reconstruct it.

And so what I was in the timeframe.

Yes, exactly, because that's it.

It's the timeframe.

So we launched the America First Policy Institute in quietly in early February of 21, publicly in April, almost exactly four years ago today, in April of 21.

I had nine former Trump cabinet members from Trump One, 50 former White House senior staff.

Many were volunteers at the beginning.

Eventually, I could raise enough money to get everyone on payroll.

But when the president won in November, AFPI and then our sister C4, we launched America First Works.

It was a $90 million operation in just a couple of years.

And I think fundamentally transformed the landscape.

Part of it, part of it, not all, part of it was getting ready for a second America First term, whether that was Donald Trump or whomever.

And part of that was having 300 executive orders drafted, having 196 agency plans ready.

And we did it all very quietly.

No, we didn't talk about it in the press.

No one really knew what was happening.

So that then translated to seven of our team are now in the cabinet.

Dozens and dozens and dozens are in the White House and along with our other partners that in those dark days of early 21, you know, from Stephen Miller,

there are just so many of us that were kind of, you know, in solidarity in those early days, not knowing that we would be back.

But if given the opportunity, we would answer the call again.

So now you're in the cabinet.

You're running the Department Department of Agriculture.

It's been 70 some odd days, 100 days for the president.

How have the first 100 days gone?

What have been kind of the highlights for you in starting this term out?

Everyone says, are you exhausted?

And it's a seven day a week, 20 hours a day.

And for me, there are days where I'm tired.

I mean, I think I got here to D.C.

I was

doing tours all day yesterday with Secretary Kennedy.

The day before, I was in Ohio.

I think that's right.

Yes.

Two days before that, I was in North Dakota.

Then I'm back here.

It's literally a 5 a.m.

to midnight, seven days a week effort.

But it's just such a gift.

I mean, who gets to do this?

And at an inflection point in our country's history, this is, I feel like this is 1776 all over again.

And I think about never ever to compare myself to, you know, the founding fathers.

But those guys were farmers and teachers and businessmen before they declared independence from the greatest power the world had ever known.

And that was Great Great Britain and the king.

And so, in many ways, I feel like our cabinet and this president has God's hand, and that that's what we're called for as well.

So, while certainly we're working very hard, and the 100 days has been extremely fast-paced, I think that's why you see the joy in the work is because we're ready for it.

Some of the secretaries in the cabinet have talked about the need to deconstruct, tear down,

rebuild, or in some cases, completely dismantle the department that they're overseeing.

What's your kind of mandate with agriculture?

Is there a reform needed in agriculture like others have declared for their departments?

Does it need to be rebuilt from the ground up?

Does it need to be rethought?

Or does agriculture work well and in the best interest of America?

What's your general kind of take and your general mandate on the Department of Agriculture?

Yeah, well, and I think when you say, you know, does agriculture work well, I think you mean USDA.

So the

fact that we have an agency with 100 plus thousand employees, the largest budget item is food stamps, the SNAP program.

There are so many different divisions and contracts.

I mean, we are just getting started.

We've already canceled almost $6 billion,

$100,000, $200,000 at a time.

That's a significant amount of contracts that we're canceling.

We are reducing in force to make sure that we are as efficient, as effective, and as flexible as possible.

There is no doubt that USDA absolutely needs a realignment, a reconstruction, and a significant reorganization.

So that's what we are working through right now.

The idea that USDA should be, you know, we've got other programs and those are important like food stamps, although they need significant reform.

But this agency should be about farmers and ranchers all day, every day, and our ag producers.

And how do we, talking about the industry now, an industry that every year we lose more family farms.

Every year things get outsourced to other countries, including China and Brazil.

Every year it gets harder and harder for most of our farmers to make a living where they can support their family past their fourth, fifth, and sixth generation farmer ranch on to the next their sons or daughters.

It's getting harder and harder.

It's also getting harder and harder for new Americans, men or women, to get into the business of farming.

It's almost impossible.

There's not enough, enough

opportunity for capital to inject, to buy a new tractor, to buy the land, to figure out how to become part of this great historical legacy profession in American history.

So we've got a lot of things, A, here at the department we need to really, really be refocused on, and we are.

But also, there's some massive policy questions that we've got to think through.

And then the kind of the final big priority, is these farmers don't want all these checks.

I mean, they take them.

It's the way they stay in the black and the way they keep farming.

It's a national security issue because we lose more farms, we buy more food from overseas.

That's not good for the country for a lot of reasons.

But at the same time,

they would like to be able to sell their product at a profit and not have to worry about the government.

Right.

You know, at the end of the day.

So these are all big policy questions that hopefully we expand markets.

The president's realigning the entire world economy right now, putting America first.

All of those things combined, I believe, will lead us into a new era of prosperity where we can hopefully solve for most of that.

I think they're all really good targets.

Obviously, tactically challenging, but can we start with SNAP real quick?

Because it's 70% of your budget.

It is.

$123 billion a year.

So just to create some context, 13%

of Americans are on the food stamp, the SNAP program.

At $123 billion a year, that's roughly, call it 2%

of America's federal budget is going towards the Food Stamp Program.

And one key kind of policy point that's come up lately is that roughly 10% or $15 billion a year is spent on soda.

And 75% of the population on SNAP are clinically obese.

And there's a real health concern about the SNAP program continuing to fuel a health crisis in America.

What have you, and in partnership with Senator, sorry, with Secretary Kennedy, talked with regards to addressing the health challenges that arise from the way the SNAP program operates today.

Yeah, that's been a pretty big priority of ours.

And within the first hour of being sworn in on February 13th, 50 letters went out to all 50 governors in the country.

And in those letters, we talked about SNAP and innovation and send me your waivers because the way the program works, it moves through the states.

And so, and I love that anyway.

Like, why would the federal government be telling everyone what to do?

We want in the founders' best best vision of the 10th amendment to allow the states to build those programs.

But within that was why are taxpayer dollars, why are taxpayer dollars, billions of taxpayer dollars being spent on sugary drinks and junk food to go into our supplemental nutrition program for our food food insecure populations, you know, our lower income populations, when, to your point, the backside is an obesity and chronic disease epidemic, unlike any developed country in the history of the world, has ever seen.

74% of our adolescents, our teenagers, would not pass the military readiness test of our United States military right now today.

75%.

So again, talk about national security, talk about all of the things.

This is a massive, massive challenge facing America.

And in the first administration, and

health was under my portfolio in domestic policy.

As conservatives, we've long talked about how do we make America healthy again, but very much from a numbers perspective, right?

The cost to the health care system at the back end of this, it's not just the taxpayers funding it at the front end with the junk food and the sugary drinks and the diabetes.

I mean, just

it's really stunning what's happened just in the last couple of decades.

But then on the back end, the cost to our health care system and treating those chronic diseases is is going to bankrupt our country.

It's almost bankrupting all the states right now through Medicaid.

So how do we solve for that?

And, you know, enter Bobby Kennedy.

And Bobby and I don't agree on everything, but we do agree on most things.

And the opportunity, I was just with him yesterday touring some farms and talking about nutrition and agriculture all day.

The opportunity for the agriculture lead and the health lead to work daily, hand in hand, to solve this together.

You can't solve this through government regulation.

You just can't.

But you solve it through nutrition, through empowering your farmers, through getting good food into these programs versus the ultra-processed, et cetera, et cetera.

We've all heard Bobby use these points, and he couldn't be more right.

And listen,

it's, again, talk about realigning the world economy with the president's vision of tariffs.

It's also realigner.

look at food, how we as a federal government, to your point on SNAP and other food programs, we have 13 nutrition programs.

Listen to this number.

This is going to astound you.

In America today, through USDA, this is not all the other agencies.

This is just here at USDA.

We spend $370 million

a day on nutrition programs.

So not just SNAP, but food banks and all of the other ones.

That's just USDA.

That is a stunning number.

We've got to do better.

And so that's a big part of it.

So Secretary Kennedy and I are on this.

We are so aligned.

We've got the dietary guidelines.

What comes up?

What shows up in D.C.

as you guys try and make this move?

Because there's a lot of money to, that's just to paint the picture, about a quarter of a percent of federal spending is going towards buying soda.

Yeah.

Okay.

So I'm assuming that there's some interests that show up that are like, we don't want that to go away.

Is there any anecdote you can paint for how D.C.

works and how the political machine typically works that you can help folks hear and understand

what happens as you guys try and make these sorts of reforms who shows up and what are they trying to do well i i will i will talk about it i i will also say that those that represent those industries they are they are good people who are raising their families and i do believe you know their talking point is freedom why should someone at the bottom of the socioeconomic level ladder not be able to buy the same things you and I could buy?

Of course, my answer is, well, we're not using taxpayer dollars.

So that's a big difference.

And we're not paying for it on the back end.

But I understand.

I understand where they would, you know, potentially be coming from.

But the amount

of money that is at stake is reflected in the amount of lobbyists

that are out and about and

certainly

very much a part of the Washington, D.C.

establishment.

But it goes directly to why, as difficult and as challenging as these policy issues are for all of us in President Trump's cabinet, reflecting today on the 100th day celebration, it's also so different because none of us are of Washington.

That was true in the first term and that's why I felt so freed.

I could just do what was right.

He just said, go do what's right.

But in the first term, we didn't really know yet how to do it, what we were doing, and who was on our side.

That four-year pause in between term one and term two,

it was the greatest gift.

I mean, not only could we plan, but we also fully understood who was in it to save the country, what it was that we needed to do to get this done.

And for me, this is so black and white.

And I've told everyone this.

I don't need to listen and have 57 meetings with lobbyists representing the industry.

This is black and white.

Taxpayer dollars be spent on sugary drinks and junk food that's making our kids sick?

Absolutely not.

Does that mean we shut them down?

Does that mean, no, of course not.

But it just means we realign and we spend the dollars where they need to be spent, we reform, and hopefully we make America healthy again.

I think this is one of the most important points about this administration is without having all the political insiders in the administration, there's no political leverage that can be applied.

And you can have a true objective first principles point of view on policy, which seems to not have been the case for

a very long time in the United States.

Going back to the point about the founding fathers and that era of America, these were folks who ran farms, who ran businesses.

They came and provided their time as civil servants for a period and then they left and went back to private service.

That's right.

And that government did not have the sort of political careermanship that I think allows lobbying and lobbyists to have the leverage that they have

in government today.

That's exactly right.

On both sides.

I'm not sure what's going on.

It's not a party thing.

It's not.

It's just, it is an entire industry that has been built around.

This is the problem when the government gets too big.

I mean, this is world history.

Greece, Rome, Spain, France, Great Britain, every great world power

has buckled under the weight.

of a government that hands out the largesse, right?

That everyone's got their hand in the pot and they buckle and that's how they lose their place in the world.

And that is what, listen, I sincerely believe that without Donald Trump coming down that escalator, and listen, there were 17 guys and one girl, I think, running that, you know, and 15 when he did that.

I was not the smart one that said, oh, there's the game changer.

That's him.

I was like, oh, I love that person and I've known him forever.

And they're going to be so great.

It's not going to be Donald Trump.

But at that moment in American history, without that human being who is literally willing to swing for the kit fences every single day, 100 times a day for the American people who owes no lobbyist, not one thing.

We were all hired with the idea that we owe not industry, not lobbyist one thing.

Now we need to listen to their concerns.

But every day, all day, we're called to do what's right.

And I don't know that that's ever happened, at least in my lifetime in governance, in federal governance.

So I want to talk about the irony of running the USDA with your policy background.

This is an organization that administers programs like SNAP, the federal crop insurance program, the direct payments program to farmers, commodity price support, where the federal government, the UFDA is buying commodities to keep prices high.

And coming from a free market background, coming from a maximizing liberties background, small government background, wasteful government spending needs to be eliminated background.

How do you reconcile the irony of running this department?

Yeah.

And how do you think about where you want to take this department?

department with that background over time.

Yeah, it's a great, this is, you're the first person to really dig down on this that I've talked to since I took the job.

And it's, it's an extremely insightful and thoughtful question that you raised because that's 100% true.

My entire background is how to get government out of people's lives and how to get government, quote, handouts out of

the private sector.

And how do we, you know, downsize significantly everything that the government stands for?

And how do we let the markets work?

I think two things.

First, I have become an absolute avid believer in President Trump's vision on putting America first.

For years, you know, I was, well, the cheaper goods from China are good for everybody.

And they allow those at the bottom of the economic ladder to have a better quality of life.

And this is the market at work.

Now that I've seen it in the first term, but especially as the agriculture secretary, realizing how poorly our products are treated on the world stage, the tariff, it just is, it's stunning to me that we let this go on for so long.

The way Argentina treats our beef, the way China treats, the way Brazil treats our corn.

I mean, the way the UK treats our pork.

And that's just in my world.

I haven't even really studied the automakers and others.

There is no doubt that that realignment has to happen for America to continue to thrive and lead on the world stage for another 250 years.

That's the first thing.

So really realigning my thinking after deep study and deep thought in his approach of America first, not free markets for the sake of free markets, but fair markets for the sake of America.

Get parity first.

Right, with the goal of freer markets eventually.

The second thing I will say, and more on the USDA side, is

food security is national security.

We have already lost tens of thousands of family farms in the last decade.

If we continue on that trajectory, America will not be able to feed ourselves.

And the minute you become unable to feed yourself is the minute you lose all power on the world stage.

The minute you have to rely on China or Brazil or Argentina to feed your people, you're done.

And what has happened over the last number of years is China's been buying up a lot of our farmland in America.

A lot of our major meat packers, et cetera, are now owned by foreign ownership.

And, you know, it's not all, I'm not going to cast dispersions on everybody, but at the end of the day, we have to make sure that our agriculture industry is here in this country, that we are feeding ourselves, and that we're relying on ourselves.

And so all of the programs that you just outlined are part of that effort.

We lose our farmers and our ranchers.

We lose America, not just the diligence and the hard work and the discipline and what that

righteous, I believe the most righteous of all professions means.

The beginning of our country was fought by farmers, but also we lose it from a national security perspective.

And when that happens, we lose everything.

Let's talk about farming and the farmer today.

There's 2 million Americans that work directly in agriculture across, I believe, 1.8 million legal farms in the United States.

China historically has bought $36 billion a year of American agricultural product.

America is the largest ag exporter in the world.

So our farmers are deeply dependent on trade.

That's right.

And in California today, farmers have declared there's a 20% labor shortage.

Meanwhile, there's a massive effort to address illegal immigration in the United States.

And I want to just hear, like, what's your view on the ground?

You visited, I think you said 15 states since you've been in office.

Hundreds of farmers.

Hundreds of farmers.

What's the state of mind of the American farmer today?

What are they feeling?

What are they worried about?

What are you hearing?

The first three things on that.

The first is that they are almost to a farmer.

They are so supportive of President Trump, even understanding that this current, again, trade renegotiation, it hurts.

And

they're not going to be able to survive that long, but they know that the president has their back.

So that's been really encouraging to me.

Now, I have made a huge effort.

to get out into the country, to meet the farmers, to continue to shake hands and say, we're with you.

But in the long run this is going to be so good for our agriculture industry this renegotiation these opening up markets under joe biden we lost 50 billion dollars uh in trade we went from a zero dollar trade deficit with trump one to a fifty billion dollar trade deficit with biden and that's fifty billion dollars almost directly out of our farmers pockets so that you know the short term but that the president is with them but secondly to your point there are tremendous headwinds whether it is the trade renegotiation whether it is you know, row crops especially being in the thinnest margins they've ever had in their lifetimes.

And then we export so many of those row crops, that's almost a double whammy.

The president's vision of a, you know, basically a disruptive restructure of the American economy includes the shipbuilding.

And so for, again, a lot of the exporters that need that extra fee on top of that is just one more.

And again, the Jameson Greer and the team has been great.

They've been solving for that and ensuring that Ag is at the table and that every day and every decision they're making, they're doing that.

But I think ultimately, and this has been a big part of what I've been talking to the farmers about, is ensuring that we're opening up those new markets.

And whether it's India or Japan or South Korea or Brazil or Peru or the UK, I am going to all of those countries in the next few months.

And this is just me on behalf of agriculture.

This isn't our trade crew, our commerce secretary.

I mean, it's just me.

But I feel so bullish on the idea that if we are, we're on Trump time, we deploy Trump time, which is going as fast as you can, as hard as you can, for as long as you can, around the world, we're going to open up so many new markets for our farmers.

And then we solve for the labor issue, which you brought up, which is a really big issue.

Now, I think sometimes the Californians tend to inflate that because they, yeah, I know,

they think a little bit differently.

I hear it in Florida, too.

Yeah, well, and there's no doubt.

I'll give you one statistic from a large strawberry farmer.

I work in strawberry as well as other crops.

But the farmer mentioned that he did an analysis.

He thinks that since pre-COVID days, the total labor cost in the strawberry industry has grown from $700 million a year to $2 billion a year.

Wow.

And that's really hurt margins.

And so it's really hard to net a profit, particularly in specialty crops, not row crops where everything's automated, but specialty crops where you're dependent on labor doing work in the field,

harvesting product to be able to keep up with the lack of labor.

And that of late, there's been a lot of an exodus

of immigrants out of that that might qualify under the visa program.

So maybe, I don't know if you're active or spending, or the department

program.

And I'll put a little note, a little cross the T on what you just said, and that is I'm a Texan.

And our South Texas, the citrus farmers down there, think about in Mexico, for some of them, half a mile away, they can see it right across the border, now through the wall, but they can see it.

And

it's $2 an hour.

Those farmers are paying $2 an hour over there.

You come across on our side and with everything that we're required to do and pay, and it's $20 to $23 an hour.

How do you compete?

You're growing the same crops.

You can't.

And so that's what we really have to focus on.

Our dairy farmers, you know, the visa programs don't work for them.

It's not a seasonal deal.

Those cows have to be milked 365 days a year.

They can't find people to milk the cows.

So the president, not in today's cabinet meeting, but in the last one a couple of weeks ago, brought this up himself.

And he said, and he and I talked about it in the first term.

We've talked about it since then.

He understands that there is a massive labor challenge for our farmers and our ranchers, especially our farmers in this country, but our ranchers as well.

And he himself said, you know, that those who are not here legally, they need to go back, they need to self-deport, but that we will ensure that there's some sort of program in place that will help make sure that our farmers on this side have the labor that they need.

Now, the details of that are being worked out.

I can't really talk much about it, but the fact that the president himself is focused on that should give our farmers some a lot of encouragement that help, help literally, figuratively, and metaphorically is on the way.

Got it.

I think that's a key thing for farmers to hear.

They, you know, from what I hear from folks in the industry, it's something that they want to make sure is acknowledged and addressed.

Agriculture is such an interesting market.

There's such an alignment with some of these conservative values that you and this administration espouse.

But then there's such an important role that government actually plays.

That's exactly right.

That's right.

That is, at this point, you couldn't, it's, you know, I love Elon and love Doge, and they've been such a good partner in helping us get rid of the

$500,000 grant to study transgender menstruation cycles in men and, you know the what the mice are going to do with under a yeah blah blah the craziness he's been wonderful but um but agriculture in many ways is different you can't come in here and gut the crop insurance program you will lose thousands of farmers and guess who swoops in and picks up their land in their operation the chinese get you you just can't do it now my goal and my fervent prayer is that in four years from now we will have moved we will have opened up the markets, we'll have reached this new era of prosperity for our farmers and our ranchers.

And in so doing, this should be the goal of every government program, that we're able to roll a lot of that back and out and that we don't need it as much.

So the budget can come down over time.

Exactly.

Yes.

That's the goal.

Same with the food stamps.

I mean, talk about 80% of the USDA budget is food stamps.

Our goal needs to be moving people into a work, you know, a life of work filled with dignity where they don't need those programs anymore.

Versus the last administration trying to get as many people people into those programs as possible.

Our goal is to move them off of programs because they have a good, well-paying job and they don't need that anymore.

No one wants a handout.

Exactly.

No one wants a handout.

I think that's what a lot of people don't understand.

So effectuating on that is really important.

Yeah.

And I guess maybe you can share a little bit of the anecdotes.

What's it been like with the Doge representatives that have been coming to the Department of Ag?

Are they embedded?

Are they long-term?

Do you believe that Doge plays as an forget Elon,

but as a department or whatever it is, ad hoc department, does it play a long-term role in continuously improving and identifying opportunities for cost savings?

A thousand percent.

And it's like all my dreams have come true.

You know, I'll never forget when the president came down the escalator in 2015 and he was talking about for every one new regulation, we're going to get rid of two.

And I thought, are you kidding me?

For the first time, are we making deregulation fun and sexy?

Like I've been talking about this in Texas and no one wanted to talk about it, right?

Even Republicans, like, oh, you know, we can never get rid of, once government's there, we just have to make it better.

And Donald Trump 10 years ago started talking about it, made it a thing.

The first year of Trump won, for every one new regulation, 22 win.

The next year it was 17, the next year 13, I think.

And then by the end, because it got a little bit harder to find them, but still, it wasn't two to one.

Our average was like 10 to 1 in the first Trump administration.

Well, then you add on Elon Musk and his team of geniuses who normally would never even think about being in government.

Not that they wouldn't want to, but they wouldn't even begin to know how.

You combine that with this idea that we're returning power to the people.

We're downsizing government.

We are not in charge.

We're not here for the people to serve us like some monarchy.

We're here to serve the people.

And that's a fundamental shift in the way we're thinking in the federal government.

And then to add Elon on.

So it actually right after our cabinet meeting, maybe right before a couple hours ago, because the news reports were saying, oh, he's headed back to, you do his business.

I pulled him aside and I said, I hope this isn't true.

This country needs you and your team forever.

And to see now the states begin to add their own dogs, this is how we save America.

This is how we protect the country.

Hopefully that becomes the institution.

It becomes institutional.

Exactly.

And hopefully we make it so powerful and get the people so involved that even the Democrats can't roll it back, that this is the long-term plan for the country.

For your department, there's a big farm bill negotiation that comes up.

I've been in D.C.

a couple of times for farm bills.

I'll give an anecdote.

I go in, I have a conversation with someone on a committee or in an office, and they're like, well, we can get this thing, but we got to go give the other guys this thing.

And it clearly becomes this bill that today I think is rated at a trillion five over whatever

the budgeting period is.

It's one of the largest bills we pass.

And the SNAP program is in it, so it serves the House of Representatives' interests.

And then all the farm programs are in it, it, so it serves the Senate interests, because the Senate is heavily influenced by rural states, by agriculture.

And so it's become this behemoth bill.

And how do you view it?

Are you going to play a role in, and how do you view this kind of horse trading that needs to go on to ultimately reduce government inefficiency, spending on things that don't necessarily make sense as we get into this farm bill negotiation in the next couple of months?

Well, I am encouraged that the Biden team couldn't get it done.

I mean, mean, they worked and it's important.

I know a lot of people are hating it and they should because it does become a Christmas tree of sorts.

But the reference prices, which is what our farmers are paid on, have not been changed since the last farm bill, which was at the beginning of Trump One.

So Debbie Stabenow, who's now gone, was the lead Democrat.

In the Senate, the Senate was leading.

Of course, Joe Biden wasn't.

That team was sort of MIA.

We've got a different team on the ground now.

And one of the very first conversations I had with Amy Klobuchar, who took Debbie Stevenow's place as the the lead Democrat, of course, now we're running the Senate, it's a little bit different, is how do we get this done?

But realizing that the SNAP program, which is what the Democrats are always trying to put more money into, that grew 40% under the Joe Biden term.

40%.

The program that was already this gigantic, you know, huge amounts of waste and fraud and abuse, it's now even more.

And they did that on purpose, right?

They knew it would be hard for us to roll that back.

I'm underscoring your point that this is not going to be easy.

That the farmer part of the farm bill is 15%, 1-5%.

The food stamp part of the farm bill is 85%.

So I have been thinking about this, already having conversations and strategy sessions on both sides of the aisle, frankly.

We've got to get this done for our farmers.

And even, you know, to Senator Klobuchar's credit and other Senate Democrats on the Ag Committee, they care as much about the farmer in their states as I believe most of the Republicans do.

Ag is the number one industry in almost every state.

And so trying to find that middle ground, but ensuring that we're bringing real reform to the SNAP program, but that we're most importantly supporting our farmers and our ranchers will continue to be the driver.

As in all things, I think Donald Trump is the game changer here, and I think he's going to help us get this done.

So I want to talk about one last point before we wrap, which is on innovation, generally speaking, in food.

There's been a large amount and how it relates to protecting farmers' interests.

There's been a lot of investment in cellular agriculture using cells to make milk or eggs or cheese or fish or chicken,

you know, using new biotechnologies.

And DeSantis went on stage with a couple of ranchers from Florida and they passed a law banning the sale or production of cellular agriculture, cellular products in the state.

And there are two other states that have passed laws, others that are considering it.

Now there's a conversation about some folks at the House also doing it.

And the general statement, statement: well, there's already a regulatory framework for making sure it's safe for consumers, making sure it's healthy, et cetera.

Some people might not like it, but I go back to my free market principles.

Why not let consumers choose?

As long as it's safe, as long as it's appropriately regulated, shouldn't it be made available rather than protecting the interests?

Otherwise, you end up looking like Europe.

And Europe has stifled innovation in agriculture for decades.

And as a result, they have fallen way behind America.

And it's an opportunity for America to sustain its innovative advantage.

Have you spent any time on this topic and do you have a point of view?

Well, let me say this.

I have not dug into this yet the amount that I need to.

But having said that, I do believe that the innovation and the drive for better should never be stifled.

And I sincerely believe that there is hopefully room for everyone, especially as this emerging market is happening.

And I also believe that at the end of the day, the American consumer, when most of them, when having to decide between real American beef and something that's not, that they're going to choose the real American beef.

So I, at least in my, you know, nominal knowledge at this point, without digging in, I just believe so strongly in our ranchers and our farmers and what they produce and what it means to the average American family.

I'm the mom of four and how I feed my family.

But I don't think we ever want to get in the way of stifling innovation, especially as it relates to something that could eventually be such a game changer.

Well, Brooke, I really appreciate all the time you've given us, given me today.

It's really great to spend this hour with you.

Thank you.

And congrats on the role, congrats on the progress, and I really look forward to seeing the work you're going to be doing over the years ahead.

Michael, thank you.

It's an honor to do it.

Thank you.

Thank you.