How Pat Swanson Plans to Improve Crop Insurance at USDA

A longtime crop insurance agent and member of the Iowa and the American Soybean Association board of directors, Pat Swanson may be new to the USDA but not to the many crop insurance programs farmers depend on.

On Newsmakers this week, Risk Management Agency Administrator Pat Swanson discussed her plans to lead the agency and how her background serving on the Federal Crop Insurance Corporation has prepared her for the role.

Plus, two former USDA undersecretaries, Robert Bonnie and Bruce Knight, offered their perspective on the agency’s reorganization plan, which moves more than half the 4,600 Washington-based staff to five regional hubs across the U.S.

Watch the Episode

Want to receive Newsmakers in your inbox every week? Sign up!

Read the Transcript

Please note: This transcript has not been edited.

Lydia Johnson: Welcome to Agri-Pulse Newsmakers, where we aim to take you to the heart of ag policy. I’m your host, Lydia Johnson. Our guest this week is USDA risk Management Agency Administrator Pat Swanson, who joins us to discuss how her background as a crop insurance agent prepared her for her new position and her vision to improve crop insurance programs. But first, here’s this week’s headlines.

Deputy Ag Secretary Steven Vaden defended USDA’s reorganization plan before the Senate ag committee this week in a hearing called by committee Chair John Bozeman and Ranking Member Amy Klobuchar. Vaden said relocating more than half the department’s 4600 employees, based in Washington to five regional hubs across the US, would make the department more efficient and allow more employees to live in areas where they can afford to buy a home. Vaden is leading implementation of the plan. He said the plan’s release kicked off a 30 day period where the department can consult with lawmakers and stakeholders. Senators on both sides of the aisle were unhappy with the initial announcement because they had not been informed of the plan beforehand.

The US and the European Union have reached a trade deal, boosting energy purchases and increasing investment in the US. The agreement comes in time to avoid President Trump’s steepest tariff increases, set to go into effect on August 1st during President Trump’s overseas trip. The EU accepted a 15% baseline tariff rate and agreed to invest $600 billion in the U.S. beyond current investments. They will also buy $750 billion of U.S. energy under the agreement. However, details on zero for zero tariff reductions on agricultural products were not clear.

Shipping giants Union Pacific and Norfolk Southern could soon create the nation’s first transcontinental railroad company if federal regulators sign off on the proposal. Tracks will be connected, spanning more than 50,000 miles across 43 states. AG and transportation sources told Agri-Pulse they are skeptical of the plan because consolidation could cause fewer transportation choices, higher rail rates and decreased service. The Union Pacific transcontinental railroad would connect around 100 U.S. ports on the east, west, and Gulf Coast. The decision now awaits approval by the Surface Transportation Board, which regulates the nation’s rail networks.

Pat Swanson serves as administrator of USDA’s Risk Management Agency. Before coming to Washington, she spent much of her career as a crop insurance agent in Iowa. We asked her how that experience prepared her for her current role.

Pat Swanson: Thank you, first of all, for having me here. This is a great opportunity to visit with you. And honestly, I was a crop insurance agent. And for the last 20 years and, you know, my I started on a farm in Iowa, in north central Iowa. I grew up on a farm, and I was never going to marry a farmer because I, like you, depend on the weather. This is horrible. And I decided I went on to Iowa State. It was the early 80s, and my dad said we all had to get college educations. So I have a computer science degree, which is always something that surprises people.

And so I went on to Iowa State, and I fell in love with a farmer. So I ended up becoming, moving to Ottumwa Iowa, where my husband and I farm with his family and our kids, and we’re the sixth generation, our kids are seventh, and we’re growing the eighth generation. Right now. I’ve got, my fifth grandchild on the way in November. So, serving on the crop insurance board also, the last four years kind of helped prepare me for this position. And serving on the Iowa Soybean Association, as well as the American Soybean Association was really that my first chance of really advocating for farmers and what we do on our farm to keep people’s food safe and affordable. So I kind of started advocating for farmers. And, and I find myself here so wonderful. Lots of great experience.

Lydia Johnson: I kind of want to dive into you mentioned the federal crop insurance, Corporation, which manages the federal crop insurance program and approves new insurance products. So I’m curious to know what lessons you learned from that experience. And now kind of getting to work on the program and your new role.

Pat Swanson: That has been really helpful, serving on the board for the last four years and seeing the new products and innovation that we bring to crop insurance, the ideas that we get from outside submitters outside of the USDA, and being able to take those and and really see how they can benefit farmers, all kinds of farmers, not just corn and soybean farmers, which is what I’m used to, but also especially crop farmers across the country. Our livestock farmers, and really trying to come up with ideas and things that are going to help the farmer and keep him sustainable and able to farm for years to come. And so, now that I’m in this role, I’m sort of looking at it from a different angle, and I’m really working with my submitters, my insurance providers, on what we can do to make that program. And, and the 508 H process is what it’s called, the program that we use to submit new ideas and new products for to the board. And so I’m working with them to try to make our our board more efficient and effective when they’re sitting at the board table. So I’ve been talking to them, I’ve been talking to the board and, and making a few changes just to make sure that we’re doing what we can, the best things we can for our farmers.

Lydia Johnson: And from all of your experience, you know, what gaps do you see in the crop insurance program now? And, how do you hope to improve that in your current role?

Pat Swanson: So, you know, really the, the some of the things we’re looking at is just keeping the program actuarially sound. Right? This is an insurance program. We’re helping farmers manage their risk so they can continue to farm another year.

And so I’m really proud of our program. First of all, just to say we did such a great job. We have, we’re pretty small agency. There’s only about 400 of us across the country, but we have about 18,000, people in the private company. So the insurance providers, the agents like what I was for the last 20 years and the adjusters that are out there, the underwriters that are helping with the program. So we have this huge job that we do and to help our farmers. So, you know, there’s things that I just I’m wanting to make sure we’re keeping the program actuarially sound. My four year old grandson is a farmer, and I want to make sure that program is there for him as well.

Lydia Johnson: President Trump’s one big beautiful Bill act brings many benefits to farm country, including lower premiums for crop insurance and higher coverage for area based policies. We asked Administrator Swanson how she thinks farmers will respond to those changes.

Pat Swanson: It was a great win for farmers all the way around in the in the big beautiful Bill. And I think that the farmers are going to be very grateful for additional coverage and for us, lower premiums.

And so we’re working in my team every day. We have a meeting, to talk about the implementation process. And we’re working really hard to get that, make all those changes available to our farmers, as soon as possible.

Lydia Johnson: And given those higher levels of area coverage available, do you expect farmers to continue to need ad hoc disaster assistance?

Pat Swanson: You know, I think that was sort of the goal of them increasing this. But, you know, it’s hard to know going forward how that’s going to affect it. But I’m so proud of our of the way crop insurance works is that when as soon as there is an issue and there’s a weather event, as soon as the farmer can meet with the adjuster, a check is on the way. And I think that is really what keeps the farmer farming another year.

Lydia Johnson: And, you know, based on your experience and as you’ve kind of moved into this role and learn more, more about the agency, what do you see as the biggest gaps or unmet needs in the crop insurance program, and what’s your vision to continue improving that?

Pat Swanson: So we’re looking at whatever we can do to help with our especially crop farmers, especially, you know, they’re there’s I’m looking at doing some roundtables, with our special crop agents to see what we can do. And we’re really trying to improve some of the programs that are already in place for especially crops. So there’s a program called Whole Farm that we’re looking at. We have a micro farm for a little bit smaller farmers. So, I think we’re, you know, just really looking at what we can do to improve the program and make things better for our farmers all the way around. So I’ve been busy at work. I came with the list and every day my list gets bigger of things that I want to work on, and things where we’re working on to improve the program.

Lydia Johnson: And you mentioned that whole farm policy and, you know, that was kind of created, aimed at specialty crops but hasn’t sold particularly well across rural America. And I’m curious specifically, how could that program be changed or improved?

Pat Swanson: So we’re, you know, we’re investigating all those things. So this is, you know, I’m coming from a corn and soybean farm. So, it’s all new to me. And so I’m, I’m trying to learn and I rely on my amazing team to help me and do what we can to improve that program.

So, and and the agents. Right. The people that are on the front lines, those are the people that I’m anxious to talk to and hear from them what their thoughts are. I’m sure they’ll have some for me to help improve the program.

Lydia Johnson: And since you’ve moved into your new role, would have been your first observations about the agency.

Pat Swanson: You know, I honestly, I just want to say that we are already a very efficient program at Risk management Agency at Ami. We already have, a small team. And with the private public partnership, we’re able to deliver the program very quickly to farmers and help those farmers, sustain those losses and disasters, but also the market fluctuations. So, I’m very proud of our team. I’m excited to be here. And, I look forward to my next, I guess three and a half years.

Lydia Johnson: We’ll be right back with our panel discussion. But first, Andrew Huneke looks at regional hub locations and USDA’s reorganization plan, in this week’s map it out.

Andrew Huneke: USDA’s reorganization plan calls for moving more than half of employees in the National Capital Region to five hubs across the country. This map shows the location of those five hubs Raleigh, North Carolina, Kansas City, Missouri, Indianapolis, Indiana, Fort Collins, Colorado, and Salt Lake City, Utah. USDA’s workforce in the DC region is expected to be cut from 4600 employees to 2000. Ag Secretary Brooke Rollins says the decision was made to bring the department closer to the people it serves, while also providing a more affordable cost of living for USDA employees. She also said 90% of the department’s workforce already works outside the nation’s capital. The plan will also close the USDA South Building in Washington, D.C., the George Washington Carver Center and Beltsville Agricultural Research Center in Beltsville, Maryland, and Braddock Place in Alexandria, Virginia, For Agri-Pulse, I’m Andrew Huneke

Lydia Johnson: The Agriculture Department will close major facilities and relocate staff to regional hubs as part of the department’s long awaited reorganization plan. We’re joined by Robert Bonnie, who served as undersecretary of agriculture for farm production and conservation during the Biden administration, and Bruce Knight, who is undersecretary for marketing and regulatory programs during the George W Bush administration.

First, Bruce, can you broadly explain the plan and how services could change by decentralizing employees?

Bruce Knight: Well, first, the details are scant, but absolutely, the first thing to say is, my heart bleeds for the individuals whose lives will be disrupted, that there’s some well over 2000 employees who may be asked to move. That is something that’s always been key to understand the difference between the compassion for the individuals who are caught and the greater good for the government and government service. So in broad concept movement to five hubs around the country, some 2000 employees that are currently in Washington, D.C., prospectively moving to other areas of the country to get closer to service. The challenge will be not simply moving them from one area of the country, but really looking fundamentally at the work USDA is doing. Is it necessary?

Now’s a chance to press reset and really look and refine what that work will be moving forward.

Lydia Johnson: And Bruce, are you concerned? I mean, naturally, maybe not all employees will choose to relocate. Or are you concerned about brain drain at USDA for what those employees that do choose to leave instead of relocate

Bruce Knight: There is concern on that. And that is that is valid. Very talented folks, many of which settled in their homes with their families, got a 3% mortgage suddenly looking at having to relocate and having an 8% mortgage. As an individual, that’s a difficult decision. But I’ve also seen folks promoted over the decades for lack of stellar performance, getting promoted to Washington, D.C., to get them out of the way of where they’re needed at state and local levels.

So there are also folks in the system that, quite frankly, need to be shook from the system. So there is a balance to be had here, good and bad. We need to do this compassionately, carefully, as we move forward on this chance to pause and press reset.

Lydia Johnson: And Robert, bringing the conversation. You oversaw the farm production, conservation mission area at USDA during the Biden administration. Now, I’m curious from your perspective, first, how you see this reorganization plan impacting the department. And second, do you expect brain drain to occur at the agency for those employees that that choose not to relocate?

Robert Bonnie: I’m very concerned. We’ve already lost 15,000 employees from USDA, including leaders as well as young staff. Now on top of it, we have a reorganization that I think is going to push out a lot more leaders. And I think the brain drain is going to be a serious issue here. The other thing here is, you know, the old saying, not a whole lot is learned from the second kick of a mule. Well, we did a reorganization in the first Trump administration. We know we lost a lot of very senior and skilled scientists that are incredibly important to American agriculture.

And that was just in one part of USDA. In my part of Afpak, I can tell you I spent the better part of four years dealing with a poorly run reorganization during the first Trump administration, and spent a lot of time having to sort that out. Now the Trump administration is taking on a much, much bigger task. They haven’t consulted farmers. They haven’t consulted nutrition, conservation, forestry and other groups. They clearly haven’t consulted Congress. It’s not clear to me that they’ve consulted the heads of agencies and we’re on tour taking a much, much bigger reorganization. We’ve learned some lessons from the first Trump administration. We need to slow down. We need to bring more people in. We need to ask more questions.

And we make sure we get this right. Measure twice, cut once.

Lydia Johnson: We asked Robert Bonnie, former USDA undersecretary, how the reorganization plan could change the department’s ability to serve producers.

Robert Bonnie: Concerned about that again here as well. Remember, again, we’ve already lost a whole lot of, USDA people. There’s a bit of this mythology that the administration has put out about putting people back closer to farmers. We have offices in virtually every county of the United States.

We’ve got a lot of interaction between our staff and US agriculture and other constituent groups. The problem is we’re taking leadership and putting them out in the in the countryside. And that’s going to create a disconnect between Congress, between a lot of the farmers. Think about all the fly ins we have coming to DC, and they come to visit me when I was in department.

They come to visit Bruce, and then they go to other parts of the department. This isn’t going to bring farmers and ranchers and force, forestry groups and others closer to, USDA. It’s actually going to create more distance. So this notion that somehow we’re going to put them back in the countryside and this is going to bring people closer to agriculture. It just doesn’t hold water.

Lydia Johnson: And, Bruce, I want to get your thoughts on that as well. Robert mentioned a potential disconnect between senior leadership in the DC headquarters while leaving many of the support staff to regional hubs. Are you concerned about disconnect between leadership and the support staff, and is there a potential that that could affect producer services?

Bruce Knight: That disconnect has been there since Covid. We had a lot of folks not returned to work post-Covid. So as far as constituent groups, others coming to DC, they found that they were coming to DC than they were sitting in a conference room with the bureaucracy because many of those folks were working from home. So we’re in a we’re in a different age.

What we have is a 1930s physical structure trying to serve the 2030 needs of American agriculture. That’s why I’m willing to give this a chance. Press reset. Look at the work in the function that needs to be done, as opposed to just where folks are located. If all this is changing folks from living and working in Washington, DC to living and working in Indianapolis, you have squandered the opportunity to really look at what is the right and correct role of government. What is the work that needs to be done? How best to service the farmers? It’s not by where the employees are working. It’s what is the work they’re doing. And the sooner we get to that conversation using this process the next 30 days to be able to have those conversations. That’s the opportunity that I see for good government at USDA.

Lydia Johnson: And, Robert, during your tenure, conservation field staff increased to roll out IRA funding, American Rescue Plan resources, the bipartisan infrastructure law. But former Ag Secretary Tom Vilsack has said that USDA did not have long term funding to keep those conservation staff field staff hired. So I’m wondering if this reduction in field staff was eventually bound, eventually bound to happen.

Robert Bonnie: Remember, the reason that we hired a whole bunch of people is because the Trump administration lost a whole bunch of people who ran them off during the first time. So, you know, I think there were when we came in, there were 93,000 employees at USDA. I think that was down from 100,000. So part of the hiring back was actually replacing, what we lost in the in the first go round.

I’ll also say, I’ve never had a farmer complain to me that they’re getting that there are too many people in those field offices or that they’re there too many opportunities to interact. But a lot of farmers complain that we weren’t paying our folks well enough, which is why we raised prices for a lot of our we raised salaries.

I should say, for a lot of those, junior employees during, the Biden administration. But I think, you know, again, Bruce is right there to think about how do we make sure government, serves farmers, ranchers, all the constituents better? It’s just not clear to me that this plan has anything to do with that. And for conservation, you’re right.

We did have, substantial new resources to, to hire people. And many of those resources just got cooked in to the, to the reconciliation bill. So there’s long term funding there. There’s clearly a lot of demand for conservation out in the countryside. We were able to fully allocate the IRA resources during the, during the Biden administration.

And so, you know, there’s a there’s a compelling rationale to actually make sure we’re fully funded and to make sure we can also support partners, partner groups out in the field.

Lydia Johnson: We’ll be back with more Agri-Pulse newsmakers. But first, Andrew Huneke has more on the history of sugar imports. And this week’s AG by the numbers.

Andrew Huneke: Top soda makers are both expanding and thinking about using cane sugar as a sweetener, and that could lead to economic issues for corn producers and other sugar users. Coca Cola will sell Coke sweetened with cane sugar as early as the fall. Currently, the soda is sweetened with high fructose corn syrup and that process is not ending. The company is just expanding the cane sugar option. PepsiCo also suggested they would consider using cane sugar if people want it. According to the Corn Refiners Association, roughly 400 million bushels of corn are used in high fructose corn syrup. A report they commissioned found that eliminating high fructose corn syrup would lower corn prices by up to $0.34 per bushel. If both companies enter the market, sugar users and importers could see some lasting impacts. Domestic sugar supply can’t fulfill existing demand. Imports will likely have to grow to fill any supply gap. This chart shows the amount of sugar the U.S. imported from 2008 to 2024. According to USDA, the U.S. imported almost 3.5 million metric tons last year. The U.S. maintains steep tariffs on imported sugar, but allows limited amounts to enter the country at a reduced rate, which is required by the World Trade Organization. In recent years, when demand has outstripped the low tariff quota is provided, USDA and USTR have preferred to let imports enter under the high tariff rate rather than increase the quotas. The uptick in demand caused by both major drink producers using a new cane sugar product, would force USDA to again decide whether to allow more sugar to enter at a low tariff rate. If the administration sticks with recent history and lets high tier imports rise, sugar, users could see higher tariffs drive costs skyward. President Trump has also threatened 50% tariffs on major sugar compounding sugar users price concerns for Agri-Pulse, I’m Andrew Huneke.

Lydia Johnson: Thanks for joining us for another episode of Agri-Pulse Newsmakers. Both the House and Senate are out of session for August recess. They’ll return to Washington after Labor Day. Tune in next week and check our website any time for the latest developments on all things food, farm and fuel policy. For Agri-Pulse, I’m Lydia Johnson. Thanks for watching.

Narrator: Newsmakers is a production of Agri-Pulse Communications. You can also find our new content on YouTube and wherever you get your podcasts. And don’t forget to follow Agri-Pulse and our correspondents on social media to get breaking news and more for agriculture, trade, food, environment and regulatory news. Your source is agri-pulse.com.

Agri-Pulse is a trusted source in Washington, D.C., with the largest editorial team focused on food and farm policy coverage.