What Comes After 12 Years at USDA?

For Tom Vilsack, a tireless proponent as agriculture secretary for climate-smart agriculture and creating new sources of farm income, retirement is out of the question at age 74. “There’s work to be done in food and nutrition security, and I will look for opportunities to be engaged in that effort,” he said during his final days as USDA secretary of agriculture. 

With nearly 12 years of service in the Obama and Biden administrations, Vilsack is the second-longest serving agriculture secretary. “I’m also the sixth-longest serving cabinet member of any kind,” he added during the interview in his office, with a commanding view of the Washington Monument, at USDA headquarters. 

The record for cabinet service is held by “Tama Jim” Wilson, an Iowan who was agriculture secretary for 16 years. While he’s a native of Pennsylvania, Vilsack has also called Iowa home. He moved to Iowa after graduating from law school, going on to serve as Iowa’s 40th governor from 1999 to 2007.

Behind Vilsack’s desk at USDA is a poster-sized picture of Henry Wallace, agriculture secretary and later vice president under Franklin Roosevelt, and George Washington Carver, famed agricultural researcher and one of the best-known Black scientists of the 20th century.

Vilsack said he had the picture behind his desk throughout his tenure as secretary: Iowa, equity, and science are among the ties it represented to him. Wallace was from Iowa and Carver was a graduate of Iowa State College, now Iowa State University. They first met in the early 1890s when Wallace was a boy and Carver a college student.

SF: What are the one or two biggest issues facing U.S. agriculture in the near to medium term?

TV: There’s the obvious answer, and then I think there’s a deeper, more systemic answer. The obvious answer is the rash of pests and diseases that we are facing now, which is a reflection of a complicated environment and a changing climate. And one that presents the likelihood that you’ll see more of this, not less of it. Therefore producers and the system need to be prepared to provide appropriate protections and responses. That’s an obvious situation.

Less obvious, although I’ve been talking about it for four years, is the basic structure of agriculture and whether or not in this country, we are satisfied with a model that suggests that you as a producer either need to get larger and larger, or you need to think about getting off the farm… The top 10% of farms get 85% of the income and 60% of the safety net, which means that the 90% of farms that are left behind share 15% of the income and 40% of the safety net. And that’s not enough.

This administration has created the beginning of an awareness of this issue and has created a set of options and opportunities to avoid the consequences of it. The question now is whether or not people will continue to focus on this, and if so, continue to invest in the system we put in place. 

The way this has been set up, the investments are going to continue for a period of time, but eventually they have to be incorporated into a more modern farm bill than the one that’s being discussed now. That’s a major issue that policymakers have yet to get fully focused on.

SF: What ought to be done?

TV: To recognize that you need to develop additional income streams and revenue opportunities for farms without asking the farmer to do additional work. Instead of the farmer working multiple jobs, the farm itself has to generate multiple sources of income. How do you do that? Well, what if you pay farmers to embrace climate-smart agriculture. 

That’s what we’ve done with the work over the last four years. We’ve set that model in motion with our Climate-Smart Commodities initiative and with the work we’re doing on SAF [sustainable aviation fuel] and on renewable energy investments. We’ve made local and regional food system investments. We’ve basically created the model, if you will, or the structure or the framework for that new set of opportunities.

SF: You’ve remarked Brooke Rollins would come to USDA with a working relationship with the president from her time as the director of the White House domestic policy council during Trump’s first term.

TV: That is important. Really, really important.

SF: What advice would you give her about the job?

TV: You don’t operate this department in isolation from other departments and from the White House and from Congress. 

One piece of advice I give to anybody, regardless of their background, is to understand that the career people here … know the intricacies of regulations and statutes. Rely on them, trust them. Bring them into your processes … and your agenda will have a greater opportunity and chance of success in a timely way. Four years goes by very quickly.

SF: What is on your agenda after USDA?

TV: I can’t tell you specifically what’s next for me, but I can tell you how I think about it. I realized that I would fail retirement miserably. You have to have something beyond work that you enjoy doing as much or more than work. I’ve not found that. So, I’m not going to retire. I think there’s work to be done in food and nutrition security, and I will look for opportunities to be engaged in that effort locally, nationally, and globally. 

I want to look for ways in which we continue to … promote that notion of an alternative model that complements production agriculture. 

The livestock industry specifically is challenged with reference to climate, because there is a direct connection between livestock production and methane. In order for us to push back on the notion of less protein consumption, less meat consumption, we’ve got to figure out a way in which these livestock producers are able to continue doing what they love, but to do it in a way that’s sustainable and that responds to critics or concerns about methane production. There are multiple ways to do that, and I hope I can be of some help to lead the industry in that direction.

SF: What do you think will be your legacy at USDA?

TV: This is a question I have a hard time answering because of the nature of the Department of Agriculture and its broad portfolio. We have been transformative, and we have been comprehensive. At the end of the day, I leave this place, I believe, in better shape than I found it.

Major advancements have been made in nutrition assistance and nutrition programs … We’ve mentioned the framework of creating additional income opportunities for farms. We’ve been very creative and have invested historic levels of resources in our natural resource base in rural places. 

I’m very proud of the work that’s been done on the equity side. This department has had a bad rap for quite some time — a bad reputation in a number of areas. And I think we’ve changed the narrative of this place. People are beginning to see that this is a department for all producers, not just some.