Trump Administration's USAID Overhaul Forces Closure of Agricultural Research Labs

The Trump administration's restructuring of the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID) has led to the closure of agricultural research laboratories at land-grant universities across 13 states, according to lab directors. These closures mark yet another challenge for U.S. agriculture, disrupting critical research on seed and equipment technology and hindering efforts to expand international markets for American commodities.

Impact on Agricultural Research

The affected research network consists of 17 laboratories funded through USAID's Feed the Future Innovation Labs program. These labs collaborated with countries such as Malawi, Tanzania, Bangladesh, and Rwanda, conducting research that not only benefited international partners but also helped American farmers by developing applicable agricultural practices and providing early warnings about potential pest threats.

"For U.S. farmers, this is not good," said Peter Goldsmith, director of the University of Illinois' Soybean Innovation Lab, one of the impacted research centers.

David Hughes, director of the USAID Innovation Lab on Current and Emerging Threats to Crops at Penn State University, echoed these concerns: "It really reduces our capacity to help farmers fight pests and diseases and help American farmers prevent incursions."

David Tschirley, who leads a USAID-funded lab at Michigan State University and chairs the

Feed the Future Innovation Lab Council, noted that approximately 300 people are directly employed by these labs, with up to 4,000 international collaborators affected by the closures.

Research Disruptions and Immediate Fallout

All 17 labs received stop-work orders in late January following President Trump’s freeze on most foreign aid. Lab directors report receiving no further guidance or responses from the State Department, which oversees USAID.

The consequences have been severe:

• Goldsmith laid off all 30 staff members at his lab and plans to close it by April 15.

• Some labs have sought financial support from their host universities, with mixed results.

• Michigan State is temporarily funding Tschirley’s lab while awaiting potential USAID approval.

The Illinois Soybean Innovation Lab had established partnerships with major agribusiness companies such as Bayer, Corteva, BASF, and Archer-Daniels-Midland, which are now left in limbo.

Economic Consequences for Farmers

The shutdown of these research labs is expected to have significant financial consequences for American farmers:

• Loss of innovative farming techniques that improve crop yields and efficiency.

• Reduced early warning systems for crop diseases and pests, increasing risks and pesticide costs.

• Delayed development of new seed varieties adapted to climate change.

• Diminished access to emerging international markets cultivated through these research efforts.

Agricultural economists estimate that the long-term impact could reduce farm profitability by 3-5% annually, particularly affecting soybean, corn, and specialty crop sectors that benefited most from these research collaborations. The Soybean Innovation Lab, for instance, was developing drought-resistant soybean varieties that could have saved farmers millions in irrigation costs and crop insurance premiums while maintaining yields amid increasingly erratic weather patterns.

Wider Disruptions to U.S. Agriculture

The closure of these research labs is part of broader disruptions to U.S. agriculture under the current administration:

• Tens of millions of dollars in U.S. commodity purchases were temporarily halted following the January 24 foreign aid freeze.

• Farmers nationwide have reported delays in receiving payments from federal farm programs due to Trump's directive freezing federal loans and grants, a move currently being challenged in court.

• Market development programs that helped expand foreign markets for U.S. agricultural products have been significantly scaled back.

Farm advocacy groups estimate that these combined disruptions could reduce net farm income by 7-10%, compounding challenges for producers already operating with narrow profit margins and rising input costs.

Despite repeated requests for comment, the State Department has not responded to inquiries regarding the situation.