HOUSE APPROPRIATIONS COMMITTEE
SUBCOMMITTEE HEARING
For questions on the note below, please contact the Delta Strategy Group team.
On February 3, the House Committee on Appropriations Subcommittee on Agriculture, Rural Development, Food and Drug Administration, and Related Agencies held an oversight hearing of the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA), Office of Inspector General (OIG). Witnesses in the hearing were:
- John Walk, Inspector General, USDA
- Nicole Gardner, Assistant Inspector General for Investigations, USDA
- Yarisis Rivera-Rojas, Acting Assistant Inspector General for Audit, USDA
Below is a summary of the hearing prepared by Delta Strategy Group. It includes several high-level takeaways, followed by summaries of opening statements and discussion.
Key Takeaways
- Inspector General John Walk emphasized three core priorities for USDA’s OIG as fraud deterrence with modern enforcement tools, ensuring effective partnerships, and expanding the use of advanced analytics. He reiterated his goal of modernizing and improving OIG operations in providing oversight and accountability for USDA. He outlined how OIG is taking a proactive, layered, and risk‑based approach to oversight by having data scientists deploy innovative tools to identify risk, better focus audit and investigative targets, and strengthen internal controls.
- Several Representatives questioned USDA’s role with the Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States (CFIUS) in investigating Chinese-backed farmland acquisitions and subsidized pricing by foreign-owned companies. Walk confirmed OIG is mapping foreign-owned farmland near sensitive USDA facilities and reviewing enforcement gaps under the Agriculture Foreign Investment Disclosure Act (AFIDA). He clarified that USDA is not a permanent CFIUS member and has limited visibility unless agriculture is involved, referencing that some transactions may fall outside CFIUS review.
- In response to questions about national security risks posed by Chinese access to U.S. farm data through acquisitions of U.S. agriculture companies, Walk highlighted the oversight implications of precision agriculture and drone technology that rely on Chinese systems. He noted data security risks and the potential for exploitation, alongside citing the importance of safeguarding research labs through vetting, credentialing, and adherence to security protocols.
- Representatives Newhouse (R-WA) and Moolenaar (R-MI) raised concerns about recent cases of fraudulent agricultural imports and potential agroterrorism threats. Walk acknowledged that USDA has not historically been as engaged in these investigations as it should be and committed to strengthening interagency partnerships, particularly with Customs and Border Protection (CBP) and the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI), to leverage USDA’s agricultural expertise. He emphasized the need to enhance port presence, improve lab vetting and oversight, and expand law enforcement collaboration in efforts to mitigate food safety and national security threats.
- Democrats, led Ranking Member Bishop (D-GA), called for proactive oversight of USDA’s reorganization proposal, stressing that the Inspector General must analyze staffing impacts prior to changes being made. Comments reiterated concerns over the firing of IG Fong, underscoring the need for independence and objectivity in oversight. They warned that mass staff departures, scattershot office closures, and major program shifts are creating service disruptions, including Farm Service Agency (FSA) closures during Farmer Bridge Assistance deadlines.
SUMMARY
Opening Statements and Testimony
Chairman Andy Harris (R-MD)
As we prepare for the FY27 process, it is essential that we hear from the OIG to understand the OIG’s priorities for the coming year and how this Subcommittee’s oversight role can support those efforts. USDA administers more than $200 billion through its various programs that assist farmers, ranchers, and rural communities. We appreciate the crucial independent oversight the OIG performs over all USDA programs and operations. OIG serves as an important check over USDA actions and decisions and ensures that USDA, as well as those who implement USDA programs, are held accountable. The OIG has a responsibility to assure that USDA is properly administering crop insurance and farm programs, that lending programs as well as grants and cooperative agreements are executed according to program rules, that USDA continues to protect plant and animal health in the domestic food supply, and that proper financial management and cybersecurity protections are in place.
Ranking Member Sanford Bishop (D-GA)
Last year, USDA’s longtime Inspector General Fong was illegally fired and escorted out of the building by security. We need confidence that you will conduct your audits and investigations where they are most needed, and where the evidence and the facts lead, not in whatever direction the political leaders of USDA may want to go. We need to know how you will pursue objective oversight goals and maintain independence without wielding the power of the Office of the Inspector General to further a political agenda. On the administration staffing cuts, over 20,000 positions and nearly one-fifth of the USDA workforce was lost in just the first half of last year. I want to hear about any plans you may have to conduct oversight regarding staffing and how staffing shortfalls may be impacting your office. There is no clearer example of waste than carrying out costly policies to incentivize mass staff departures, only to hire people with less experience, to refill those same positions less than a year later. USDA proposed a half-baked reorganization, enacted scattershot office closures, and made major shifts to programs. We have questions regarding USDA’s plans for staffing, program execution, and stewardship of the funding this Committee provides. I have heard reports of FSA offices being closed in areas where farmers were attempting to certify their information before USDA’s Farmer Bridge Assistance deadline. Instances like these highlight the need for a strong and independent IG to gather the objective facts about USDA’s actions and recommend any corrections needed.
John Walk, Inspector General, USDA
I look forward to modernizing and improving OIG operations and continuing to provide meaningful oversight and accountability of USDA. OIG manages more than 300 programs and operations, with our workforce of civil servants to audit, investigate, evaluate, and inspect these programs and operations, providing oversight in such areas as food safety, agricultural research funding, safeguards against spread of animal diseases and plant pests, agricultural imports and export controls, commodities programs, animal welfare initiatives, market access programs, and the integrity of financial assistance programs. I would like to focus on three important priorities of stopping fraud, ensuring effective partnerships, and building on the utilization of advanced analytics, which will help illustrate my perspective on enhancing our audit, analytics, and investigative functions across the board. OIG will continue its work to support the quality and timeliness of audits, inspections, and evaluations of programs to help improve fraud deterrence, such as internal controls, and to reduce program errors. Our investigative work will continue to enhance partnerships with our law enforcement partners. OIG also endeavors to improve appropriate collaboration with USDA mission areas as we carry out our oversight responsibilities. USDA’s recent National Farm Security Action Plan prioritizes national security and creates opportunities for OIG to support this effort through its oversight work. Recently, OIG supported two separate joint investigations into the smuggling of illicit agricultural products, including potentially catastrophic biomaterials, from China into the U.S. OIG will continue to devote the necessary resources to investigate smuggling and illicit imports that endanger our food supply, economy, and American security. USDA has also signaled an increased focus on foreign ownership of American farmland, and OIG is conducting analytical work that will support this national security effort. OIG’s oversight is also well positioned to support USDA as it takes steps to improve research security to keep U.S.-funded innovations from supporting foreign adversaries or malign research. Other national security efforts by USDA, including those related to data transfers, foreign investments, and cybersecurity, would also benefit from appropriate oversight support. The Inspector General Act mandates that OIG keep Congress fully and currently informed, and I am committed to improving communication with this Committee and with Congress to accomplish that objective.
DISCUSSION
Chairman Harris (R-MD): What do you plan to do differently to ensure USDA programs are properly administered under your tenure than the previous Inspector General? Walk: I am committed to taking a proactive approach to oversight and overcoming program weaknesses instead of waiting for a problem before we engage. This will be done through a layered, risk-based approach, where we empower our data scientists to deploy innovative tools to scientifically identify risk and better focus our audit and investigative targets. We also want to equip our law enforcement agents and investigators with the most modern enforcement tools, techniques, and technologies to go after those who have exploited USDA programs. We want to make sure we prevent and protect, not just pay and chase after fraud and other program deficiencies. Part of that will include partnership and engagement with all of our stakeholders to collaboratively support efforts to deter waste, fraud, and abuse.
Ranking Member Bishop (D-GA): Do you think the USDA downsizing between January and June 2025, with over 18,000 positions cut, can be considered a success, especially given the loss of key staff and the need to rehire many of those employees? Walk: We analyzed USDA staffing attrition, and the reorganization itself is still ongoing. Since 2021, there has been a downward decline, and there has been a decline since the beginning of 2025 as well. We have streamlined our processes so that we can continue to fulfill our mission. Our return on investment continues to be strong, at about $11 for every dollar invested, based on last year’s figures. We are reviewing a staffing plan, and we do plan on making hires this year.
Representative Valadao (R-CA): Has any progress been made in addressing the over 45 percent improper payment rate identified in 2024 for FSA’s Emergency Conservation Program (ECP), and in ensuring that USDA and FSA have updated policies and procedures to properly administer critical disaster recovery funds? Do you believe that some of the staff turnover seen at the local level had any impact on these improper payment numbers? Walk: We do look at farm programs very carefully, especially on distributing emergency funds. There is always that balance between making sure the money goes out quickly, but with the right controls in place, so it gets to the right folks who need it. We have not looked into the impact of the attrition as of yet. As we review these programs, if they are operational concerns that come up and it is based on staffing or otherwise, that is something that we would look into and also report to USDA; Rivera-Rojas: We recently issued a report regarding the self-certification process that is followed by numerous farm programs, and recommendations have not been fully implemented at this time. We do perform a final action review where we go back and determine whether the agencies have indeed completed the recommendations as intended for us. It is of high interest that the ECP program is part of the improper payment rates that have to be reported. We will be looking again at how this program is doing as part of our annual improper payment engagement, which we should be issuing a report around July of this year. We are working with the agencies and making sure that USDA takes seriously the need to reduce these improper payment rates.
Representative Valadao (R-CA): Has your office investigated the effectiveness of the software FSA developed in January 2024 to process and filter proper Emergency Conservation Program applications? Rivera-Rojas: No, we have not looked at that software at this time. My understanding is that they are still developing. We did discuss it during our review of the self-certification, but we can include it as part of our emerging issues as we go through our quarterly planning process.
Representative Valadao (R-CA): Given the significant funding delays in the Rural Energy for America Program (REAP) dating back to 2024, which have left approved farmers without energy project funding and halted new applications, does your office intend to make recommendations to USDA to reduce these delays and improve program execution? Rivera-Rojas: Yes, we have an ongoing engagement in the Rural Development disaster program, and we will be looking closely at the timeliness of the disbursement of funds. That work is currently underway.
Representative Valadao (R-CA): With the December 2025 report finding that USDA’s Risk Management Agency could not verify whether insurance providers are offering all available crop insurance plans and given that RMA held roundtables but did not document access outcomes, has OIG followed up to assess whether producers are now receiving proper access or obtained a report from the agency? Walk: We do a variety of workaround crop insurance that accounts on the investigative side for about eight percent of our work, but we have a lot of audit activities ongoing in terms of that specific issue; Rivera-Rojas: Right now those recommendations are in progress because we just issued a report, but we will be able to follow up later to the term of the status of those recommendations.
Representative Pingree (D-ME): Will OIG produce a follow-up report covering the second half of the year to continue tracking the staffing losses at USDA? Can you commit to providing more analysis in future reports to help us understand how these staffing losses are impacting program delivery and access to services? Walk: This report was scoped in a way to provide just the factual information in terms of how many, how to treat it, and where those attrition numbers came from. The scope did not include some of the programmatic impacts, and was developed by our Office of Analytics and Innovation. We do not at this moment have plans to look at that, but we do have an upcoming review of quarterly priorities in terms of our audit side.
Representative Pingree (D-ME): Will you give a pre-analysis of what is likely to happen in this reorganization, some significant information about what happened in the second half of the year, and ensure your role as Inspector General delivers in-depth information, not just high-level statistics, across all USDA programs? Walk: I was not at the IG’s office when that project was scoped, and I did not have anything to do with what we were going to look at or how we were going to look at things in terms of the reorganization. Right now, the department is still in the midst of that reorganization. There is a lot that they have not decided, and there are a lot of moving parts.
Representative Moolenaar (R-MI): Can you comment on what resources law enforcement and USDA need to fully ensure that Chinese-backed biological smuggling rings are stopped at the border and do not put our farmland at risk? Walk: There are actually two recent cases we worked on. There were Chinese nationals who smuggled Fusarium, which some have classified as a potential agroterrorism weapon, into the US to a University of Michigan lab to work on that biomaterial. The FBI and CBP worked on that. Having closer and increasing partnerships with appropriate law enforcement agencies is important. CBP, in particular, has targeting technology for imports that would be helpful. The lab issue is also something we are looking at, such as vetting folks who work at those labs, making sure they have the proper security credentials, making sure that the labs themselves are meeting the APHIS requirements for their permits, and that there is proper oversight and monitoring. We also had a smuggling case involving the smuggling of illicit agricultural products from China. That is a food safety concern as well as a national security concern. We need to beef up our presence at the ports and make sure that we are able to work with those authorities.
Representative Moolenaar (R-MI): With Secretary Rollins’ Farm Security Action Plan mentioning concerns about foreign adversaries purchasing farmland, can you comment on those policies and how they are being implemented by USDA? Walk: The foreign purchase of farmland is a very important topic that we are looking at. Several years ago, the GAO did a study on FSA’s enforcement of AFIDA and identified some key weaknesses in its collection and tracking of that data. That report is a couple of years old, and we are looking to see what we can add to that, including what steps we can take from an audit standpoint and how they are doing now that the report has come out. We also understand there are some weaknesses in terms of enforcement. There are penalty mechanisms that we need to look at to see if they are actually using those correctly. There are also issues in terms of whether, once data comes in, that data is updated, because the law says not only do you report, but when there is a change of ownership, you report as well. Our analytical office is working on a product to actually map out some of the foreign-owned farmland and to be able to show its connection to sensitive USDA facilities. We hope to be able to take that and broaden it so that we can see a map of all foreign-owned lands and see what patterns are there, so that we can look at the intentions of foreign land ownership. You might be able to map that on top of Interior and see what is underneath the land. Is there something they are going after in terms of what is underneath the land itself, or is it really just about locating the land near certain installations? There is a lot that we can do once we get those analytical capabilities up.
Representative Newhouse (R-WA): Given the announcement about the MOU between the Department of State and USDA related to the USAID program committing to 100 percent U.S.-grown purchases, and that less than one-third of appropriated funds have gone toward purchasing U.S.-grown commodities, what oversight will OIG conduct to ensure these funds are used as originally intended? Walk: Our commodities programs are something that we do exercise quite a bit of oversight over in terms of making sure that the funding is used for the proper purpose; Rivera-Rojas: We will look into the use of the grants. One of the first things we will do is look at the financial reporting of the funding as part of the financial statements, as this amount is part of the Commodity Credit Corporation (CCC) financial statement. We are closely monitoring these funds through the financial statement aspect. Once there is clarity around who is going to manage the funding, we will then pursue work in this area. We are consistently looking at how market access and food programs are managed through grants, through all the collaborators and USDA partners. We could do that type of work, but we will need clarity around where the funds will be managed.
Representative Newhouse (R-WA): Given that the USDA Secretary is now part of CFIUS and foreign-owned companies are allegedly setting low prices subsidized by their governments, could these practices be reviewed within the CFIUS framework? Are you aware of any instances where this is already being looked at? Walk: I do not believe I have any knowledge of what we are doing in that area right now.
Representative Franklin (R-FL): Given that USDA now has a role in CFIUS but is not a full partner, can you clarify the nature of that role and whether USDA has full visibility into transactions involving agricultural land purchases by foreign entities? Is it accurate that not all sales involving foreign companies in the ag space would necessarily trigger CFIUS review, and if so, what types of transactions may fall outside the current scope? Walk: My understanding is that USDA is involved when a transaction involves agriculture, but is not a permanent member. I believe it is for land use decisions, but I can get back to you on that.
Representative Franklin (R-FL): How is USDA evaluating and responding to that type of national security risk raised by credible concerns that large volumes of U.S. farm data are being accessed by China through acquisitions of American agriculture companies? How vulnerable is the U.S. food supply chain and broader agricultural sector to malign foreign interference, and what tools or strategies is USDA using to detect and mitigate those threats today? Walk: There is a big push toward precision agriculture, which involves the collection of tremendous amounts of agricultural data. There is also drone use, and a lot of the drones rely on Chinese technology. There is a question about what can be exploited with essentially that type of data map of our agricultural ecosystem. When you marry that with farmland purchases, there is a lot there from an oversight perspective, and we need to understand what that threat is. The other threat we are seeing is in terms of our research labs. We need to safeguard our labs, including vetting and credentialing, and making sure they are following security protocols. In terms of importations themselves, we need to watch the ports. We have had several issues related to port security and foods coming in that are banned, particularly from China.
Representative Cline (R-VA): Are there statutory or policy changes that Congress could make to strengthen oversight of FSA loan restructuring while preserving access for producers in genuine distress, given concerns that loan caps are not keeping up with economic demands? Rivera-Rojas: Regarding loan restructuring, the latest work we did in this area focused on renewable energy systems (RES) borrowers under the Inflation Reduction Act. At the time, we were focused solely on those farmers who were receiving funds through a special measure. Currently, we have not conducted an audit, but we have been monitoring the loan restructuring process because it is something we want to pursue.