The group cited that more than 60 farm organizations have called for reforms while Project 2025 called for ending the checkoffs. The letter also cited audits, as well as the alleged misuse of funds and one embezzlement case in one state with checkoff dollars.
Farm Action has since posted additional complaints about the checkoffs, calling for a full investigation.
There is a heavy focus on a handful of the 22 USDA-authorized "research and promotion" programs, such as the beef, pork, and dairy checkoffs. These programs created iconic campaigns, including "Beef, it's what's for dinner," "Pork, the other white meat" and "Got Milk."
However, the checkoffs also include other commodities such as cotton, potatoes, eggs, soybeans, watermelon, mushrooms, popcorn, peanuts, lamb, mangoes, honey, highbush blueberries, sorghum, lumber, Christmas trees, paper packaging and pecans.
Then there are state checkoffs for commodities such as corn, wheat and barley. An array of fruits, vegetables and nuts also have state-specific checkoffs. Even biofuels and aquaculture have state checkoff programs. Some commodities are subject to both federal and state-specific checkoffs.
DTN reached out to Wayne Watkinson, an attorney who represents 17 of the 22 active USDA checkoffs to ensure their activities meet USDA guidelines.
Watkinson pointed to complaints from animal rights groups about checkoffs. "They do not like that the industry can speak back, and they would love to get rid of these checkoffs," he said.
Watkinson said there are a lot of "misunderstandings and misstatements" about how the checkoffs operate, such as claims that they are forced on people by the government and there is no way to get out of a checkoff.
"USDA has not initiated any checkoff program," Watkinson said. "They are all initiated by the industry. The industry goes to USDA, and they ask USDA to implement a program. Regulations are set up. They have input into the regulations. Once the regulations are issued, there's a referendum required. The industry has to vote it in."
Commodity producers can then attend the state or national meetings tied to those checkoffs to voice their opinions on spending, Watkinson noted.
DOGE also was set up to review taxpayer-funded activities. The checkoffs are overseen by USDA's Agricultural Marketing Service (AMS), and critics can make the case that there is an efficiency argument over whether USDA should oversee those activities.
But checkoff dollars are not taxpayer funds.
"Congress has not authorized any money to the checkoff programs," Watkinson said.
The checkoff programs actually pay for all of the USDA costs incurred to oversee them, Watkinson said.
"Elon Musk can't take a pelt to the Oval Office and say, 'You know, Mr. President, I just saved you $1 billion because I got rid of the checkoff programs,'" Watkinson said.
Another issue, as one commodity group pointed out, is every checkoff program is structured differently. Funds typically flow from state-level collections to the national level as well.
Asked about the social media complaints about the checkoffs, Ethan Lane, vice president of government affairs for the National Cattlemen's Beef Association, commented: "The Beef Checkoff uses zero federal dollars, and checkoffs reduce demand on the federal budget for research and market development. The Beef Checkoff is an example of individual farmers and ranchers coming together to create a program that conducts research, educates consumers, and builds demand for beef with a return on investment to producers of $13.41 for every $1 invested -- all while operating with annual financial audits, strict oversight, and at no cost to American taxpayers."
Are there legitimate complaints about the checkoffs? Absolutely. The USDA Inspector General -- now fired by the Trump administration -- has produced multiple reports about checkoff oversight in the past.
At DTN, we have reported on several controversies involving checkoffs. For example, there was a soybean checkoff CEO in one state who ran it like his own fiefdom and even attempted to lay claim to seed patents from research funded by checkoff dollars. Interestingly, USDA didn't uncover this situation. A farmer in that state who joined the checkoff board asked the right questions and exposed the mess.
The Government Accountability Office (GAO) issued a 2017 report -- under the first Trump administration -- calling for more scrutiny of subcontracts and transparency at the checkoffs. At least some research and promotion programs in the past have not posted key documents about spending and budgets, the GAO cited. But that same GAO report also cited some of the independent benefit-cost ratios that are required by law: the beef checkoff had an 11.2-to-1 return on investment; honey had a 14.12-to-1 ratio; pork had a 17.4-to-1 ratio.
As of Thursday, DOGE hasn't shut down the checkoffs, and it's not clear how such a move would be executed. But the tech bros at DOGE would have no idea what can of worms they would open if they did somehow eliminate the staff at the Agricultural Marketing Service and the oversight AMS provides the 22 research and promotion boards.
Editor's Note: DTN/Progressive Farmer has over the years had multiple business relationships with commodity groups that are involved in checkoff programs.
Chris Clayton can be reached at [email protected]
Follow him on social platform X @ChrisClaytonDTN