Congressman Jonathan L. Jackson Opening Statement at Hearing with USDA Secretary Brooke Rollins

[As prepared for delivery.]

Thank you, Chairman Thompson. Thank you, Ranking Member Craig, and thank you, Secretary Rollins, for appearing before this committee today.

Last year, this Administration declared war. Not on the New World screwworm advancing on our southern border, not on the corporate consolidation squeezing our family farmers, but on an idea: the idea of Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion. And in doing so, it has created a crisis of competence and confidence at the U.S. Department of Agriculture.

We are here today to examine whether the Secretary's actions—the termination of over 3,600 contracts and the cancellation of nearly a thousand employee trainings—are rooted in sound policy and the rule of law, or in a politically motivated purge that has left this nation's agriculture and food supply more vulnerable.

The Secretary has made “merit” her North Star. Yet, she has done so while ignoring the legal definition of merit that has governed our civil service for nearly half a century—the Merit System Principles, codified at 5 U.S.C. § 2301. These principles were not designed to be “woke”; they were designed to prevent the very thing we are witnessing: the replacement of a professional, experienced civil service with one based on political loyalty.

If Congress does nothing, a dangerous precedent will be set. An agency head will be allowed to disregard binding legal frameworks like the Civil Rights Act of 1964 based on a secret, unwritten definition of what they find politically objectionable. This is not oversight; it is an assault on the rule of law itself.

I have significant concerns that I hope to address today. The Secretary’s crusade has been waged without providing this committee, or the American public, with a single, consistent definition of the “woke DEI initiatives” she is so determined to eliminate. Agency action cannot be arbitrary and capricious.

We will ask the Secretary to define her terms. We will ask how eliminating training on preventing sexual harassment makes our food safer. And we will ask if her own appointment meets the rigorous standards of “merit” she seeks to impose on others, especially when compared to the vast experience of her predecessor in this role.

The central question today is one of staggering hypocrisy. Can a leader who rails against programs designed to create opportunity, while seemingly being the beneficiary of a system that prizes political connection over proven experience, be trusted to lead with integrity?

This is not an academic debate. This is about our nation's ability to function. It's about the stability of the agency that ensures the food on our tables is safe. It's about whether we will honor the legacy of cases like Pigford v. Glickman and ensure the USDA serves all farmers, not just a select few.

We have an opportunity to get answers today. The American people deserve to know if their Department of Agriculture is being led based on evidence and law, or on political whim and prejudice.

Thank you, and I yield back.

###