The U.S. Department of Agriculture spent over $16,000 on massive banners featuring President Donald Trump and Abraham Lincoln outside its headquarters in Washington, D.C., even as it cut billions in aid for schools and food banks. This move, revealed in recent reports, highlights ongoing tensions in government spending priorities under the Trump administration, which took office earlier this year and promised to trim what it calls wasteful programs.
Background on USDA Budget Cuts
The Trump administration has focused on reducing federal spending it views as inefficient since returning to power. In March, the USDA ended two programs from the pandemic period that gave about $1 billion to schools and food banks for buying fresh food from local farmers.
These cuts aimed to redirect funds to more stable efforts, according to department officials. They argued that short-term programs lacked long-term planning. However, critics say this harms vulnerable groups, including low-income families and children who rely on school meals.
The changes also tie into broader budget proposals. For instance, Trump’s fiscal 2026 plan suggests slashing non-defense spending by nearly 23 percent, including $5 billion from USDA areas like research and rural development.
Details of the Banner Purchases
Documents show the USDA ordered 31-foot-tall banners in early 2025, costing $16,400 in total. One banner displayed Trump, while another featured Lincoln, the president who founded the department in 1862.
Agriculture Secretary Brooke Rollins praised the banners publicly, stating they symbolized Trump’s vision for a “Golden Age” for farmers. The department hung them outside its main building, but one version showing Rollins behind Trump was ordered yet never used.
This spending occurred around the same time as aid reductions. Reports indicate the banners served as a visual nod to Trump’s leadership in agriculture policy.
Impacts on Schools and Food Banks
The aid cuts have rippled across the country, affecting millions. Schools lost funding to provide healthy meals, leading to potential hunger for about 18 million children in public schools by some estimates.
Food banks report empty shelves and reduced supplies. For example, one major food bank in Houston faced an $11 million shortfall, forcing it to turn away families in need.
Local farmers feel the pinch too. They depended on these programs to sell produce, and now many struggle with lost revenue.
Here are key effects of the cuts:
-
-
- Reduced access to fresh, local food for low-income households.
- Increased pressure on already strained food assistance networks.
- Potential long-term harm to child nutrition and education outcomes.
- Economic strain on small farms, risking closures in rural areas.
-
Broader Spending Priorities Under Scrutiny
Trump’s budget extends beyond the USDA. It proposes cutting $186 billion from the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program over the next decade, which could leave more families without food support.
International food aid faces reductions too, as part of efforts to focus on domestic needs. Supporters say these moves promote efficiency and self-reliance.
Yet, the contrast with banner spending draws criticism. Observers question why funds went to promotional items amid deep program slashes.
| Program Affected | Estimated Cut Amount | Groups Impacted |
|---|---|---|
| School and Food Bank Funding | $1 billion | Children, low-income families, farmers |
| SNAP Benefits | $186 billion by 2034 | 18 million school children, food insecure households |
| USDA Research and Rural Aid | $5 billion | Farmers, rural communities |
| International Food Aid | Part of 23% non-defense cut | Global hunger relief efforts |
Public and Political Reactions
Reactions poured in quickly after reports surfaced. Advocacy groups and lawmakers decried the priorities, calling them out of touch with real needs.
Social media buzzed with frustration, as users highlighted how cuts hurt everyday Americans while funds flowed to symbolic displays. Some pointed to Trump’s campaign promises on supporting farmers, questioning the alignment.
On the other side, administration allies defend the actions. They argue banners boost morale in the agriculture sector and that cuts eliminate bloat from previous policies.
Looking Ahead: Potential Changes and Challenges
As debates continue, some states push back against federal cuts. For example, Maine recently settled a dispute over USDA funding, securing aid for local programs.
Experts predict more scrutiny in Congress, especially with midterm elections approaching. The administration may adjust if public pressure mounts.
Meanwhile, food insecurity remains a pressing issue. Recent data shows rising hunger rates, underscoring the need for balanced approaches.
What do you think about these spending choices? Share your views in the comments below and spread the word to keep the conversation going.
