Donald Trump owes his election in no small part to the support of farm country. But since entering office, almost all his actions and pronouncements have betrayed an abysmal understanding of farm and rural concerns. No surprise, then, that food and farm advocates have looked eagerly to Sonny Perdue, who was sworn in as agriculture secretary on Tuesday, to educate and temper the president on their issues.

The new secretary has his work cut out for him. The president unveiled a budget blueprint last month that slashed funding for the US Department of Agriculture (USDA) by 21%.

Will Perdue become the champion that the advocates hope for? He gave mixed messages about his vision during his confirmation hearing. Perdue wants to preserve the “broad tent” approach of his predecessor, such as supporting organic and locally grown and consumed food. Unfortunately, he also stated that “the jury is still out on whether humans are causing climate change”. He also indicated that he would be open to allowing school districts to formulate their own meal plans, a move that could undermine the 2010 Healthy Hunger-Free Kids Act, which requires schools to provide nutritious meals with more fruits and vegetables. Frozen- and junk-food companies have lobbied for loosening the regulation.

Most worrisome is that it appears that, under Trump and Perdue, the USDA will double down on an industrialized, corporate food and agriculture model that is already failing most farmers and rural residents.

Young midwestern farmers want to grow sustainable food – but they need help Read more

Perdue’s Senate hearing centered on USDA programs that cater to large-scale companies producing commodity crops. The former governor said farmers and taxpayers are getting “good value” from these programs. Tell this to farmers, most of whom run small family-owned operations, who in 2017 will face a fourth consecutive year of diminished income in spite of record productivity.

It shows an inconceivable lack of imagination if the nation’s top agricultural leadership is suggesting we tackle low prices by pushing production, new product development, new markets and exports. Plus, Perdue wants to establish a new undersecretary for trade. While a minority of large-scale farmers will benefit from this spent approach, we are not going to produce our way out of the current agricultural doldrums.

The USDA would do better to invest in programs serving a wider swath of farmers and struggling rural communities, including those that encourage more farmers to enter rather than leave the business, help farmers produce a diverse mix of healthful foods for regional consumption, and create local jobs (the very same approach worked well for Perdue in his home state). Farmers also need programs that would curb the soil erosion and runoff that pollutes drinking water from Des Moines to Toledo and many rural communities in between.

Is Boston the next urban farming paradise? Read more

Does Perdue believe in the market economy? If so, farmers need markets to reward them for clean water and carbon sequestration. Farmers – who will be hit harder and more frequently by the catastrophic floods, droughts and pests that accompany a changing climate – need programs to help their farms become more resilient, a point reinforced by a recent bipartisan task force, that found these interrelated issues to be “among the most significant threats to food and nutrition security”. Yet the Trump administration has worked to systematically dismantle the government’s ability to tackle climate change, even suggesting it will back out of the Paris Agreement, a move opposed by the National Farmers Union.

Other critical issues are also question marks. For example, when asked about his commitment to the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (Snap), more commonly known as the food stamp program and the largest single expenditure in the federal farm bill that will be renewed next year, Perdue said he hoped to do it “more efficiently and more effectively than we have”. That sounds like shrinking this safety net vital for low-income families, especially those in rural communities – research shows that a larger percentage of households in rural areas receive Snap benefits than in urban areas, contrary to the stereotype.

During his first 100 days in office, Trump has shown little intention of investing in rural communities. Only today, three months into his administration and the first with a secretary of agriculture, has he met with a group of farmers in a rushed photo opportunity, and signed an executive order that essentially calls for a 180-day regulatory review.

His new secretary of agriculture has given every indication of catering to the farmers and agribusinesses that least need public support while neglecting the majority of farmers and rural communities.

Trump may not be personally affected by his broken campaign promises – so far he has failed to replace the Affordable Care Act with something better, or to deploy his secret plan to defeat Isis in 30 days – but the rural electorate that put its faith in him will suffer the consequences. They will continue to see more polluted drinking water, depressed farm incomes, failed businesses, farmland vulnerable to floods and droughts and loss of hope.

Status quo is what the farm and rural constituencies voted against, and precisely what Trump and new secretary of agriculture will all but ensure.