Trump's USDA Put Profits Over Safety, Making Your Chicken Less Safe

The chicken on your plate could be a silent carrier of Salmonella, a pathogen that sickens 1.35 million Americans and claims 420 lives each year. Yet, in a stunning capitulation to industry pressure, the U.S. Department of Agriculture under President Donald Trump has abandoned a critical proposal to curb this menace in poultry products. This decision, announced in April 2025, dismantles a Biden-era plan that promised to prevent up to 168,000 infections annually by enforcing stricter safety standards. Instead, the administration has chosen to prioritize the profits of poultry giants over the health of families.

This isn’t just a policy reversal; it’s a betrayal of the public’s trust in the government to keep our food safe. The USDA’s retreat reflects a broader pattern of deregulation that places corporate interests above human lives. Food safety advocates, armed with decades of data, warned that abandoning these rules would lead to a surge in preventable illnesses. Their pleas were drowned out by the National Chicken Council and the Meat Institute, whose lobbying campaigns painted the proposal as a costly burden. The result? A food system left vulnerable, and consumers left to bear the consequences.

The stakes couldn’t be higher. Salmonella infections can cause severe illness, particularly in children, the elderly, and those with weakened immune systems. Hospitalizations, lost wages, and long-term health complications pile up, costing billions annually. The Biden proposal wasn’t perfect, but it represented a science-driven step toward prevention, mandating testing for high-risk strains and setting enforceable limits on contamination. By scrapping it, the USDA has signaled that industry complaints outweigh public health imperatives.

This move fits a troubling pattern in Trump’s second term: a relentless push to dismantle regulations that protect ordinary Americans. From environmental safeguards to workplace protections, the administration’s agenda seems laser-focused on freeing corporations from accountability. The poultry decision is a case study in how deregulation, cloaked in promises of economic relief, leaves us all less safe.

The fingerprints of industry lobbying are all over this decision. Groups like the National Chicken Council spent millions to sway policymakers, arguing that the Salmonella rules would cripple producers with compliance costs. Their narrative, echoed by Trump’s USDA, ignores a critical truth: the economic toll of foodborne illness far outweighs the price of prevention. A single outbreak can devastate communities, shutter businesses, and erode consumer confidence. Yet, the administration bought the industry’s line, hook and sinker.

This isn’t new. For decades, food industry giants have shaped policy to their advantage, delaying reforms like traceability requirements and pathogen testing. The ‘revolving door’ between regulatory agencies and corporate boardrooms only tightens their grip. When the USDA cites ‘over 7,000 public comments’ as a reason for withdrawal, it’s hard not to see the influence of orchestrated industry campaigns. These groups frame regulations as bureaucratic overreach, but their real goal is clear: maintain a status quo that keeps profits high and oversight low.

Contrast this with the Food Safety Modernization Act of 2011, a landmark law that shifted the FDA’s focus to preventing contamination before it reaches consumers. That reform, championed by advocates for public health, showed what’s possible when government prioritizes science over special interests. Today’s FDA is enforcing new traceability rules, a step toward accountability. But the USDA’s retreat on Salmonella undermines these gains, leaving a fragmented system where progress in one agency is offset by regression in another.

Supporters of the withdrawal argue it protects jobs and keeps food prices down. This reasoning falls apart under scrutiny. The costs of deregulation—higher healthcare expenses, lost productivity, and recall-related losses—hit consumers and taxpayers hardest. Meanwhile, poultry companies, shielded from accountability, have little incentive to invest in safer practices. Voluntary compliance, often touted as an alternative, has proven woefully inadequate. Without enforceable standards, industry self-regulation becomes a fox guarding the henhouse.

The consequences of this decision extend beyond Salmonella. Public confidence in the food system, already shaky, takes another hit. In 2024, only 57% of Americans trusted the government to ensure food safety, down from 68% five years earlier. This erosion, particularly sharp among Republicans, reflects a broader distrust fueled by partisan divides and industry-driven narratives. When the USDA disbands advisory committees and sidelines science, it deepens the perception that agencies are either incompetent or beholden to corporate interests.

Advocates for consumer protection see a clear path forward: reinstate the Salmonella proposal, fully fund food safety inspections, and rebuild the USDA’s capacity for science-based oversight. These steps aren’t radical; they’re grounded in decades of evidence showing that strong regulation saves lives and money. The 1996 adoption of the Hazard Analysis and Critical Control Points system, for instance, slashed contamination rates in meat and poultry. We know what works. The question is whether our leaders have the courage to act.

Opponents of regulation often invoke innovation, claiming that market forces will drive safety improvements. History tells a different story. The Pure Food and Drug Act of 1906, spurred by public outrage over tainted meat, proved that government intervention is often the only way to force industry accountability. Left to their own devices, companies prioritize short-term gains over long-term safety. The USDA’s decision to ‘reassess’ the Salmonella rules risks years of delay, leaving consumers exposed while industry profits roll in.

This fight isn’t just about poultry; it’s about the kind of society we want. Do we value the health of our families, or do we bow to corporate demands? The liberal vision—one rooted in science, transparency, and accountability—demands that government protect the vulnerable, not enable the powerful. Every Salmonella infection prevented is a child spared from suffering, a family spared from grief, a community spared from fear.

The USDA’s decision is a wake-up call. We cannot afford to let industry lobbying dictate the safety of our food. Restoring the Salmonella proposal is a start, but it’s not enough. We need a broader commitment to strengthen regulatory agencies, increase funding for inspections, and empower scientists to guide policy. The Biden administration’s push for prevention showed what’s possible; Trump’s reversal shows what’s at stake.

As consumers, we have power too. Demand transparency in food production. Support policies that prioritize public health over corporate profits. Hold elected officials accountable for caving to industry pressure. The fight for a safer food system is a fight for justice, for equity, for the right to trust what’s on our plates. Let’s not let this moment slip away.