It's impossible to disprove every false statement by finding a source that explicitly refutes it.
But here's how USDA food "destruction" proceeds, from a recent example:
Iconic product of North America, present on all the tables for Thanksgiving, the production of cranberries has had an important growth after a serious health crisis at the end of the 1950s. Already confronted with important stocks, producers organized within the Cranberry Marketing Committee (CMC) since in 1962, have sought the approval of the Federal Administration (USDA) to ban the marketing of 25% of this year’s abundant crop. This surplus must be given, composted or used for non-commercial purposes. [...]
For cranberries, storage was used four times between 1962 and 1971, as well as more recently in 2017. As for marketing quotas, they had not been used since 2000 and 2001. In 2014 a request was submitted by the CMC to use marketing quotas, but the USDA was opposed to it, because they suspected an illegal coordination with Canadian producers.
As Claire Brown points out in her article in New Food Economy, it may seem unsatisfactory to stick to marketing quotas, a source of considerable waste, rather than seeking to act directly on production through production quotas.
But it must be said that the variability of yields, which is very important, for most fruits and vegetables can justify acting on supply once the harvest has been completed.
So yes, overproduction is sometimes controlled after the fact, possibly including destruction. But it depends on the circumstances, it's not a regular thing.
Sector associations like the CMC are allowed (and regulated) under the Agricultural Marketing Agreement Act of 1937. There was actually a recent Supreme Court case involving a farmer's refusal to comply with a storage (not destruction) order. And the USDA lost.