In 2010, the Food Safety Modernization Act (FSMA) was signed into law, initiating a shift in the US food safety landscape. FSMA spurred an array of regulations intended to reduce contamination, mitigate foodborne illness, and make it easier to halt and track foodborne illness or chemical contamination. The National Sustainable Agriculture Coalition (NSAC) engaged heavily in this rulemaking process in support of scale-appropriate regulation, guidelines for diversified farm and food operations, and further training resources to make sure that smaller food businesses, farms, and those using sustainable agriculture practices would not be disproportionately burdened by these new requirements. 

In the decade and a half since FSMA became the law of the land, the Food and Drug Administration has finalized some of the required regulations; however, many of these new regulations have been mired by delays. Some of these delays have been necessary, prompted by significant stakeholder engagement and proper timelines, a function of the participatory rulemaking process. Other delays, however, have been driven by rescinded and reproposed rules. For example, the Agricultural Water Standard was found to be overly cumbersome for many types of farm and food businesses, while not proving a meaningful reduction in foodborne illness, and was not finalized as part of the initial Produce Safety Rule. It was only recently finalized, and the plan for enforcement was initiated in 2023, with compliance dates for the smallest farms into 2027. 

With the implementation of these rules staggered over time, farmers and food businesses have found themselves in an increasingly complicated regulatory environment that often only utilizes exemption as the main way to ensure scale-appropriate regulations. This blog post examines some of FSMA’s overlapping requirements, as well as the remaining FSMA regulations that have still not been finalized. While this Government Accountability Office (GAO) report covers all of FSMA, this post covers only those portions of greatest concern to small, diversified farms and food businesses. 

Those statutory requirements contained within FSMA of greatest concern to sustainable agriculture practitioners, and focused on in this blog post, are :

• Section 103: Hazard analysis and risk-based preventive controls
•  Section 105: Standards for produce safety 
• Section 204: Enhancing tracking and tracing of food and recordkeeping 

As these rules derived from this statue have come to overlay each other, and often have different exemptions depending on product, size of organization, and legal structure of the entity (non-profit, farm, packer, retail food) it has become increasingly complex to navigate, especially for those diversified, small to medium sized farms that are key in the development of more sustainable agriculture across the US. These rules have also caused and continue to cause a variety of financial burdens for farms that are smaller and more diversified. Much of this work has been done without the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) being able to showcase reduced foodborne illness attributable to the rules themselves as well.  

Until this moment, a midmortem of the rollout of the entirety of FSMA (though there have been reviews of subsets of the law) has not been conducted by a government entity, only partially by outside stakeholders. 

This recent GAO report provides an overview of what parts of FSMA are completed, partially completed, and not completed, as well as offers more general recommendations.  Most of the requirements identified in FSMA (41 out of 46) have been completed, showing clear FDA progress towards full implementation, though the report also notes many of the stakeholders felt the delay in doing so resulted in confused and unclear incentives for investments in food safety technologies. 

The report makes a variety of recommendations for FDA going forward, across all of the statutes of FSMA. 3 of the 7 recommendations are most relevant to a sustainable food safety audience:

GAO: The Commissioner of FDA should ensure that the Human Foods Program establishes milestones and timelines for updating the agency’s good agricultural practices for fruits and vegetables and publishes them as required by FSMA’s section 105. (Recommendation 5) 

• NSAC’s perspective: If the FDA is to approach reevaluating the Good Agricultural Practices, it should do so in coordination with the Agricultural Marketing Service (AMS) and the National Institute of Food and Agriculture (NIFA) at the US Department of Agriculture (USDA), pre- and post the development, given their historic and current involvement with farmers and food safety practitioners.

The FDA Commissioner should ensure that the Human Foods Program develops a plan with milestones and timelines for establishing a product tracing system to enhance FDA’s existing foodborne outbreak response processes, and that it establishes the system as required by FSMA’s section 204. (Recommendation 6)

• NSAC’s perspective: While NSAC supports the finalization of the Food Traceability Rule, referred to here, there is still work to be done to provide adequate resources and training to small farms and food businesses. 

The Commissioner of FDA should ensure the Human Foods Program and the Center for Veterinary Medicine develop and implement a performance management process to assess the results of FDA’s rules and their contribution to the prevention of foodborne illness. This process should include setting goals to identify results to achieve, collecting information to measure performance, and using that information to assess results and inform decisions for each rule. (Recommendation 7)

• NSAC’s perspective: While some attempts have been made to track the overall impact of FSMA, further data is needed on almost all of the rules that directly connect specific interventions within rules to food safety outcomes. Any further tweaking of the rules into the future will require further documentation to showcase the potential food safety outcomes in the context of other forms of analysis, such as costs to producers.

NSAC has been deeply involved in both formal and informal processes to shape these statutes and rules, and is glad to see FDA has made progress towards the finalization of all the rules.  The development of the performance management data analysis should have come on consequentially with the rules. This GAO report is a welcome and more comprehensive addition to the different analyses of FSMA over the years. 

However, there have been mitigating factors for the food research, investigation, and enforcement section of the FDA, including a lack of funding commensurate with its responsibilities and a complete reorganization into the Human Food Program. Developing methods to analyze both the efforts already made and the remaining rules yet to be fully implemented will improve transparency for farmers and food businesses. It will bring clarity to many on how their efforts and investments have contributed to a safer food system.

It may also help create further rationale for increases in food safety training funding or more precise targeting of food safety programs. Programs such as the Food Safety Outreach Program at USDA or some of the objectives of the Cooperative Agreement Program for State Implementation at FDA provide portions of this funding and have experienced declining real funding over time. If the FDA invests further in the proposed management system, it may reveal further instances where funding for training might best be allocated and help close the gap between the goals of FSMA and the reality, in an equitable way for all farms and food businesses. 

The post GAO Reports on the Mixed Success of Food Safety Rules appeared first on National Sustainable Agriculture Coalition.

Editor’s Note: This is the fourth and final post in a four-part blog series analyzing the Farm, Food, and National Security Act of 2026, which was reported out of the House Agriculture Committee on March 5. The first post provides an overview of the markup process and the bill as a whole. The second post provides a deep dive analysis of the bill’s potential impacts on local and regional food systems. The third post offers an analysis of its impacts on the farm safety net, farms’ ability to access land and capital, and fair competition. This post covers conservation, climate resilience, and sustainable and organic research. 

The past eleven years have been the hottest on record, and for American farmers and ranchers, the effects of climate change continue to pose a severe, even existential, threat. Farmers and farmworkers continue to face unprecedented heat and drought, more intense weather from heavy rains to erratic freezes, increasing pest pressures, and rising hospitalizations and fatalities from heat. In the face of these challenges, significant policy improvements and robust financial investments are critical to ensuring successful farms and a resilient agricultural economy for future generations. 

As the weather becomes more volatile, the need to fund technical assistance, conservation projects, and research that supports farmers in preparing for and bouncing back from extreme events is increasingly urgent. While Americans, more than ever before, recognize the impact of extreme weather on farmers, unfortunately, the Farm, Food, and National Security Act of 2026 (FFNSA) fails to fully grasp the challenges and consequently falls short. 

The farm bill should seize the moment by prioritizing long-term solutions that build a resilient future. This includes solutions that improve access to on-farm conservation programs for all farmers who steward our environment and serve our communities, and that prioritize investments into diversified farming systems and agroecological approaches that work with our natural resources, such as agroforestry, organic, and regenerative production systems. While the FFNSA includes some policies that head in the right direction, the bill categorically falls short of the moment. Its shortcomings are especially disappointing given the recent abandonment of targeted support to help farmers deal with the impacts of climate change and increasingly severe weather, USDA’s extreme staffing reduction that weakens its ability to deliver conservation assistance, and the administration’s cancellation and disincentivization of climate research. The following analysis is divided into two primary sections addressing:

• Conservation Programs and Funding
• Research, Education, and Extension Programs

Conservation Programs and Funding

Funding

The FFNSA largely maintains recent investments in conservation programs from 2025’s budget reconciliation bill, which moved the Inflation Reduction Act (IRA) climate-smart conservation funding into programs’ permanent baseline budgets. There are, however, two major exceptions.

First, FFNSA siphons off $1 billion in Conservation Stewardship Programs (CSP) funding over 10 years for a new grant program supporting states and Tribes administering soil health programs (Section 2303). While the National Sustainable Agriculture Coalition (NSAC) has championed providing federal support for state and Tribal soil health programs, the FFNSA’s iteration of that idea is a non-starter. Currently, only about 53% of farmers applying to CSP have been able to secure contracts. It makes little sense to further stretch already limited and clearly popular resources across new purposes and subprograms. Doing so would ensure that farmers interested in CSP continue to get left behind.

Further, CSP is capable of delivering funds to farmers quickly, as was demonstrated by the speed with which IRA investments flowed through the existing CSP infrastructure within nine months of IRA’s passage. Conversely, brand new programs take time to set up and require procedural steps such as rulemaking before the Natural Resource Conservation Service (NRCS) can administer them, which can take years. As the agricultural economy writ large continues to struggle and farmers need all available forms of support right now, it would be a poor decision at this moment in history to disinvest in an existing, successful program that can quickly provide producers with five years of financial support for their ongoing conservation efforts to experiment with a new program. Now is not the time to rob a helpful Peter to pay a new Paul.

Placing a state and Tribal soil health assistance program in CSP makes even less sense, given that other conservation programs, such as the Regional Conservation Partnership Program (RCPP), are already designed to provide federal support for conservation work led by non-federal partners. NSAC hopes that Congress continues to see the wisdom of authorizing state and Tribal soil health programs, either as a new stand-alone program with its own funding source, as proposed in the Agriculture Resilience Act (ARA), or as part of RCPP as proposed in the Rural Prosperity and Food Security Act in the Senate. NSAC opposes diverting CSP funding for subprograms or initiatives.

The second proposed change to funding is in the Environmental Quality Incentives Program (EQIP). The FFNSA proposes reducing EQIP’s budget authority (BA) by just over $1 billion over the first five years of its 10-year implementation window. This means farmers would experience an immediate cut to EQIP funding in the field, since BA is the total amount of money that NRCS is authorized to spend. When NRCS is fully staffed and there are no administrative disruptions to programs, EQIP often obligates all available funding every year. However, since BA was left intact for the final five years of the budget window, or the “out years”, EQIP’s long-term increased baseline was not reduced in the FFNSA. This means that the next time Congress tinkers with EQIP, whether in a farm bill extension, budget reconciliation, or a full farm bill reauthorization, EQIP’s budget will remain as high as it is today. NSAC strongly supports maintaining a strong long term baseline budget for EQIP, though it questions the wisdom of the proposed reductions in near term BA.

This reduction in EQIP BA appears to be paying for two things: a small list of other conservation programs that also needed funding; and policy reforms across FFNSA’s conservation title (Title II) that are projected to increase outlays for a given program, or were “scored as a cost” by the Congressional Budget Office (CBO). Starting with smaller conservation programs that receive funding, totals are clearly listed in the text of the FFNSA:

• Conservation Reserve Program – Transition Incentive Program – $50 million
• Conservation Reserve Program – Forest Management Incentive Program = $12 million
• Forest Conservation Easement Program = $240 million
• Feral Swine Eradication & Control Program = $150 million  

Total new baseline authority = $452 million 

This accounts for just under half of the lost EQIP BA. For the CRP TIP program in particular, NSAC is glad to see efforts to find funding for one of the primary tools in Title II of the farm bill for improving land access for beginning producers. Access to land remains one of the most significant challenges for new and beginning producers, and Congress should seek to invest in and improve these tools at every opportunity. However, EQIP can also be a useful tool for beginning producers, who may be making major purchases for the first time, such as buying fencing to support a new rotational grazing business. As such, this again seems like an unnecessary instance of robbing Peter to pay Paul.

For the second source of EQIP BA reductions, the picture is less clear. As of posting, there’s no reliable indicator on which specific provisions increased outlays and therefore drove the reduction in EQIP BA, though it is clear that outlays increased. CBO’s summary cost estimate for the FFNSA showed increased outlays for all major conservation programs, indicating that many policy provisions sought in this bill “cost” money that could otherwise be going to farmers interested in the EQIP program as it exists right now. NSAC strongly encourages Congress to be more transparent regarding trade offs like these, so producers and agricultural stakeholders can make informed choices about the trade offs being proposed.

Precision Agriculture

The FFNSA dramatically increases support for precision agriculture technologies in conservation programs (Section 2202, 2204, 2302). While NSAC recognizes that precision agriculture has demonstrable benefits for some operations, it remains a relatively high-cost conservation solution that does not serve all farmers. Conservation program funding is limited, and providing overly robust support for practices unsuitable for all operations leads to a small set of farms consuming an outsized portion of program resources. This is an irresponsible use of limited government funding, especially when there are size- and scale-neutral management alternatives that serve far more farmers and deliver greater environmental benefits per dollar spent. NSAC calls on Congress to consider a fairer and more balanced approach to supporting precision agriculture in this farm bill.

Conservation Stewardship Program (CSP)

CSP is perhaps the most impactful tool available to address climate change on farms today. The program rewards producers who build holistic conservation systems across their entire operation, investing in new practices and practice permanence over the long term – both of which are necessary to address the climate crisis. CSP is the only conservation program designed to achieve both goals. Unfortunately, the FFNSA proposes some negative changes to CSP.

While proposed diversions of CSP funding are discussed above in the funding section, the FFNSA also proposes creating Supplemental Activity Payments (SAP) for adopting and acquiring precision agriculture technologies through CSP. Currently, CSP only offers SAPs for Resource Conserving Crop Rotations, Improved Resource Conserving Crop Rotations, and Advanced Grazing Management. Each of these three conservation activities represents a holistic approach to improving conservation across an entire operation, either by requiring producers to adopt multiple practice enhancements on the same acres or to pursue ambitious, measurable soil health goals, such as increasing organic matter (OM) over the life of their CSP contract. NRCS offers 150% of a normal activity payment through SAPs for these high level activities because of the increased conservation benefits they create and the additional labor it takes to plan and manage such holistic systems. 

However, purchasing or utilizing precision agriculture technology does not rise to the same level of stewardship as these holistic practices, nor does it require the same level of increased labor. Further, CSP already offers sufficient support for precision agriculture through five separate precision agriculture bundles that compensate producers at 115% of the normal activity payment rate. These bundle payments reflect the value of using precision agriculture technologies in concert with other base conservation practices, and NRCS already has the authority to create additional precision agriculture bundles at any time. Therefore, NSAC opposes FFNSA’s proposal to create additional, outsized payments for precision agriculture in CSP.

Perhaps the most positive change to CSP proposed in the FFNSA, compared to the previous version of the bill, is the codification of a $4,000 minimum payment option. Raising the minimum payment has long been a priority for NSAC to reduce administrative burden and ensure adequate cost share for smaller farms enrolling in the program. NSAC is pleased to see FFNSA adopt our position and create in statute a $4,0000 minimum CSP payment. This mirrors the minimum payment that NRCS began offering to producers in recent years, and would ensure producers will have that option going forward. NSAC strongly supports including this provision in any final farm bill.

Environmental Quality Incentives Program (EQIP)

EQIP is a voluntary conservation program that offers farmers and ranchers financial cost-share and technical assistance to implement conservation practices on working agricultural land. EQIP assistance is available through both a general pool and special initiatives. EQIP’s special initiatives highlight specific practices or natural resources, such as the Organic Initiative, which provides separate funding pools for transitioning and certified organic producers. Beyond the funding reductions discussed above, the FFNSA makes several modifications to EQIP, some of which are deeply concerning.

The most meaningful and problematic changes to EQIP in the FFNSA adjust which practices and farmers stand to gain the most from the program. Once again, the bill plays favorites by offering an excessive cost share – increased to 90% – for acquiring or adopting precision agriculture technology. Current EQIP payments cover 75% of costs associated with planning, design, materials, equipment, installation, labor, management, maintenance, or training needed for conservation activities that involve precision agriculture technologies. Raising the rate to 90% is an unnecessary overinvestment with the potential to exacerbate trends in farmers being turned away from the program due to insufficient funding. Further, individual states can already raise cost share rates for precision agriculture conservation activities if they deem such activities to be among their top 10 priorities for the year (16 USC 3839aa(2)(d)(7)). Therefore, mandating that all states raise cost share rates for precision agriculture to 90% is not only excessive, but it also stands in stark opposition to the locally-led conservation planning process that House Agriculture Committee Chairman Glenn Thompson (R-PA-15) has championed. 

The FFNSA maintains the existing carveout that ensures livestock producers will receive 50% of total EQIP funding during the life of the farm bill. This long standing set aside has led to significant portions of EQIP spending going towards infrastructure practices of questionable environmental value. This is a major loss, as the ARA proposed retargeting two-thirds of this carveout towards sustainable grazing practices, which have been shown to help mitigate climate change and build increased resilience to drought and floods on farms and ranches around the nation.

Additionally, the FFNSA fails to make a series of important improvements to EQIP that were proposed in former Senate Agriculture Committee Chairwoman Debbie Stabenow’s Rural Prosperity and Food Security Act (RPFSA), leaving in place long standing obstacles barring certain producers and stakeholder groups from meaningful participation in EQIP. The FFNSA fails to create a funding set-aside for small farms, as proposed in the Small Farms Conservation Act (bill #) and the RFPSA, signaling loudly and clearly the FFNSA’s bias toward farmers and ranchers who have amassed a minimum amount of acreage. Similarly, the FFNSA does not add a requirement that NRCS State Technical Advisory Committees consult with Tribes when determining the top 10 priority practices that will receive increased cost share support through EQIP, as proposed in the RPFSA. This leaves in place a barrier for Tribes seeking to ensure EQIP addresses the most pressing natural resource concerns impacting their communities. Finally, FFNSA leaves in place a discriminatory lower payment limit for organic producers accessing EQIP. While it does increase the limit to $200,000, a small step up from the existing $140,000 organic payment limit, the FFNSA still falls well short of providing organic producers with the same payment limit of $450,000 to which all other producers are subject. The RPFSA, on the other hand, would establish equal payment limits for both organic and non-organic producers.

Elsewhere, the FFNSA does make a few changes to EQIP that are not outright harmful. The bill authorizes a producer enrolled in EQIP to receive a loan or loan guarantee through the Conservation Loan Program to cover costs for the same practices on the same land covered by the EQIP contract. Further, FFNSA requires the Secretary to notify producers participating in EQIP that they may be eligible to participate in the Conservation Loan Program. While this policy comes dangerously close to paying for the same conservation practices twice with different pools of public funds, if well implemented, it has the potential to be a more judicious option for providing increased support to producers without building outsized cost share rates into EQIP. NSAC is hopeful that this concept can be refined and improved as the farm bill debate continues.

The FFNSA also addresses the Conservation Innovation Grants (CIG) program. CIGs support the development and testing of promising new conservation technologies and approaches with the goal of making them available for use as quickly as possible by farmers and ranchers. In addition to providing funds directly to farmers and ranchers looking to adopt and enhance conservation practices on their land, NRCS also provides CIGs to fund projects that seek to develop and improve access to innovative conservation solutions for farmers and ranchers nationwide through on-farm pilots and demonstration projects. The FFNSA directs the Secretary to use CIGs for the development and evaluation of new and innovative technologies that may be incorporated into Conservation Practice Standards (CPS), including CPS that involve precision agriculture technology. NSAC sees this explicit instruction to use CIGs to improve CPS as positive. It’s a common sense policy that ensures the latest information USDA has on conservation practices is put to use when designing conservation practices on the ground across the country. However, NSAC has reservations about building an overemphasis on precision agriculture technology into conservation programs.

Further, the Agriculture Improvement Act of 2018 (2018 Farm Bill) set aside $37.5 million for each fiscal year for CIG projects that address air quality, an increase from the $25 million annual allocation in the Agricultural Act of 2014 (2014 Farm Bill). The FFNSA preserves this allocation for air quality projects, though NSAC advocated for an increase to $50 million per year. Given the pressing climate crisis, more CIG funds need to be dedicated to addressing air quality concerns, especially if projects will be utilized more consistently to improve CPS under the next farm bill. Such a combination of policies would help build NRCS’ capacity to support farmers in mitigating climate change and building resilience in their operations through all conservation programs offering practice cost share.

Similarly, the 2018 Farm Bill established On-Farm Conservation Innovation Trials (On-Farm Trials), a CIG subprogram, to provide funding directly to partners, who can then offer technical assistance and payments to producers interested in implementing innovative conservation practices on their land. On-Farm Trials support the implementation of innovative approaches that have a positive conservation effect but have not yet been widely adopted by producers. NRCS is authorized to provide $25 million per year for on-farm trials. The FFNSA continues this $25M funding for on-farm conservation innovation trials, a slim silver lining given the need for more funding. On-Farm Trials have their own subprogram, the Soil Health Demonstration Trials, which focuses exclusively on conservation practices and systems that enhance soil health and increase soil carbon. Improving soil health on farms provides producers with a host of environmental and financial benefits, and as such, NSAC has been advocating for at least $50 million in funding each year for this subprogram. As the farm bill debate continues, NSAC hopes Congress will consider increasing funding for these high impact CIG subprograms.

Finally, the FFNSA makes a few meaningful improvements to EQIP. The existing statute allows states to raise the cost share to 90% for up to 10 practices that meet at least one of four broad environmental goals (16 USC 3839aa(2)(d)(7)). The FFNSA adds carbon sequestration and GHG reduction as a new fifth goal that states can seek to address when selecting priority practices that receive 90% cost share. NSAC agrees wholeheartedly with this common sense approach to targeting conservation funds to address the climate crisis, especially since it closely mirrors the program-wide targeting of EQIP funds formerly built into the IRA. NSAC encourages Congress to adopt this change in a final farm bill, as well as similar climate-targeting language for all major conservation programs.

Turning back to the CIG program, the FFNSA adds “perennial production systems, including agroforestry and perennial forages and grain crops” to the scope of CIG On-Farm Conservation Innovation Trials. Perennial systems are among the most powerful agriculture systems for mitigating the climate crisis, building resilience in the landscape, and realizing a host of additional conservation benefits. As such, NSAC strongly supports an explicit focus on perennial systems in the CIG program.

Alternative Manure Management Practices (AMMP)

The FFNSA does not contain a proposal to support AMMP technologies as envisioned in the ARA or the COWS Act. NSAC is disappointed to see this omission, as shifting the technologies used to handle manure on midsized livestock operations is critical to addressing agriculture’s contributions to climate change. As many parts of the country cannot transition fully to year-round, grass-based livestock systems, it is vital to dedicate funding to AMMP technologies to ensure that instances where confinement is likely to continue are as ecologically friendly as can be. NSAC calls on the House and Senate to include the bipartisan COWS Act provisions in a final farm bill.

Grazing Lands Conservation Initiative (GLCI)

The FFNSA maintains the current appropriations authorization of $60 million per year for GLCI. NSAC believes strongly that grazers need dependable access to technical assistance and that such funding should not be subject to the whims of the annual appropriations process. Therefore, GLCI needs a minimum of $50 million per year in mandatory funding to provide sufficient funding to meet the strong demand for technical assistance and ensure such assistance is provided without interruption.

Research, Education, and Extension Programs

In comparison to the enormous opportunity that sustainable agriculture represents for farmers and rural communities, federal investment in sustainable agriculture research, education, and extension has been minuscule. Without robust funding for public research that promotes ecologically-based production systems, scientific and technical innovation is stifled, and U.S. farmers and ranchers are unable to fully participate in and benefit from emerging markets for sustainably-produced foods. At a time when the effects of climate change on farmers are becoming ever more apparent, and the country is losing small and mid-sized family farms at an alarming rate, the FFNSA maintains the status quo. Instead of investing in research and innovation that builds on-farm resilience and moves our food and farm system forward, the bill continues down the same detrimental path for the next five years.

Sustainable Agriculture Research and Education (SARE) program

While FFNSA meets the low bar of reauthorizing popular sustainable and organic research programs like the SARE program (Section 7201) and the Organic Agriculture Research and Extension Initiative (OREI) (Section 7205), the bill does not include additional funding for either program. SARE was first created in 1988, and in 1990, Congress authorized the SARE program and determined that it should be funded at no less than $60 million a year, consistent with recommendations by the National Academy of Sciences. However, after nearly 40 years as USDA’s only farmer-driven, sustainable agriculture competitive research grant program, SARE has yet to see an increase in funding authorization. Combined with inflation, level funding for SARE in a new farm bill would effectively amount to a funding cut. 

SARE provides farmers and researchers with vital opportunities to better understand agricultural systems, increase profitability, and build resilience to climate change. Farmers and ranchers have critical insight when it comes to improving their systems. Yet, the demand for farmer-led research continues to outpace federal funding. According to SARE’s 2025-2026 Biannual Report, 60% of eligible farmer/rancher grant proposals go unfunded.

Organic Agriculture Research and Extension Initiative (OREI)

OREI is one of a still limited number of research, education, and extension programs that provide focused support for organic systems. Strong investments in research underpin growth in numerous sectors, as all farmers – sustainable, organic, conventional, or otherwise – rely on cutting-edge research to maintain robust and thriving operations. Although FFNSA maintains level funding for OREI, it does not reflect the growth of the organic market since 2018 or the current challenges facing organic farmers. Level funding fails to provide the organic sector with the tools to create thriving businesses in the face of changing weather patterns and shifting markets. 

Organic Transitions Program (ORG)

A long time priority for NSAC has been official authorization for the Organic Transitions Program (ORG), which supports research helping farmers move from conventional to organic production. The program has historically been funded through appropriations, but has never been formally authorized in statute. Amendment 102, introduced by Representative Eugene Vindman (D-VA-07), proposed to formally authorize ORG, renaming it to the Researching the Transition to Organic Program (RTOP) and providing $7.5 million in discretionary funding. NSAC supported this amendment, and it was glad to see it approved by voice vote during markup.

Precision Agriculture

FFNSA’s focus on precision agriculture, automation, and “high risk high priority research” across the research title detracts from much needed investments in farmer-led, scale-appropriate research. Programs like the Agriculture Advanced Research and Development Authority, a $30 million carve out in the Speciality Crop Research Initiative (SCRI) for mechanization and automation (Section 7305), and a greater emphasis on automation and precision agriculture in the Agriculture and Food Research Initiative (AFRI), demonstrate a continued quest for “silver-bullet” solutions to climate change and other agricultural challenges, and appear to come at the expense of more robust research investments in diversified agriculture.  

While NSAC supports research that directly contributes to “a reduction in, or improved efficiency of, inputs used in crop or livestock production,” it is clear that the prevailing narrative surrounding these types of agriculture research is aimed not at improving diversified systems, but at further enabling large-scale, monoculture agriculture. This approach is misguided given the ample evidence that scale-neutral, management-intensive practices likely yield even greater environmental benefits. USDA funding should be directed toward building an understanding of the ecological aspects of our food and farm systems and integrating the diverse knowledge and practices of agroecological farmers and farm workers, rather than continuing to explore and promote the narrow constraints of monoculture-based systems.

Agriculture and Food Research Initiative (AFRI)

NSAC is pleased to see some inclusion of the ARA in FFNSA’s proposal for AFRI. For example, NSAC welcomes the addition of regionally adapted cultivar and breed development, breeding for environmental resilience, and the addition of workforce training and development, including meat and poultry processing in the agriculture economics and rural communities priority area (Section 7305). However, these new additions, alongside several others – like controlled-environment agriculture production and precision agriculture – all come without any additional funding for AFRI, spreading the program across many issue areas, likely resulting in the program’s limited ability to support more agroecologically focused agricultural research.

Farming Opportunities Training and Outreach (FOTO) program

FFNSA reauthorizes FOTO and maintains $50 million in mandatory funding. FOTO was a new initiative established in the 2018 Farm Bill that combined two of USDA’s flagship training and technical assistance programs for historically underserved farmers – the Beginning Farmer and Rancher Development Program (BFRDP) and the Section 2501 program. However, management of BFRDP was kept under the National Institute of Food and Agriculture (NIFA), while management of 2501 was moved into the newly created Office of Public Partnerships and Engagement (OPPE). In addition to maintaining mandatory funding for FOTO established in the 2018 Farm Bill, FFNSA proposes moving the management of 2501 back to NIFA.

During markup, Representative Brad Finstad (R-MN-01) introduced Amendment 19, which proposed significant changes to FOTO – affecting both 2501 and the BFRDP.  

For 2501, the amendment proposed moving the program to NIFA, altering its priority in making grants and contracts to “organizations that provide training and technical assistance in budgeting, business planning, and similar financial and management skills that focus on the ongoing economic viability of beginning farm and ranch enterprises”, and changing the peer review process by removing the requirement for review panels to include a broad representation of peers and instead include “a broad representation of individuals with demonstrated expertise in farm business management.” 

For BFRDP, similar changes were made to entities prioritized when making agreements and contracts and peer review panels. However, this amendment went one step further with BFRDP, removing prioritization in making contracts and agreements to partnerships and collaborations that are led by or include nongovernmental, community-based organizations and school-based educational organizations with expertise in new agricultural producer training and outreach, and instead prioritizing programs that provide training and technical assistance in budgeting, business planning, and similar financial and management skills that focus on the ongoing economic viability of beginning farm and ranch enterprises. 

While NSAC supports giving NIFA clearer authority to run 2501, the changes to priority areas and peer reviews with FOTO deprioritizes community based organizations, and give USDA greater authority to influence peer review panels, watering down the effectiveness of the program. NSAC opposed this amendment, and it was approved by voice vote.

1890 Land Grant Institutions

NSAC was pleased to see FFNSA provide several important investments in 1890s Institutions, including increasing mandatory funding for the 1890s Scholarship program to $100 million until expended, increasing funding for 1890s Extension from its current 20 percent to no less than 40 percent, and increasing the number of 1890 Centers of Excellence.

National Organic Program (NOP)

FFNSA caps funding for the National Organic Program (NOP) at $24 million annually and does not increase the funding level over the life of the farm bill. In addition, the bill authorizes NOP to provide technical assistance to farmers transitioning to organic, but does not provide any additional funding to support TA.  NOP currently oversees more than 46,000 operations in more than 100 countries, and the organic sector continues to grow.  NOP’s expanded authority, coupled with the growth of the organic sector, signals the need for more, not level funding, to adequately enforce organic regulations, provide TA to transitioning farmers, and tackle fraud in organic supply chains.

The post Unpacking the House Farm Bill: Part 4 appeared first on National Sustainable Agriculture Coalition.

Editor’s Note: This is the third post in a four-part blog series analyzing the Farm, Food, and National Security Act of 2026, which was reported out of the House Agriculture Committee on March 5. The first post provides an overview of the markup process and the bill as a whole. The second post provides a deep dive analysis of the bill’s potential impacts on local and regional food systems. This post offers an analysis of its impacts on the farm safety net, farms’ ability to access land and capital, and fair competition.  The fourth post covers conservation, climate resilience, and sustainable and organic research. 

The Farm, Food, and National Security Act of 2026 (FFNSA) fails to provide a robust farm safety net for all farmers. 

Many farmers find themselves at an inflection point similar to the farm crisis of the late 1980s. Today, high production costs, unstable markets, and low crop prices driven by uncertain export markets and overproduction have converged to create an economic climate in which farmers’ livelihoods are threatened.

While there are several proposals in FFNSA that the National Sustainable Agriculture Coalition (NSAC) believes take steps in the right direction, misguided provisions and the absence of meaningful reforms – coupled with the commodity and crop insurance provisions from 2025’s H.R. 1 – only perpetuate the status quo of inequitable resource distribution in US farming. At a moment when we need to re-envision the farm safety net, FFNSA falls significantly short.

The following analysis is divided into sections addressing changes to disaster assistance, access to land and farm credit, crop insurance, and fair competition.

• Disaster Assistance 
• Access to Land and Farm Credit
• Crop Insurance
• Fair Competition

Disaster Assistance Frameworks

FFNSA includes a few notable changes to the structure of future disaster and economic relief programs. 

In the context of a stable and reliable farm safety net, disaster relief programs should be primarily used to respond to extreme weather or emergency circumstances, and to cover impacts beyond standard crop production losses. However, FFNSA takes a different approach.  Rather than taking necessary steps to strengthen and increase access to existing and permanent safety net programs, the bill moves the future of the farm safety net further in the direction of increased disaster and economic assistance programs delivered through ad hoc spending. 

Ad hoc spending creates a complicated web of programs, applications, timelines, and eligibility criteria that farmers and ranchers need to sift through to receive the support they need. This aid often leaves out a significant number of producers altogether and concentrates funds amongst a smaller number of large operations. Consequently, while NSAC generally agrees that creating consistent criteria for disaster and economic assistance programs would be beneficial, FFNSA would establish criteria that fall short for many farmers while also failing to reform the underlying current safety net – for example, through improvements to the Whole Farm Revenue Protection Program, or re-envisioning commodity programs entirely.

Specialty Crop Assistance Framework

For specialty crop farmers, the bill establishes a permanent framework for future emergency assistance programs in response to an adverse event, including economic crises or market disruptions. The program – which shares some similarities with the Marketing Assistance for Speciality Crops (MASC) program, but is not identical – would calculate payments based on sales from the previous market year, and establish a consistent mechanism and methodology framework to distribute emergency aid for specialty crop producers (Section 1003).

Specialty crop farmers are often left out of assistance programs for a number of reasons. As exemplified through the Assistance for Specialty Crop Farmers (ASCF) program, programs that provide assistance based on acreage for each given crop – a structure that typically works well for commodities – do not work well for specialty crop farmers. While the proposed framework is a step in the right direction, as written, Section 1003 does not adequately provide coverage for specialty crop farmers of all sizes and experience levels. It establishes high payment limits of $900,000 for farmers deriving at least 75% of their income from farming activities, potentially concentrating any limited funds made available to a smaller number of large producers. While specialty crop farmers may need higher payments than commodity growers due to higher costs, payment limits should still be structured to responsibly and equitably deliver program resources. The proposed program would also exclude new producers who were impacted by an adverse event but had no recorded sales in the year prior. The MASC program accounted for this by allowing for certified expected sales for the following year to qualify for payments.

State Disaster Block Grant Authority

FFNSA also gives the US Department of Agriculture (USDA) the authority to administer future disaster programs through state block grants (Section 1004). State administered disaster programs often prove to be a double-edged sword: while they have the potential to offer more tailored support for a state’s unique experience with a disaster, in practice, they often face significant delays in funding disbursement, create inconsistent standards across states, and reduce USDA’s ability to ensure compliance across programs and reduce duplicative payments. Many of these challenges arise from the lack of familiarity State Departments of Agriculture have with USDA disaster programs and vice versa. As written, FFNSA provides few protections to ensure these issues do not hinder relief efforts when administered through state block grants. An amendment offered by Rep. Salud Carbajal (D-CA-24) to address some of these issues by requiring standardization across future block grants – including proportional distribution of funds, consistent eligibility standards, and data reporting requirements, among other provisions – was filed but withdrawn without a vote.

Currently, USDA is in the process of administering nearly a dozen state block grants – first initiated by the American Relief Act in response to extreme weather events – to replace or supplement the Supplemental Disaster Relief Program. Highlighting the challenges of administering these programs, only two of these states have launched their relief programs to date. Virginia completed their program as of November 2025, and Georgia’s supplemental grant program recently opened applications as of March 2026. North Carolina will be next to open applications for part of its program by the end of March. Other programs for Northeastern states and Hawaii, which opted for replacement state block grants in lieu of eligibility through the national SDRP program, have yet to be announced, with no timetable for distributing funds. As a result, some farmers and ranchers who experienced losses as long ago as 2023 are still awaiting aid from USDA. 

Equitable Access to Land and Capital

Farming and ranching are among the hardest careers to pursue due in part to high barriers to entry. This makes it critical for the next farm bill to support farmers’ access to farmland and to finance high startup costs. The FFNSA takes some steps in this direction, and a couple of steps back. 

Notably, the bill raises the limits that any individual borrower may owe to a lender for USDA’s Farm Service Agency (FSA) direct and guaranteed operating and farm ownership loans. NSAC is supportive of increased limits to microloans from $50,000 to $100,000, and recognizes the need to increase direct operating and ownership loans to keep pace with rising costs of inputs and assets. FFNSA would also increase direct operating loans from $400,000 to $750,000, direct farm ownership loans from $600,000 to $850,000, and guaranteed farm ownership loans from $1.75 million to $3.5 million, and guaranteed operating loans from $1.75 million to $3 million. However, there are several considerations and potential consequences to these changes. Increasing such limits without conditions would continue to allow FSA-backed loans to finance the development of new and expanded Concentrated Animal Feeding Operations (CAFOs). Further, FFNSA raises these limits without any increase to the total funding authorization of FSA to make these loans, subject to annual appropriations. This could result in bigger loans to fewer farms, and limit available funding for smaller operations (Sections 5105, 5202, 5203, 5402). 

FFNSA would problematically provide sole authority to the Farm Credit Administration to regulate the Farm Credit System (FCS) (Section 5504). This provision would remove any regulatory authority from other entities, including the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB), and further erode the CFPB’s demographic reporting requirements in Rule 1071 for loans administered through FCS. This provision would also limit public information regarding who is receiving agricultural loans and inhibit efforts to ensure that all farmers and ranchers have equal access to credit.

NSAC supports the authorization of FSA to restructure distressed guaranteed loans into direct loans for distressed borrowers. However, the provision would require borrowers to already be in monetary default, forcing borrowers to be on the brink of financial crisis before qualifying for this refinancing opportunity. A more expansive refinancing authority, as included in the Fair Credit for Farmers Act (S.3126/H.R. 6169), would provide more tools for farmers and ranchers to solidify their finances before reaching the brink. The FFNSA also leaves out other important protections for farmers and ranchers, such as requiring FSA concurrence prior to any asset liquidation (Section 5103).

The FFNSA does take small steps to streamline access to farm ownership loans for beginning farmers, including reducing the experience requirement to be eligible from three years to two years, with a series of conditions under which USDA may issue loans to farmers with only one year of experience. To help farmers navigate the rapid turnaround of land sales, the FFNSA also directs USDA to establish a pilot program for farmers to receive advanced pre-approval on farm ownership loans, and establishes an expedited approval process for loans under $1 million (Section 5102, 5110, 5111).

Further, while the bill does not include most provisions from the Fair Credit for Farmers Act to reform the imbalanced National Appeals Division (NAD) process, it would at least reform the current standard where individual farmers must carry the burden of proof to challenge their denial by a federal agency. Instead, USDA would need to prove that its decision to deny a loan to a farmer was righteous. That is an important step in the right direction (Section 12203). 

Finally, the bill meets the bare minimum of reauthorizing the Heirs’ Property Intermediary Relending Program, though it positively authorizes USDA to enter into cooperative agreements to provide legal services to underserved heirs (Section 5109).

Crop Insurance 

Unfortunately, FFNSA fails to initiate any meaningful reforms that would alleviate bureaucratic red tape and streamline access to crop insurance for the small, diversified, and direct-to-consumer farmers and ranchers who are too often left behind. With only 13 percent of farms insured against worsening floods, droughts, and other disasters, the next farm bill must take steps to expand access to the federal crop insurance program, rather than exacerbating the program’s structural flaws and incentivizing risky farming behaviors. 

FFNSA requires an annual review of challenges to access Whole-Farm Revenue Protection (WFRP), but does nothing else to improve the program or reduce barriers to accessing this product (Section 11012). The provision is largely unnecessary, as such USDA reviews are already common practice, and the barriers and corresponding solutions to accessing WFRP are well-documented. An amendment to add the Save Our Small Farms Act (H.R.2435, S.1217), which would remove many of the well-established barriers and challenges with WFRP, was offered but rejected on party lines during the committee’s mark up. 

The bill amends the eligibility definitions for the additional crop insurance premium discounts passed in the One Big Beautiful Bill Act (OBBB, P.L. 119-21), including veteran producers for the premium discounts (Section 11007). While this is an important investment for beginning and veteran producers, it will have minimal impact if not paired with more foundational reforms to streamline paperwork and address the disincentive that agents experience to sell insurance to small and diversified farms. 

The bill also establishes a Specialty Crop Advisory Committee to inform the development and expansion of crop insurance. But without conditions that any of its appointees represent beginning, small, diversified, or organic farmers, it will not reflect the specific needs of the full diversity of American specialty crop farms (Section 11001).

FFNSA also directs several research initiatives to explore new insurance products, including limited weather based index policies, but misses the opportunity to enshrine an index-based policy as comprehensive as found in the WEATHER Act (S.231) and the Save Our Small Farms Act (Sec. 11014). While failing to address barriers or reduce the costs of crop insurance for many uninsured operations, the bill codifies increased reimbursement rates included in OBBB for administrative and operating costs for private Approved Insurance Providers (AIPs) (Section 11009). 

Fair Competition 

The FFNSA fails to include any provisions that would combat consolidation in the food system. 

In fact, there are a series of concerning provisions regarding competition in the meat processing sector (Section 12111). These provisions create an exemption within the Packers and Stockyards Act regulations that allows market agencies – including stockyard owners – to purchase or invest in meatpackers’ operations. While this is ostensibly intended to generate more private investment within western cattle processing operations, this provision could also lead to instances in which the only stockyard owner in the area also has a controlling interest in the only meatpacking operation in the area. This leads to vertical integration and coordination along the processing supply chain. This possibility is concerning, especially considering that the FFNSA sets the size limit for the exemption at the point where plants or companies operating in the top quintile of processing could qualify for it. The FFNSA also includes a provision to restrict a state’s ability to set its own agricultural policies, specifically nullifying state laws such as California’s Proposition 12 (Section 12006). This would significantly harm smaller independent ranchers who have invested in and benefited from such policies for years, and serve to benefit the largest corporations and agribusinesses seeking to remove such regulations.

The post Unpacking the House Farm Bill: Part 3 appeared first on National Sustainable Agriculture Coalition.

Editor’s Note: This is the second post in a four-part blog series analyzing the Farm, Food, and National Security Act of 2026, which was reported out of the House Agriculture Committee on March 5. The first post provides an overview of the markup process and the bill as a whole. This article provides a deep dive analysis of the bill’s potential impacts on local and regional food systems. The third post offers an analysis of its impacts on the farm safety net, farms’ ability to access land and capital, and fair competition. The fourth post covers conservation, climate resilience, and sustainable and organic research. 

In a moment where families and farmers are facing increased costs, The Farm, Food, and National Security Act of 2026 (FFNSA) takes modest steps to invest in local food supply chains while unfortunately neglecting to address the historically deep cuts to the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program included in 2025’s budget reconciliation bill (H.R. 1). Most notably, the bill would create a permanent – albeit unfunded – program that empowers states to develop their own community nutrition programs that purchase from small and mid-size farms and beginning and veteran farmers to distribute in food insecure communities. At other times, the bill underfunds programs, significantly jeopardizing their success. 

The following analysis is divided into sections addressing local and regional market access and development, supply chain infrastructure and support, and food access:

• Market Access and Development
• Supply Chain Infrastructure and Support
• Food Access

Local Food: Market Access and Development

In 2025, the US Department of Agriculture (USDA) unexpectedly terminated two programs that sought to connect producers to new markets via business technical assistance and market access. The March termination came at a time when many farmers had already purchased supplies or expanded operations in anticipation of future sales. Since then, there has been notable support in the House and Senate for a new, permanent program that would invest in reliable state and domestic markets. 

Local Farmers Feeding our Communities

The FFNSA creates a new program, the Local Farmers Feeding our Communities Program, which directs USDA to enter into cooperative agreements with state agencies and Tribal governments to provide them with funding to purchase and distribute local food to communities in need (Section 4306). Nestled in the nutrition title, it is clear that the program would readily provide healthy foods to food insecure communities. However, the primary focus of the program is to expand economic opportunities for small- and mid-sized farms, beginning and veteran farmers, while strengthening regional food networks. In addition to funding for direct food purchases, the new program includes:

• An emphasis on farm-fresh local products, requiring all food purchases to be minimally processed foods; 
• A requirement for at least 25% of the total annual value of products purchased under these agreements to come from small, midsize, beginning, or veteran producers; 
• Funding for administration and technical support that helps producers obtain food safety training and certification; 
• An authorization of appropriations for $200 million annually; 
• A directive that 10% of total funding be allocated first to Tribal nations, with each state then receiving 1% of funds, and all remaining funding to be allocated utilizing the Emergency Food Assistance state allocation formula. 

The inclusion of the Farmers Feeding our Communities Program is an instance of Congress responding to farmers and communities nationwide, celebrating the success of the previous Local Food Purchase Assistance Program while also making pragmatic improvements, such as directing technical assistance for food safety. However, without mandatory funding, the program would not be able to provide reliable market access, limiting program effectiveness and making farmers hesitant to participate. 

Food Safety Outreach Program

Investments in food safety education and equipment or training are essential to meeting ever-evolving market and regulatory food safety requirements. Without sufficient investments, these food safety requirements can prevent many smaller-scale producers from entering new markets. The FFNSA meets the bare minimum of reauthorizing some of the programs that provide these investments – such as the Food Safety Outreach Program (FSOP). FSOP, which funds education on a variety of food safety topics, includes an intentional focus on reaching underserved producer communities. However, FFNSA misses an opportunity to increase funding levels for FSOP, a crucial misstep, especially given the array of food safety regulations increasingly impacting smaller producers. It also makes the misstep of removing a community outreach and grant feedback component that may negatively impact program structure in the future (Sec. 7301).

Local Agriculture Market Program 

The farm bill has a longstanding history of supporting local market development through programs such as the Local Agriculture Market Program.  Yet, FFNSA fails to fully respond to the growing program demand and its proven track record in generating new business revenue and jobs. FFNSA offers program reforms that codify a simplified, turnkey application process, which will support essential activities such as farmers’ market manager time, marketing activities, and special purpose equipment. Unfortunately, it does not offer an increase in appropriations or mandatory funding levels. The combined effect of the changes may generate more demand than the program can support (Section 10102). 

Federal Procurement Reform 

Without a Child Nutrition Reauthorization anywhere on the horizon, the farm bill is the primary opportunity to update federal food procurement policies that respond to the needs of farmers, businesses, school nutrition stakeholders, and communities. FFNSA directs USDA to examine USDA’s food purchasing practices to understand 1) barriers for farmers and businesses to sell nontraditional, culturally relevant, or local and regional products directly to USDA, and 2) the quality of foods being purchased for USDA programs. This assessment would also make administrative, regulatory, and legislative recommendations to address barriers. This is a small but necessary step in updating long term commodity purchasing practices (Section 10106). 

Cooperative Interstate Shipment Program

Meat and poultry processing is a closely regulated industry. Yet, for decades, geographic and funding limitations have frequently prevented Food Safety and Inspection Service (FSIS) personnel from providing food safety education before regulation. These same limitations have also made it challenging for FSIS to cost-effectively regulate smaller processors in many states. As a result, Congress created the Cooperative Interstate Shipment Program (CIS) in the Food Conservation, and Energy Act of 2008 (2008 Farm Bill) to enable products processed at state-inspected plants to be sold interstate if the state has a Meat and Poultry Inspection program equivalent to the federal inspection program.

CIS has expanded markets and opportunities and encouraged the creation of new products in the small plants it serves. Over time, however, it has become evident that the CIS program requires an expansion of scope and funding in order to serve more small and very small meat processors. The bipartisan Strengthening Local Processing Act (SLPA, H.R. 945) includes changes to the federal and state regulatory authorities’ cost-share model, which could alter the cost-benefit analysis for states that have their own meat and poultry inspection programs, ultimately making for more effective regulation of small and very small meat processors. Those plants will then be able to work more effectively with small and diversified farms that are an essential component of a sustainable and equitable food system. 

Unfortunately, the FFNSA declines to make any changes to the CIS program structure, instead promoting outreach about the program and requiring a report on that outreach each year (Sec 12113). While the National Sustainable Agriculture Coalition (NSAC) supports more effective promotion of the CIS program, the failure to include many of the necessary structural and funding improvements means that the FFNSA misses a critical opportunity to expand markets for smaller processors, increase competition in the industry, and help bring more nutritious, locally, and often sustainably raised animal products to market. The FFNSA requires FSIS to provide more publicly available food safety resources designed for small and very small meat processors, including additional widely available validation studies, which small processors can use to support scale-appropriate food safety control techniques. (Section 12112). 

Business Technical Assistance 

Successful local market development programs have included temporary investments in value-chain coordination and business technical assistance that connect producers to scale appropriate market opportunities. These hands-on efforts can provide regionalized, specific support that strengthens local food networks. Two of USDA’s most notable initiatives to support these activities are the Regional Food Business Centers and the Meat and Poultry Processing Capacity Technical Assistance program. Unfortunately, the FFNSA does not authorize either program. It does, however, meet the bare minimum of reauthorizing a number of longstanding rural business development programs, such as the Rural Microentrepreneur Assistance Program (RMAP), Appropriate Technology Transfer for Rural Areas (ATTRA), Rural Business Development Grants, and Rural Cooperative Development Grants. Additional program changes to RMAP are noted in the following section. 

Local Food: Supply Chain and Infrastructure Support

USDA’s previous transformative food system initiative focused on improvements across the supply chain, with investments in infrastructure, workforce development, value-chain coordination, and business technical assistance. The FFNSA offers a few new options for infrastructure investments, but does not adequately respond to the needs of rural communities for specialized food workforce training and technical assistance for scaling businesses. Disproportionate investment along the supply chain can lead to supply without adequate markets for producers, or potentially new infrastructure for businesses without sufficient business planning to strategically scale. 

Infrastructure

The FFNSA attempts to sustain some of the meat processing expansion programs created by ARPA, for example, through a “new, mobile, and expanded meat processing and rendering grants” program (Section 6304). This section bears some but not enough resemblance to the original programs (MPPEP, Local MCap, MPIRG) that were developed, in part, based on the proposals in SLPA. 

At only $3 million in authorized appropriations funding, the FFNSA’s Section 6304 grants are insufficiently funded relative to the demand across the US. Furthermore, the bill expands eligible applicants to include land grant universities, state departments of agriculture, and other organizations with existing capacities well beyond the small and very small meat processors for whom this program was intended. Instead of limiting these grants to small and very small processors, the FFNSA only includes it as a priority that the funding goes to small and very small processors. This, combined with the lack of a ‘socially disadvantaged’ priority, means that the FFNSA-created grant program runs the risk of funneling money to processors that already have access to other financial instruments to expand capacity. This fails to meaningfully address the processing bottleneck that smaller-scale producers nationwide experience. 

The FFNSA expands upon the existing business and industry guaranteed loan program by setting aside a portion of its annual funding for a permanent food supply chain guaranteed loan that seeks to support food supply chain capacity by financing projects focused on aggregation, processing, distribution, and manufacturing. Additionally, it caps the guarantee fee institutions pay to USDA to 3%, which has been cited as a barrier for borrowers among a number of lenders. However, there is little specificity of program goals or parameters for business scale or production type. This financial product is unlikely to support emerging food enterprises or small and mid-scale enterprises participating exclusively in regional food supply chains due to the rigorous underwriting standards associated with USDA guaranteed loans (Section 6304, 6412). 

The Rural Microentrepreneur Assistance Program supports business enterprise development in rural communities by offering affordable loans and relevant ancillary business technical assistance. RMAP is long overdue for program updates to increase the allowable loan sizes and relax restrictions on building renovations, a critical need in many rural spaces. The FFNSA would increase the loan limit to $75,000 and up to 50% of that loan can support costs associated with renovation, construction or other real estate improvement (Section 6422). 

Finally, the bill codifies recent LAMP program updates by allowing the purchase of necessary special purpose equipment (Section 10102).

Workforce Development

Small and very small processors – for whom jobs tend to be more cross functional than in their larger industry competitors – have struggled to recruit and maintain the highly skilled workforce they need. More funding and programs specifically created to support the unique needs of small and very small meat workforce development are important to increase growth in the sector.

Unfortunately, the FFNSA does not offer any new funding or new programs to meet the much needed investment in this sector. The bill does amend the USDA’s Agriculture and Food Research Initiative (AFRI) to include meat processing workforce development as an area of research. The bill also authorizes the creation of new community college grants oriented towards the development of a broader highly skilled agricultural workforce. While this may include meat processing training, it does not do so explicitly (Section 7123, 7503). 

Local Food: Access

While the Local Farmers Feeding our Communities Program would increase the circulation of farm-fresh foods in American communities, FFNSA does very little to otherwise support access to and affordability of nutritious foods for food insecure families. 

A number of USDA programs incentivize families to use their Supplemental Nutrition Assistance benefits (SNAP) to purchase fresh fruits and vegetables in local food settings by providing matching cash benefits, generating a win for families and farmers. These programs – namely the Senior Farmers Market Nutrition Program (SFMNP) and the Gus Schumacher Nutrition Incentive Program (GusNIP) – receive bipartisan support. FFNSA makes common sense reforms to include popular items such as herbs, maple syrup, and tree nuts in the eligible foods for SFMNP (Section 4201). It also updates award criteria for GusNIP grantees by allowing the Secretary to waive the match requirement for applicants from persistent poverty counties and prioritize projects that increase year-round availability for fruits and vegetables (Section 4303). While NSAC is pleased to see efforts to reduce match requirements, the new prioritization stands to weaken the existing priority for direct-marketing settings, leading to potential shifts of spending away from American farmers. Overall, FFNSA does not succeed in meeting the growing needs of food insecure communities with no additional funding to either program in addition to a failure to restore the cuts to SNAP that were initiated by H.R. 1 in 2025. 

Some changes in the FFNSA likely stand to increase local food access in vulnerable communities by increasing the connectivity between farmers and their communities (Section 10003). The bill offers a number of reforms to the Office of Urban Agriculture and Innovative Production that are responsive to the growth of a new office since its initial implementation in 2020. Those changes include: 

• Expanding the responsibilities and improving the services of the Office of Urban Agriculture and Innovative Production (OUAIP) to better support the business and conservation needs of urban and innovative producers; 
• Renewing the Federal Advisory Committee until 2031; 
• Permanently authorizing the FSA Urban County Committees; 
• Directing USDA to increase outreach and technical assistance to producers through cooperative agreements with community experts; 
• Ensuring UAIP grants have broader reach to producers by allowing for awards to farmer cooperatives and subawards to individual farmers.  

Yet, due to the no-cost nature of the bill, the proposed changes will generate increased demand without any increase or guarantee of funding. OUAIP has consistently been underfunded or forgotten in Appropriations Cycles. Therefore, these program improvements stand to be delayed without adequate funding. 

The post Unpacking the House Farm Bill: Part 2 appeared first on National Sustainable Agriculture Coalition.

Editor’s Note: This is the first post in a four-part blog series analyzing the Farm, Food, and National Security Act of 2026, which was reported out of the House Agriculture Committee on March 5. This post provides an overview of the markup process and the bill as a whole. The second post provides a deep dive analysis of the bill’s potential impacts on local and regional food systems. The third post offers an analysis of its impacts on the farm safety net, farms’ ability to access land and capital, and fair competition. The fourth post covers conservation, climate resilience, and sustainable and organic research. 

In the early morning hours of Thursday, March 5, 2026, the House Committee on Agriculture favorably reported the Farm, Food, and National Security Act of 2026 (FFNSA, H.R. 7567) out of committee by a vote of 34-17. FFNSA arrives at an undeniable crossroads for American food and agriculture. 

Across fields and communities nationwide, recent years have brought hardships not seen since perhaps the US farm crisis of the 1980s. Today, high production costs, unstable markets, and low crop prices driven by uncertain export markets and overproduction have converged to create an economic climate that threatens farmers’ livelihoods. Unfortunately, too many of these impacts stem directly and indirectly from actions taken by the current Administration. 

Meanwhile, in the halls of Congress, elected Representatives have been unable to pass a new, bipartisan farm bill. Since at least the mid-1960’s, Congress has reauthorized a new farm bill roughly every five years by bringing together a bipartisan coalition of rural and urban interests and the Members of Congress who represented them. Yet, the most recent full farm bill – the Agriculture Improvement Act of 2018 (2018 Farm Bill, PL 115-334) – was signed into law in December 2018. As of March 2026, we are in uncharted waters – over seven years have passed since the 2018 Farm Bill was signed into law, the longest such stretch in recent memory.

Opportunities to authorize a new, full farm bill during the 118th Congress – in 2023 and 2024 – came and went in both the House and Senate. When the November 2024 election delivered a governing “trifecta” for the Republican Party, they turned to the budget reconciliation process to pass a bill that updated some parts of the farm bill, while leaving most out. This reconciliation bill, commonly referred to as H.R. 1,  took the unprecedented step of cutting nearly $200 billion from one part of the farm bill in order to fund another part of the farm bill, effectively breaking the decades-old bipartisan farm bill coalition.

It is against this backdrop – unprecedented times in farm country and in federal food and agriculture policy – that the House Agriculture Committee introduced FFNSA. 

A single farm bill – as important as it is – cannot solve everything. Yet a single farm bill can set us on a better path. Judged within the inseparable context of this moment, FFNSA includes some promising provisions but ultimately falls short, choosing to double down on an agricultural system that simply is not working, rather than making real strides toward a system that does.

Summarizing the Markup

The FFNSA markup kicked off shortly after 6:00 pm EDT on March 3 and did not conclude until around 1:30 am EDT on March 5 – more than twenty hours in total. The vast majority of the markup focused on the debate of dozens of amendments offered by policymakers from both parties.

To understand the debate around many of the amendments, it’s important to understand that, due to the unique nature of current Congressional budgeting rules, any reauthorized farm bill cannot cost more than the most recent Congressional Budget Office (CBO) baseline of the current (in this case, 2018) Farm Bill. This means that to increase funding for one farm bill program, a corresponding amount of funding has to be cut from another farm bill program. Traditionally, this has meant redirecting funding from a program within the same Title (eg, Conservation Title) of the bill. Without such an “offset” for new or increased funding, however, many amendments offered during markup, which would have improved the bill, were rejected because they were not budget-neutral. During markup, several lawmakers from both parties took to deriding CBO – Congress’s nonpartisan official budgetary scorekeeper – when their amendments did not achieve budget-neutrality.

In reality, however, partial blame rests with Congressional leaders who have not been able to  identify and direct outside funding resources into the farm bill, even while Congress has simultaneously managed to move tens of billions in funding for ad hoc assistance programs since 2018. This inability to secure new, outside funding for a farm bill is, in part, why H.R. 1 resorted to slashing billions from nutrition assistance to fuel farm subsidies, and why the new version of FFNSA lacks the resources to set us on a better path. 

In total, just over 150 amendments were filed to FFNSA. 74 amendments received a vote of some sort – 29 of which were roll call votes and 45 of which were voice votes. Of those 74 amendments that received a vote, 44 were approved and incorporated into FFNSA – 3 by roll call vote, and 41 by voice vote. Find the full list of amendments here. Below is a list of amendment votes directly related to the National Sustainable Agriculture Coalition (NSAC)’s priorities that were taken during the House Committee on Agriculture’s markup of FFNSA:

• Representative Dusty Johnson’s (R-SD-AL) amendment to expand eligibility for the Rural Energy for America Program (REAP) to include larger co-ops, risking crowding out opportunities for individual farmers and rural small businesses. NSAC opposed. Approved by voice vote.
• Rep. Brad Finstad’s (R-MN-1) amendment to make significant changes to the Farming Opportunities Training Outreach program – including 2501 and the Beginning Farmer and Rancher Development Program –  that alters priority areas and how applications are reviewed, ultimately undermining the effectiveness of both programs. NSAC opposed. Approved by voice vote.
• Rep. David Scott’s (D-GA-13) amendment to provide mandatory funding for the Scholarships for Students at 1890s Institutions. NSAC supported. Failed by roll call vote along party lines, all Republicans (27) opposed – all Democrats (24) in favor.
• Rep. Jahana Hayes’s (D-CT-5) amendment to improve the Whole-Farm Revenue Protection (WFRP) Program and Noninsured Crop Disaster Assistance Program (NAP) by establishing a simplified, revenue-based option within NAP, creating an “on-ramp” for producers to transition from NAP to WFRP, adding incentives for insurance agents selling WFRP policies, and authorizing the US Department of Agriculture (USDA) to pilot new projects within NAP to develop innovative crop insurance options for RMA, among other changes. NSAC supported.  Failed by roll call vote along party lines, all Republicans (27) opposed – all Democrats (24) in favor.
• Rep. Chellie Pingree’s (D-ME-1) amendment to remove harmful pesticide preemption language in FFNSA, thereby restoring the ability of communities to protect themselves from chemical exposure. NSAC supported. Failed by roll call vote, 28 opposed – 22 in favor.
• Rep. Nikki Budzinski’s (D-IL-13) amendment to restore full funding to the Environmental Quality Incentives Program (EQIP) – a popular and oversubscribed conservation program – after hundreds of millions of dollars were siphoned off to other programs. NSAC supported. Failed by roll call vote along party lines, all Republicans (27) opposed – all Democrats (24) in favor.
• Rep. Sharice Davids’ (D-KS-3) amendment to ensure that farmers have access to local USDA offices by preventing their closure, and requiring USDA to rehire qualified employees who have been terminated since January 2025. NSAC supported. Failed by roll call vote along party lines, all Republicans (27) opposed – all Democrats (24) in favor.
• Rep. Shomari Figures’ (D-AL-2) amendment to strengthen land-grant universities’ ability to provide heirs’ property education and succession planning. NSAC supported. Approved by voice vote.
• Rep. Alma Adams’ (D-NC-12) amendment to increase funding for 1890’s Centers of Excellence. NSAC supported. Failed by roll call vote along party lines, all Republicans (27) opposed – all Democrats (24) in favor.
• Rep. Alma Adams’ (D-NC-12) amendment to ensure a reliable and accurate assessment of the prevalence of food insecurity among families, seniors, and children across the country by requiring USDA to continue its implementation of the Annual Household Food Security Survey. NSAC supported. Failed by roll call vote along party lines, all Republicans (27) opposed – all Democrats (24) in favor.
• Rep. Eugene Vindman’s (D-VA-7) amendment to authorize the Organic Transitions Program (ORG), which supports highly innovative research, education, and extension projects that help producers overcome barriers in undertaking the transition to become successful USDA certified organic farms. NSAC supported. Approved by voice vote.
• Rep. Eric Sorensen’s (D-IL-17) amendment to direct USDA’s Natural Resources Conservation Service to develop a standardized Soil Carbon Monitoring methodology and develop a Soil Carbon Monitoring Network. NSAC supported. Failed by roll call vote along party lines, all Republicans (27) opposed – all Democrats (24) in favor.
• Rep. Shri Thanedar’s (D-MI-13) amendment to restore the unexpected, unjustified cuts to nutrition education programs that connect low-income communities to nutritious foods by funding SNAP-Ed at $500 million annually in mandatory funding. NSAC supported. Failed by roll call vote along party lines, all Republicans (27) opposed – all Democrats (24) in favor. 
• Rep. Gabe Vasquez’s (D-NM-6) amendment to support wildlife habitat connectivity and migration corridors, increase payment limits for private land owners, and provide technical support for voluntary practices that improve landscape resilience. NSAC supported. Approved by voice vote.
• Rep. Jill Tokuda’s (D-HI-2) amendment to return rescinded funding that would bring farm-fresh food to students’ plates in schools and childcare centers by funding a local food purchasing program with $660,100,000 annually. NSAC supported. Failed by roll call vote along party lines, all Republicans (27) opposed – all Democrats (24) in favor.
• Vote on the final House Committee on Agriculture passage of the FFNSA. NSAC opposed. Approved by roll call vote 34 in favor – 17 in opposition.

In addition to the amendments listed above, numerous amendments that would have improved the bill were offered but did not receive a vote, including amendments that would have: removed the WFRP expansion limit (Salinas); created a New Producer Economic Security Program to support beginning farmers and ranchers (Budzinski); relocated the state assistance for soil health (SASH) program to the Regional Conservation Partnership Program (Tokuda); provided $50 million in mandatory annual funding for the Office of Urban Agriculture and Innovative Production (Thanedar); and increased funding for the Senior Farmers Market Nutrition Incentive Program (Rouzer).

Where to from Here

Ultimately, the Committee markup resulted in some changes to FFNSA, but none meaningful enough to make it worthy of support. The remainder of this blog series reveals the extent to which key NSAC farm bill priorities are impacted by FFNSA’s proposals, or lack thereof.

As of posting, there are no concrete and immediately available details about the next steps for FFNSA. While movement on the House floor and in the Senate appears possible, it remains far from guaranteed. For any farm bill to find a legitimate path to becoming law this year, at least two factors will need to be present. First, any farm bill will have to make robust, new investments. The scattered policy improvements included in FFNSA ring hollow without the resources to fuel them. Second, the threshold to pass a farm bill in the Senate requires 60 votes, and thus, the path to a farm bill remains through a true bipartisan process.

More than 7 years removed from the 2018 Farm Bill, farmers, families, and communities still deserve – now more than ever – a new full, bipartisan farm bill that rises to the occasion. As always, NSAC will continue to steadfastly engage with lawmakers as the farm bill meanders its way through the 119th Congress.

The post Unpacking the House Farm Bill: Part 1 appeared first on National Sustainable Agriculture Coalition.

Despite the winter weather blanketing much of the nation and Washington, DC, an ongoing shutdown, and continued national debates on food and agriculture policy, NSAC’s advocacy work continues. The National Sustainable Agriculture Coalition (NSAC) held its annual Winter Meeting from February 9 to 12 in Washington, DC. Over 150 farmers and advocates from NSAC’s network gathered to strategize, build community, and bring the voice of sustainable agriculture to policymakers in DC. We gathered this year within the context of the ripple effects the Administration’s actions on immigration, international trade, and foreign policy have had across our entire country, including our food system.

Farmers’ Voices

Our time together included opportunities to plan our strategy for the year ahead. NSAC members talked about shared policy priorities in the political landscape and prepared for our Day of Action, when NSAC members and farmer advocates visit Congressional delegations. Many farmers are experiencing federal policy and programs that fail to meet their needs. This year, NSAC members were joined by nearly 50 farmers who came to share their experiences directly with policy makers in Washington, channeling their frustration into pragmatic, solutions-oriented advocacy, almost doubling farmer participation from recent years.

Policy work can be overwhelming to anyone who is new to it. However, despite that perception, policy aims to codify practices based on the real experiences of people who inform those policy decisions. At NSAC, this includes making sure that policy decisions are informed by the lived experiences of farmers who are working through their practices on building a better food and agriculture system. It is critical that farmers can equitably access opportunities to succeed, and that they have a voice in shaping what those opportunities look like. To that end, for the second year in a row, our Winter Meeting focused on providing opportunities for farmers to voice what has worked and what has not worked for them through storytelling and advocacy. 

Coalition Work

An important aspect of coalition work is strategizing collectively over shared priorities. While our time together certainly does that, it is also an important opportunity to build a stronger community where we can hear everyone’s ideas and concerns. In the end, the ability to work together allows our work to be more impactful during our time together in Washington as well as in our collective action going forward. One way our impact can be measured is in the number of attendees at the meeting and their time spent on the Hill, meeting with members of Congress and their staff, and with decision-makers at USDA. Over 150 coalition members attended the Winter Meeting, likewise logging over 150 meetings with members of Congress, offering practical solutions and opportunities to benefit all farms. Additionally, NSAC members were able to meet with USDA officials across the department to talk about the benefits of the programs available for farmers, and areas where the programs could improve. 

Beyond the numbers, creating opportunities for NSAC members and farmers to meet directly with their elected representatives can have a transformational, long term impact. These conversations strengthen our ability to communicate clearly and persuasively with members of Congress about the changes we would like to see in our food system. That impact can extend beyond numbers as it forms the basis of a representative democracy.

Our Voices Heard

A group of Buddhist monks walking for peace between Texas and Washington, DC, happened to be on Capitol Hill for an additional walk along the National Mall on the same day we held our traditional Day of Action. As

NSAC members and advocates visited Congress to have our collective voices heard, many were able to catch a glimpse of the pious trekkers between their walks to and from the Capitol grounds. The monks, however, were not the only travelers on Capitol Hill that day with a mission. Our day of advocacy has become a fixture of our winter meetings, and is also an opportunity to educate members of Congress about policy solutions that better serve farmers.

As Ed Dubrick of DuChick Ranch, LLC, and NSAC member, the Illinois Stewardship Alliance shared: 

“We came directly to Capitol Hill to educate lawmakers on issues important to our farm and the farms of our neighbors. We shared personal stories that highlight the impact recent and current investments in conservation and local food systems have made in our community and why continued support for these programs is needed.” 

Despite the Administration’s efforts to downplay the diversity of our nation, our food system is as diverse as the people who participate in it. Yet, not everyone has equal access to the opportunities that government programs offer or to the benefits many of those programs were designed to address.

Zach Ben, of Bidii Baby Foods in Navajo Territory, traveled to the Winter Meeting with NSAC member Farm to Table New Mexico. Although he has already had the opportunity to educate members of Congress on the challenges he and his community face as active participants in our food system, he further reflected on the experience:

“Coming from a disenfranchised culture, this is my opportunity to enfranchise our farm because I want to continue using Indigenous knowledge in my farming practices as a traditional baby foods producer.”

As part of our advocacy during our day of action, we also delivered a letter signed by over 500 farmers from across the nation to House and Senate Agriculture Committees leadership urging Congress to provide economic relief for farmers as the farm crisis continues to ravage rural communities, putting farmers at risk of losing their livelihood amid high production costs for fertilizers and equipment, while decreasing access to programs that help farmers implement conservation practices, as well as to domestic market initiatives. The letter calls for the development of more robust domestic markets and local supply chains, and for broad eligibility to maximize its impact. This letter is part of NSAC’s ongoing effort to work with Congress to address the severe challenges farmers are facing in the immediate and longer-term, and we hope its delivery will help Congressional leaders prioritize this in their committee work.

Perennial Advocate Award

Last year, we presented the NSAC Perennial Advocate Award for the first time, and this year, we took the opportunity to honor another champion of our movement. NSAC created the Perennial Advocate Award to honor someone who, through their lifetime, has proven to be a leader through years of dedication, participating in more than one farm bill campaign, providing insight and input in many coalition campaigns, and contributing significantly to policy development through research, grassroots work, advocacy, and thought partnership. The Perennial Advocate Award goes to someone who exemplifies NSAC’s values of integrity, stewardship, collaboration, and justice. 

This year, NSAC was proud to honor Margaret Krome. Margaret served as Policy Program Director at Michael Fields Agricultural Institute before she retired last year. In introducing the award, NSAC Coalition Director Sarah Hackney spoke of Krome’s work as grassroots-led policy advocacy, and reminded the audience of Krome’s constant grounding question in policy advocacy work, “Have you talked to a farmer?”

In receiving the award, Krome expressed gratitude and reframed her role in the sustainable agriculture movement, humbly stating, “I don’t believe in stars, but I believe in constellations.” Her anecdotes of being able to convince lawmakers of the benefits and utility of foundational programs to the movement, like the Sustainable Agriculture Research and Education Program (SARE), exemplified in her own words, the tenets of a representative democracy.

As our time together wrapped up, we left as we do every year: exhausted and inspired for the road ahead. Unlike other years, we wrapped up our winter meeting with the news of an upcoming farm bill markup. We left our meeting with the sense that, as our work continues, our time together had been worth it, helping us continue to lay the groundwork for farm policy that invests in healthy communities, levels the playing field for small and mid-sized farmers, equips farmers with the tools and resources they need to build resilient and viable operations, and foster the next generation of farmers and ranchers. While the draft farm bill falls short of these goals, we will carry the momentum from our Day of Action forward and continue pushing for food and farm policy that works across the food system, from the natural resources our farmers steward to the producers and farm workers, and across the supply chain.

The NSAC staff is grateful for all of our members, partners, vendors and donors who help make this work possible, and of course for the farmers on the front lines! Thank you to photographer Ruth Annan for capturing so many special moments from this winter’s Lobby Day!

The post “Have you talked to a Farmer?” NSAC’S 2026 Winter Meeting Recap appeared first on National Sustainable Agriculture Coalition.

On Friday, February 13, House Agriculture Committee Chairman Glenn “GT” Thompson (R-PA-15) released the Farm, Food, and National Security Act of 2026 (FFNSA).

The introduction of the bill comes amidst an historic moment in federal food and agriculture policy. More than seven years removed from the enactment of the 2018 Farm Bill, farmers and ranchers are in a moment of crisis, with countless farms on the brink of foreclosure. The past year has also brought unprecedented instability in federal partnerships: farmers have experienced unexpected contract cuts and unpredictable, abrupt trade policy shifts, and the impact of a severely reduced federal workforce. In January 2025, the US Department of Agriculture (USDA) began freezing and even terminating the lawfully held contracts of farmers and farmer-serving organizations, disrupting planning for the 2025 planting season. The past year also included a budget reconciliation bill that slashed hundreds of billions of dollars from nutrition assistance for seniors, children, and veterans and directly reinvested $50 billion of that to further increase farm subsidies, abandoning the decades-long bipartisan farm bill coalition in the process. FFNSA should not and cannot be viewed outside of this context – to do so would be a rejection of reality.

The National Sustainable Agriculture Coalition (NSAC) appreciates the inclusion of improvements to local and regional food systems and the removal of a particularly harmful provision that would have fundamentally altered the Conservation Reserve Program for the worse. Yet in the context of propelling American agriculture forward – and when considering everything farmers and ranchers have endured for the past year – FFNSA falls woefully short.

FFNSA does nothing to stabilize USDA. It does not prevent the USDA reorganization from undermining services for farmers; it does not reverse USDA’s shameful ongoing attack on programs that seek to increase opportunity across the food system; and it does not appear to meaningfully support staffing levels so that farmers can access federal programs. Furthermore, in the shadow of a budget reconciliation bill that managed to provide guaranteed funding for tens of billions in new farm subsidies, FFNSA refuses to cobble together guaranteed funding for vital programs or to increase funding for programs that have been at the same level since 2018. Any program in FFNSA that receives flat funding is effectively cut by roughly 20% due to seven years of inflation. 

The following are select provisions based on NSAC’s initial analysis of the full text of the Farm, Food, and National Security Act of 2026. 

Title 1 – Commodities

While many of the Title I programs – including the Price Loss Coverage and Agriculture Risk Coverage programs – were addressed in the One Big Beautiful Bill Act (OBBB, P.L. 119-21), FFNSA includes a few notable changes for specialty crop support and disaster relief programs. First, the bill establishes a permanent framework for future emergency assistance that is specifically designed to support specialty crop producers based on adverse events, including economic crises or market disruptions. The program – which shares some similarities with the Marketing Assistance for Speciality Crops programs, but is not identical – would calculate payments based on sales from the previous market year, and establish a consistent mechanism and methodology framework to distribute emergency aid for specialty crop producers (Section 1003).

While it is vital to ensure specialty crop producers receive necessary aid during an emergency, this provision, as written, does not ensure specialty crop producers of all sizes receive adequate support. The bill includes high payment limits of no less than $900,000 for those deriving at least 75% of their income from farming activities, potentially concentrating any limited funds made available to a smaller number of large producers. The proposed program also fails to provide support to new producers who were impacted by an adverse event but had no recorded sales in the year prior.

FFNSA also gives USDA the authority to administer future disaster programs through state block grants (Section 1004). State administered programs have the potential to offer more tailored support for a state’s unique experience with a disaster. However, in practice, these programs often face significant delays in getting funds into farmers’ hands, establish inconsistent standards across states, and reduce USDA’s ability to ensure compliance across programs and reduce duplicative payments. As written, FFNSA provides few protections to ensure these issues do not hinder relief efforts when administered through state block grants.

Disaster relief programs are often necessary to effectively respond to an unusually damaging event. However, creating additional permanent disaster programs to distribute future ad hoc spending is not a sustainable solution to an insufficient farm safety net. Without proper investments to expand access to and improve risk management tools for the majority of producers, which are absent from FFNSA, farmers and ranchers will continue to struggle with an inadequate farm safety net. 

Title 2 – Conservation 

FFNSA’s conservation title presents a decidedly mixed bag, with several modest positive policy changes alongside some provisions that act as barriers for farmers trying to access popular federal conservation programs.

The bill codifies a minimum Conservation Stewardship Program (CSP) payment of $4,000, guaranteeing that producers of all sizes receive a solid baseline level of support when enrolling in CSP (Section 2301). This is an improvement over the $2,500 minimum payment proposed in the last House Farm Bill and in line with NSAC priorities for CSP.

However, FFNSA also siphons off CSP’s limited – and consistently oversubscribed – funding for a new grant program supporting states and Tribes administering soil health programs (Section 2302). While NSAC has championed providing federal support for state and tribal soil health programs, pulling funds from a popular, effective conservation program and thereby limiting farmer access is a non-starter. Currently, only 30% of farmers applying to CSP can secure contracts. It makes little sense to stretch limited resources within such a popular program across new purposes and subprograms. Doing so would only ensure that farmers interested in CSP continue to get left behind. Placing a state and tribal soil health assistance program in CSP makes even less sense, given that other conservation programs, such as the Regional Conservation Partnership Program (RCPP), are already designed to provide federal support for conservation work led by non-federal partners. NSAC opposes using CSP as the home for this new grant program and encourages Congress to see the wisdom of funding state and tribal soil health programs through RCPP instead. 

Across both the Environmental Quality Incentives Program (EQIP) and CSP, the FFNSA significantly increases support for precision agriculture technologies. NSAC recognizes that precision agriculture has demonstrable benefits for some operations; however, it remains a relatively high-cost conservation solution that does not serve all farmers. Conservation program funding is limited, and providing overly robust support for practices unsuitable for all operations leads to a small set of farms consuming an outsized portion of program resources. This is an irresponsible use of limited public funding, especially when there are size- and scale-neutral management alternatives that serve far more farmers and deliver greater environmental benefits per dollar spent. We were pleased to see Congress recognize the high conservation potential of perennial production systems by including them in the Conservation Innovation Grants program, and these systems, which provide holistic conservation outcomes and are more accessible to a wider range of producers, deserve just as much attention and investment (Section 2204). NSAC calls on Congress to consider a fairer and more balanced approach to supporting precision agriculture in this farm bill.

As a positive change to the cost share offered at the Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS), the FFNSA adds greenhouse gas reduction as a purpose to EQIP’s top ten priority practices authority. This authority allows states to select 10 priority practices that receive 90% cost share, as opposed to the standard 75%, focusing more resources on those practices that both work in that state and address the most pressing environmental challenges producers are facing. Adding greenhouse gas reduction as a purpose that these practices can address makes it clear that states can choose to focus EQIP resources on addressing climate change and provide increased support to the producers eager to do that work within their operation.

The FFNSA appears to cut $1.055 billion dollars from EQIPs first five fiscal years of the 10 year budget window. Although the total baseline for the program should remain the same long term, this means that EQIP – and the farmers who depend on it – will lose money in the near term, hampering access to funds that support viability, resilience, and the ability to reduce input costs. Some of these EQIP funds are clearly redistributed to smaller conservation programs, including the Conservation Reserve Programs Transition Incentives Program; however, it is not clear at the time of publishing where all of the funds removed from EQIP have gone, or if they remain part of Title II’s budget authority.

The bill meets the standard, bare minimum of reauthorizing five year payment limits in both EQIP and CSP, at $450,000 and $200,000, respectively. This is a necessary update that has been ignored in recent Farm Bill extensions. NSAC is relieved to see its inclusion here, as payment limits are one of the key tools that help ensure finite program resources are spread around to a larger number of farms, especially smaller and mid-sized operations. However, FFNSA fails to eliminate the separate and lower payment limit in EQIP for producers accessing the Organic Initiative. While it raises the limit from $140,000 to $200,000, continuing to maintain a significantly lower limit for organic perpetuates an unnecessary institutional bias against organic producers. NSAC opposes this separate and lower limit, as organic production has inherent conservation value, and EQIP should not penalize the efforts of producers seeking certification.

FFNSA provides a long overdue, full reauthorization of the Conservation Reserve Program (CRP), including new funding for the Transition Incentives Program (TIP). The flagship conservation program of the Farm Service Agency (FSA), CRP, has not received the same attention as other conservation programs in major legislation in recent years, leading to uncertainty and programmatic delays. NSAC strongly supports fully reauthorizing CRP and providing funding for TIP, ensuring these tools are available to producers each year. Further, the FFNSA strips problematic reforms to CRP’s eligibility requirements proposed in the previous version of the bill.

Title 4 – Nutrition

Growing bipartisan support for the Local Farmers Feeding our Communities Act embodies the historical collaboration of agricultural committees responding to the needs of both the farm and food coalition. FFNSA draws from this bipartisan proposal to authorize a new food assistance program that builds upon the success of the previous Local Food Purchase Assistance (LFPA) program. Its primary focus remains on building reliable markets for small, mid-sized, beginning, and veteran farmers and strengthening local and regional food systems. It accomplishes this by investing directly into states, Tribes, and territories, and it makes improvements to LFPA by directing explicit technical support to producers to obtain food safety training and certification. 

Codification of this program could catalyze long term growth in local and regional markets; however, the success of the program is severely at risk with an authorization of appropriations set only at $200 million. Recent history has demonstrated a limited capacity to sufficiently fund programs such as these through the annual appropriations process, making this provision more mirage than reality. The success of LFPA in providing economic opportunity for small and mid-sized farmers cannot be understated, and has demonstrated sufficient proof of concept to warrant mandatory funding as laid out in the Local Farmers Feeding our Communities Act. 

Title 5 – Credit

FFNSA includes limited improvements to the farm loan programs and access to credit, but leaves out many important changes to protect borrowers and includes detrimental regulatory changes that would inhibit transparency in agricultural lending.

FFNSA would problematically provide sole authority to the Farm Credit Administration to regulate the Farm Credit System (FCS). This provision would remove any regulatory authority from other entities, including the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB), and further erode the CFPB’s demographic reporting requirements in Rule 1071 for loans administered through FCS. 

However, FFNSA also includes several provisions that would help producers access capital, including: authorization for USDA to restructure guaranteed loan debt; a reduced experience requirement; a pre-approval pilot for farm ownership loans; an expedited approval process for loans under $1 million; and shifting the burden of proof from farmers onto USDA when appealing a loan denial. It also increases the limits for direct operating, farm ownership, and microloans. It does not, however, raise the total funding authorization that would create room for USDA to make and guarantee these bigger loans, nor does it place guardrails on lending to protect farmers and ranchers from over-collateralization or prevent concentration of funds among fewer large operations. 

Title 6 – Rural Development

FFNSA authorizes a new grant program, the New, Mobile, and Expanded Meat Processing and Rendering Grant Program, which is, in broad purposes, similar to the Processing Resilience Grant Program within the bipartisan Strengthening Local Processing Act. However, FFNSA’s version of the program provides very limited funding – only $3 million in appropriations authorization – for those grants, smaller than many state budget allocations for a similar purpose (Section 6304). The already limited funding is made even less accessible by including state departments of agriculture and public land grant universities as eligible entities, despite these entities often already having these facilities or the budgetary capacity to pursue them.

FFNSA authorizes the Food Supply Chain Guaranteed Loan Program, a valuable resource for needed investments in aggregation, processing, storage, and distribution (Section 6303). Yet, without defined priorities or target recipients, the program may inevitably lend itself to financing large-scale operations rather than serve as a new capital product for small, scaling, or new local operations. 

Finally, FFNSA includes a standard, bare minimum reauthorization of longstanding rural business development programs, such as the Rural Microentrepreneur Assistance Program (RMAP), Appropriate Technology Transfer for Rural Areas (ATTRA), Rural Business Development Grants, and Rural Cooperative Development Grants. The bill also expands the focus of ATTRA to provide tailored assistance to veterans and improves loan options within RMAP. It falls short by not increasing program funding. 

Title 7 – Research

In the past year, farmers and stakeholders alike experienced significant disruptions in research, education, and extension under USDA, including grant terminations in the Beginning Farmer and Rancher Development Program (BFRDP) and the Organic Agriculture Research and Extension Initiative (OREI); significantly delayed funding for the Sustainable Agriculture Research and Education (SARE) program; no Request for Applications (RFA) for widely popular USDA National Institute of Food and Agriculture (NIFA) competitive grants programs like OREI, BFRDP, 2501, the Food Safety Outreach Program (FSOP); and several memorandums from US Secretary of Agriculture Brooke Rollins that have significantly impeded agriculture research at colleges and universities nationwide. While farmers, ranchers, and researchers across the country continue to face uncertainty and disruptions at USDA, FFNSA offers no solutions to get American agricultural research back on track. 

The Food Safety Outreach Program (FSOP), of critical importance to providing training to small and diversified growers constantly contending with new food safety regulations, receives a reauthorization, though without an increase in authorization level; this flat funding ultimately represents a decrease every passing year due to inflation. 

While FFNSA meets the low bar of reauthorizing popular sustainable and organic research programs like the SARE program and OREI, FFNSA does not include additional funding or improvements for either program. Strong investments in research underpin growth in any sector, as all farmers – sustainable, organic, conventional, or otherwise – rely on cutting-edge research to maintain robust and thriving operations.

It is also concerning that the focus on precision agriculture, digital agriculture, and automation across the research title detracts from much needed investments in farmer-led, scale-appropriate research. As noted above, precision agriculture benefits only a limited number of farmers. 

A few bright spots in the research title include:

• Meaningful investments in 1890 land grant universities. The bill increases the authorization of appropriations for extension at 1890 institutions from 20% to an amount not less than 40% of appropriations for the Smith Lever Act and increases the authorization of appropriations for agricultural research at 1890 institutions from 30% to an amount not less than 40% of appropriations for the Hatch Act of 1887. FFNSA also applies some oversight to state governments regarding their matching funds requirement to 1890 institutions.
• Updated Agriculture and Food Research Initiative (AFRI) priority areas to include language around regionally adapted cultivars and breeding for environmental resilience.

Ultimately, the research title underwhelms, failing to provide the kinds of research investments that farmers need to build viable businesses that can withstand disruption of all kinds.

Title 9 – Energy 

Agrivoltaic systems, where land is used simultaneously for agriculture and solar energy production, offer an important opportunity to reduce farm energy costs while generating additional on-farm benefits. FFNSA directs USDA to study the effects of solar on farmland, including best practices for shared solar and agricultural production, which could provide key insights for advancing agrivoltaic projects. Sections in this bill, however, also limit USDA funding for solar projects that convert prime farmland with narrow exceptions for smaller acreage and prohibit USDA funding for solar components from foreign countries of concern, similar to Secretary Rollins’ August 2025 memo on changes to the Rural Energy for America Program. At a time of high energy costs, these restrictions, as written, may further limit farmers and ranchers’ ability to access solutions that can protect farmland and work for their operations.

Title 10 – Horticulture

Under an Administration where a number of NSAC priorities have been threatened by program termination or significant changes, the new and improved programs set forth in this title of FFNSA are not insignificant. 

In particular, the bill is responsive to the programmatic needs of stakeholders regarding the Local Agriculture Market Program. The turnkey grant opportunities have been extremely popular since their implementation in 2023; however, they have not been available for popular and unmet needs, such as farmers market manager staff time or special purpose equipment. FFNSA creates permanent turnkey grants and expands the allowed activities, yet falls short of eliminating barriers for participation, such as the match requirements. 

FFNSA takes modest steps in strengthening the Office of Urban Agriculture and Innovative Production by directing additional support to producers and tailoring technical assistance for urban production. However, it does not include mandatory funding for the Office, which has been a key NSAC priority in the previous few years, given the challenges of sustaining, let alone increasing, funding for this popular program through the appropriations process. The bill’s most significant support for urban agriculture is directing the Farm Service Agency to permanently implement urban county committees beyond their pilot status from the 2018 farm bill, which ensures USDA services and representation in urban areas.  

The bill directs USDA to examine the ways USDA purchases food for nutrition programs to understand barriers for farmers and businesses selling nontraditional, culturally relevant, or local and regional products directly to USDA, and make administrative, regulatory, and legislative recommendations to address barriers. This level of formal assessment is long overdue and a welcome element to the bill. 

With the early sunsetting of the Transition to Organic Partnership Program (TOPP), this bill is inadequate overall for organic agriculture, despite some elements of TOPP being included. Giving the National Organic Program (NOP) the authority to provide technical assistance to support transition with no additional funding for TA will increase the burden on an already underfunded program. Additional funding to provide technical assistance, education, and outreach to certified organic farmers and farmers transitioning to organic certification is critical for the continued growth of organic systems that emphasize soil health.

Title 11 – Crop Insurance

Unfortunately, FFNSA fails to meet the moment with any meaningful reforms that would alleviate bureaucratic red tape and streamline access to crop insurance for the small, diversified, and direct-to-consumer farmers and ranchers who are left behind. It requires an annual review of challenges to access Whole-Farm Revenue Protection, but those barriers and corresponding solutions are already well-documented. The bill amends the eligibility definitions for the additional crop insurance premium discounts passed in the One Big Beautiful Bill Act (OBBB, P.L. 119-21), including veteran producers for the additional premium discounts. While this is an important investment for beginning and veteran producers, it will have minimal impact if it is not paired with more foundational reforms to streamline paperwork and address the disincentive that agents experience to sell insurance to small and diversified farms.

FFNSA also directs several research initiatives to explore new insurance products, including limited weather based index policies, but few that would benefit producers currently unable to effectively or affordably insure their operations. While failing to address barriers or reduce the costs of crop insurance for many uninsured operations, the bill provides for increased reimbursement rates for administrative and operating costs for private Approved Insurance Providers (AIPs). 

Title 12 – Miscellaneous 

The Miscellaneous Title includes a wide range of provisions; here, we focus on several pertinent to expanding meat processing resources and capacity.

With the decline of avenues for small and very small plants to offer feedback to the Administration and receive guidance (for example, due to a decision to disband the National Advisory Committee on Meat and Poultry Inspection (NACMPI)), the inclusion of statutory requirements for further resources in the form of model Hazard Analysis and Critical Control Point (HACCP) plans and validation studies for these processors is welcome (Section 12112). 

While FFNSA does provide for further outreach to state departments of agriculture regarding the Cooperative Interstate Shipping Program, it does not change the federal cost share for that program or the state meat and poultry inspection programs – both of which are key changes needed for the federal food safety regulations to better work with and regulate small and very small meat processors. It also includes a reporting requirement to Congress (Section 12113) 

FFNSA also opens new, potentially anti-competitive methods of ownership that might directly counteract the benefits of other investments in the bill. For example, including the A-Plus Act (Section 12111) would likely create more vertically integrated markets, where the stockyard is also the only meat processing operation in an area.

The post At a Crossroads, House Farm Bill Falls Unmistakably Short appeared first on National Sustainable Agriculture Coalition.

Editor’s Note: This post is a guest blog authored by Mia Keady, a Postdoctoral Research Associate in the Department of Soil & Environmental Sciences at the University of Wisconsin – Madison and is part of our ongoing series on USDA staffing. Her research focuses on soil health, land stewardship, and conservation incentives. She’s passionate about finding solutions to environmental degradation and understanding soil processes in response to land management. Mia grew up in Lincoln, Nebraska, where she was first introduced to the prairie. Her work spans grassland ecology, microbial ecology, and conservation biology. She completed her bachelor’s in biology at Nebraska Wesleyan, master’s in biology at George Mason University, and Ph.D. in Environment and Resources at the University of Wisconsin-Madison.

‘Conservation requires management’ was a key takeaway from my undergraduate studies; dispelling naive ideas about letting the land heal itself without stewardship. During my academic journey, I’ve learned how humans are a part of nature and have shaped ecosystems for millennia and that contemporary conservation solutions will likewise require human interventions. The last century and a half of tilling up the once rich prairie has depleted soils and created many environmental problems including declining surface and ground water quality, increased flooding, biodiversity loss, and contributing to climate change.

Recognizing this difficult reality, can we reshape the impact of modern agriculture? Can we steward our agricultural lands to protect and enhance ecosystem services? What can we learn from the prairies to inform our stewardship? What strategies advance perennial agriculture that builds soils, retains nutrients, and provides habitat if managed well?

My research addresses these questions by examining soil change in the once-prominent but now threatened prairies of Southern Wisconsin, the influence of federal conservation funding across the state, and the critical role played by staff at the Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) and county conservation districts.

In this post, I will discuss the important role that perennial agricultural systems can play in supporting ecosystems and how perennial practices are supported by conservation staff, using Wisconsin as an example. My research shows that the number of NRCS and county conservation staff corresponds to federal conservation dollars spent in counties and that passionate and highly-skilled conservation staff are essential to supporting the adoption of perennial agricultural systems. 

What can agriculture learn from prairies?

Prairies provide key ecosystem benefits like clean ground and surface water, reduced flooding, critical habitat, and soil protection (Zhao et al., 2020). How can we mimic these benefits on farms? Perennial agricultural practices, including managed grazing of pasture, forestry, agroforestry, or grassland restoration, mimic the prairie ecosystem and bring many of these ecosystem services into agricultural systems. Peer-reviewed studies consistently show that perennial agricultural systems build or maintain soil organic matter, reduce nutrient and sediment runoff compared to annual row crops, and provide more resilient agroecosystems under climate stress (Culman et al., 2013; DeHaan et al., 2023; Dietz et al. 2024; Kreitzman et al., 2022; Mosier et al., 2021; Picasso et al. 2022; Soto-Gómez and Pérez-Rodríguez, 2022; Sprunger et al. 2024). Perennial agricultural practices that mimic the prairie ecosystem should be prioritized to maximize the environmental benefits of conservation investments.

Do conservation dollars support ‘prairie-like’ agriculture?

Even though perennial agricultural systems deliver substantial long-term environmental benefits, my research finds that they receive only a small portion of the federal agricultural conservation spending in Wisconsin (Keady, 2025). 

The US Department of Agriculture (USDA) administers voluntary, cost-share conservation programs to support farmers implementing conservation and nudge land management towards improved ecosystem services. The Environmental Quality Incentives Program (EQIP), administered by the NRCS, is the largest such federal conservation program in terms of total spending. To participate in EQIP, farmers and land managers work directly with NRCS staff and technical service providers to plan, apply for, and implement a range of approved conservation measures on private lands. In my research, I assessed EQIP spending from fiscal years 2014 through 2024 across Wisconsin to ask: Where do federal conservation dollars flow in Wisconsin and what influences where they go? In particular, I examined how much EQIP spending went to perennial agricultural conservation practices.

In Wisconsin, an average $29.7 million per year in EQIP support flowed to farmers in the 11-year period, with ~20% supporting agriculture that ‘acts like a prairie’ (that is, perennial practices including managed grazing of pasture, forestry, agroforestry, and habitat restoration), while ~60% supported interventions within annual row crop and livestock confinement systems such as cover crops and waste storage facilities (see full report here). The remaining 20% was used for multi-system practices such as heavy use areas, or practices that didn’t fall within these categories including dams and streambank protection. These results beg the question: is this the ‘best’ distribution of these dollars? Should we support interventions into systems well-known for environmental degradation to make them a bit less degrading, or should we invest in practices that help transform farms to perennial agriculture that ‘acts like a prairie’? 

The Important Role of Conservation Staff

 My research explored what county level factors shaped where EQIP dollars flowed. The strongest predictor of where EQIP dollars were spent was the number of conservation staff in a county, both federal and county employees (Figure 1) (Keady 2025). Local and federal conservation staff are critical to helping farmers access support for conservation practices. County conservationists in Wisconsin are members of Wisconsin Land and Water, also referred to as conservation district staff. Federal conservationists are NRCS field staff located within counties. Conservation staff work with farmers to find on-farm solutions and help navigate the application process (with grueling paperwork).Yet, NRCS staff has declined by over 30% over the past two decades, even before the devastating job cuts of 2025. In a time of intense environmental degradation, society desperately needs to support agricultural transitions to perennial systems that maintain soil carbon, produce food, and protect critical ecosystem services. Supporting well-trained and inspired conservation staff is critical to this equation.

Figure 1. NRCS staff (A) and county conservation district staff (B) correlate with the amount of conservation EQIP spending in Wisconsin counties. 

How do we transform agroecosystems? Passionate and Skilled Conservation Staff

Transitioning to perennial agroecosystems takes more than increasing conservation staff numbers, it also takes passion. Sauk County conservationist, Serge Koenig spent 30 years working with landowners, and the last 10 years inspiring and supporting transitions to managed rotational grazing. Serge sees grazing as the “most bang for your buck” – a financially viable farming option that provides solutions to environmental issues rather than interventions that slow the problem. His message has been convincing: Sauk County receives the most EQIP dollars in Wisconsin for grazing-related practices (Keady 2025). Serge credits this success to a combination of interpersonal skills, supervisory support, and most importantly – wanting to be the change. The interpersonal skills come naturally to Serge, but he’s adamant these are skills technicians can and should learn. Working with farmers requires “trust, sincere curiosity, and knowing when to listen, when to comment, and when to make suggestions,” he says. Supervisory support that encourages conservation staff to lean-in to their passion and expertise when working with farmers is key. Finally, conservationists want and need access to specialized training in grassland restoration, agroforestry, forestry, silvopasture, and grazing management. The heart of moving the needle towards perennial conservation comes from recognizing the ecological value of a perennial system and making it a priority to advocate for stewardship that makes our world a better place for farmers and society as a whole. 

Perennial systems such as well-managed rotational grazing, forestry, and agroforestry can mimic the prairie in protecting and enhancing ecosystem services. Perennial plants protect soil, clean water, and provide habitat – and should be a key tool for conservation programs, including NRCS’s EQIP. Conservation staff are critical to working with landowners and getting conservation on the ground. We desperately need to support their passion and ability to advance land-management and provide benefits to both the farmer, land, and society at large. 

The post Guest Post: Thinking like a prairie – strategies for perennial conservation appeared first on National Sustainable Agriculture Coalition.

This is the final post in the National Sustainable Agriculture Coalition (NSAC)’s series documenting the ongoing staffing crisis across the US Department of Agriculture (USDA). The scale and pace of staffing losses across the USDA, combined with the uncertainty introduced by a sweeping USDA reorganization plan, have weakened the Department at the very moment farmers face rising production costs, unstable markets, and climate-driven disasters. As the series comes to an end, the data show a workforce under extreme strain and an urgent need for renewed investment in the staff that make the People’s Department function.

 A Year Defined by Unprecedented Staffing Losses

Beginning in January 2025, USDA experienced historic staff losses. Nearly 3,000 employees separated from the agency in the first quarter alone, according to the Office of Personnel Management. These early losses included both career staff, many with 20 years or more of institutional knowledge, and recent hires who had not yet completed their first year of service. 

The truly unprecedented staff losses followed soon after, with roughly 15,173 USDA employees who accepted Deferred Resignation Program (DRP) buyouts. 94% of the USDA staff who left via the DRP were located outside of the Washington, DC area. All of the staff who accepted the DRP officially separated from the agency on September 30, 2025. 

Figure 1: Location of USDA Staff Who Left Via DRP

The consequences of these losses were immediate.

• Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS), already struggling to meet rising farmer demand, lost planners, conservationists, and program technicians whose expertise cannot be easily replaced. Promising conservationists like Gretchen Troutman and Josh Hardin are no longer there to help farmers design conservation plans and get funding to protect and enhance the resources that ensure their farm’s viability.

• Farm Service Agency (FSA) lost staff responsible for administering farm loans, disaster assistance, and commodity programs—programs that require precise and timely processing to keep farms solvent. FSA offices like the Oklahoma office where Kevin Dale used to work have had their staff cut in half or are fully vacant, even as work demands increase with the need to allocate 30 million new base acres and administer an additional $12 billion in farm financial assistance. 
• Food Safety and Inspection Service (FSIS) and Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS) lost experienced inspectors, veterinarians, and scientists, threatening on-the-ground food safety capacity.
• Rural Development offices lost staff with an average of 13.5 years of service, with losses concentrated among both the most junior and most experienced employees, leaving gaps in both institutional memory and the future of the agency. These Rural Development staff administer programs like the Meat and Poultry Processing Expansion Program (MPPEP) to help grow rural economies.
• The research agencies Economic Research Service (ERS), National Institute of Food and Agriculture (NIFA), and Agricultural Research Service (ARS) lost economists and scientists whose research supports federal decision-making, weakening USDA’s capacity to produce market forecasts, evaluate rural well-being, and administer competitive research grants.

Taken together, the federal workforce responsible for serving farmers and supporting rural communities shrank dramatically in a matter of months.

 A Reorganization Plan That Accelerates Risk

In July 2025, USDA announced a major reorganization plan, drafted without public input, that would relocate thousands of jobs, consolidate field offices, and restructure core program functions. Early details suggest the relocation of up to 2,600 headquarters and regional staff, along with the consolidation or closure of field offices across NRCS, FSA, Rural Development (RD), and other agencies. US Secretary of Agriculture Brooke Rollins has publicly stated that she expects up to half of the staff to leave the department rather than relocate.

For agencies already operating with gutted staff and the loss of institutional knowledge, this reorganization introduces additional uncertainty. Staff have been given limited details about timelines, office closures, reassignments, or new reporting structures. Farmers and stakeholders have been offered no clarity on how service delivery might be affected. During their adhoc public comment period on the reorganization, the USDA received nearly 47,000 emails. Their own analysis concludes that 82% of the responses expressed negative sentiment and concerns. 

The risks of USDA reorganization are clear. The deepest staffing losses occurred in agencies already stretched thin and struggling to meet farmer demand, leaving many USDA programs operating with minimal capacity at a time when farmers are facing a worsening financial crisis. Farmers rely on these agencies for conservation planning, loan processing, and disaster assistance. Any reorganization risks amplifying service gaps precisely when farmers need USDA support the most.

 The Shutdown and Reopening

When the government shut down on October 1, 2025, the incredible importance of USDA staff and services became even more evident. Outreach events were canceled, conservation planning stalled, and loan processing halted.

Farmers like Lindsay, from Tourvaille Farm in Ohio, could not get their conservation contracts paid on time because staff were furloughed. Others like Celeste, a farmer from Washington, didn’t receive their much-needed farm loans and safety net payments. These and the hundreds of other stories of American farmers and rural communities unable to access the resources and services they depend upon made visible the often-overlooked importance of USDA staff. 

The bill to reopen the government – passed on November 13, 2025 – included several provisions that shape the future of USDA staffing and services:

• First, the bill provided full-year funding for USDA, ensuring that USDA staff will not be furloughed for the remainder of the 2026 fiscal year.
• Second, Congress inserted new oversight requirements that could limit USDA’s ability to move forward with large-scale reorganizations, relocations, or office closures. This represents one of the first meaningful checks on the reorganization since its announcement.
• Third, the legislation stabilized funding for research and scientific programs. These investments protect programs critical for research and economic forecasting, areas where staff was already thinned due to the 2025 staff losses.

However, the shutdown bill did not reverse the staffing losses the USDA has already endured. It did not pause the reorganization, only slowed it and perhaps established some guardrails. And it did not provide any emergency hiring authorities or explicitly additional staffing budgets that agencies desperately need to rebuild.

Charting a Path Forward for Federal Agricultural Capacity

The USDA staffing crisis of 2025 makes clear that the department’s capacity has been compromised at a moment when robust federal support for farmers is most essential. If these staff losses are not addressed, access to USDA services will become more uneven and core missions of the USDA, from conservation to farm resilience, food safety, and rural development, will suffer.

NSAC urges the Administration and Congress to rebuild staffing across all USDA mission areas and pause the reorganization until a transparent and iterative process is laid out to meaningfully integrate stakeholder input. USDA must prioritize immediate hiring in NRCS, FSA, RD, and other agencies suffering acute shortages. No USDA reorganization and structural change should proceed until USDA conducts a transparent impact assessment, engages meaningfully with farmers and frontline staff, and demonstrates that proposed changes will strengthen, not weaken, service delivery.

The past year has shown how deeply USDA’s ability to serve the public depends on a strong and stable workforce.

The post USDA Staffing Crisis: A Year of Losses and the Road Ahead appeared first on National Sustainable Agriculture Coalition.

A Year Like No Other

As 2025 comes to a close, we find ourselves reflecting on a year that reshaped the food and farm policy landscape: from major disruptions in federal agencies to stalled policymaking in Washington, farmers and communities continue to feel the impacts. The historic government shutdown this fall was just the most recent situation to put our food and farm system under strain. Stable federal programs are critical for farmers and families across the country, and funding delays and terminations, shifting agency decisions, and the loss of experienced staff at USDA have created hardship for millions, especially those who already faced systemic barriers to accessing USDA programs and services. 

At NSAC we are always guided by our members and the federal policy priorities we set together – this year those included strengthening the farm safety net, advancing climate resilience in food and agriculture, and building strong local and regional food systems that benefit farmers and families.  We moved quickly and creatively to introduce bills in Congress designed to carry reforms and investments forward, we supported farmers and nonprofits navigating agency funding disruptions and terminations with guidance and peer support, and we organized our coalition to speak out in hundreds of channels nationwide – from social media to radio to local and national news – to elevate farmers’ and families’ stories about what was happening on the ground. This blog post reflects on that work, the progress made, the setbacks we faced, and the resolve that carried our coalition through a year marked by both instability and extraordinary collaboration.  

Building Better Policies in Washington for the Farm Bill and Beyond 

Congress failed to pass a full five-year farm bill again this year – leaving everyone who relies on this critical major legislation stuck for another year without an opportunity for real policy reforms or investments. NSAC and nearly 600 national, state, and local organizations delivered a joint letter to Senate and House leadership, as well as Agriculture Committee chairs and ranking members, urging Congress to advance not only an overdue farm bill but one that truly supports family farmers, strengthens rural communities, expands healthy food access, and more. The letter also called on Congress to correct harmful provisions enacted through the recently passed budget reconciliation bill.  

We still saw some legislative wins this year:  we helped draft, refine, and introduce nearly a dozen “marker bills” this year that together will build better farm and food policy in a future farm bill.  

Farm Safety Net

• Save Our Small (SOS) Farms Act – modernizes federal farm safety net programs to make crop insurance and disaster assistance more accessible for small, specialty, and beginning farmers, helping them stay on the land despite economic and climate challenges.
• Crop Insurance for Future Farmers Act – makes crop insurance more affordable and accessible for new and veteran farmers by increasing the premium‑subsidy support and extending the time they’re eligible. 
• Farm Ownership Improvement Act – establishes a five‑year pilot program allowing farmers and ranchers to get pre‑qualified or pre‑approved for direct farm‑ownership loans to make it easier for new and beginning farmers to secure land. 
• Capital for Beginning Farmers and Ranchers Act – creates a multi-year FSA loan pilot to help new farmers access flexible capital for startup costs, infrastructure, and management systems, addressing high barriers to entry and supporting the next generation of farmers.
• Withstanding Extreme Agricultural Threats by Harvesting Economic Resilience (WEATHER) Act of 2025 – modifies the federal crop-insurance program to create a new type of coverage that pays farmers quickly and automatically when severe weather hits their area, giving them a simpler and more reliable safety net as extreme weather and natural disasters become more common.

Local and Regional Food Systems 

• Strengthening Local Food Security (SLFS) Act of 2025 – helps small and mid-sized farmers sell more locally grown foods to schools and community programs, boosting farmer income while giving families better access to healthy food.
• Local Farmers Feeding Our Communities Act – helps small and mid-sized farmers sell more local food through state and tribal programs, creating stable markets for producers while improving access to fresh, nutritious food for families in need.
• Strengthening Local Processing Act (SLPA) – standing challenges in the livestock and poultry supply chain. It advances a more resilient, competitive, and regionally rooted meat processing sector by updating the Cooperative Interstate Shipment (CIS) program, increasing size eligibility, improving state cost shares, and requiring FSIS outreach. Together, these reforms would enable small and mid-sized processors to expand sales across state lines and strengthen regional food systems.

Climate Resilience

• Agriculture Resilience Act – would adapt the farm bill to today’s realities by investing comprehensively across  conservation, research, renewable energy, and rural development to help producers build resilience, boost profitability, and achieve net-zero agricultural emissions by 2040.
• Strong Farms, Strong Futures Act – strengthens the Conservation Stewardship Program by creating region-specific climate mitigation practice bundles and higher cost-share incentives, giving producers more options and greater support to build complex and resilient conservation systems.
• Support the WEST Act – strengthens key USDA conservation programs by boosting cost-share for water-saving and drought-resilient practices, expanding support for perennial systems, and enhancing soil-health outreach and testing to better serve producers in Western arid regions.
• Organic Science and Research Investment (OSRI) Act – strengthens USDA’s organic research and data programs by boosting funding, coordination, and support for organic and transitioning farmers so that innovations in soil health, climate resilience, and sustainable production can benefit all producers and bolster rural economies.
• Innovative Practices for Soil Health Act – strengthens USDA conservation programs to better support farmers adopting perennial and agroforestry systems, enhancing technical assistance, research capacity, and incentives to improve soil health, resilience, and long-term sustainability across US agriculture.
• Converting Our Waste Sustainably (COWS) Act of 2025 – offers incentives for livestock and dairy farms to manage manure sustainably by funding practices and composting methods that cut greenhouse‑gas emissions and improve soil and water quality. 

The government shutdown resolution package passed in November included a one-year extension of the Agriculture Improvement Act of 2018 – the farm bill. This extension is largely “clean” – meaning without major changes to the 2018 bill – but it does have one problematic change that NSAC is fighting to remove in future bills: the bill removes key payment limits and income eligibility rules for EQIP and CSP, effectively enabling the largest operations to access unlimited conservation funding, shifting conservation resources away from smaller and mid-sized producers, and exacerbating existing trends where demand far exceeds available resources, shutting out access to these popular programs. 

Protecting Federal Investments in Sustainable, Equitable Policy

This year’s federal budget process, shaped by a major reconciliation package and competing House and Senate spending proposals, set in motion decisions that will influence conservation, farm viability, and community resilience for years to come.

The spring and early summer centered on the so-called “One Big Beautiful Bill Act” (OBBB), a major reconciliation package that folded remaining Inflation Reduction Act (IRA) conservation dollars into the permanent farm bill baseline, securing long-term funding but removing the climate guardrails that ensured those dollars supported climate friendly practices. OBBB shifted significant resources away from nutrition assistance programs and toward commodity programs, putting vulnerable communities at risk while abandoning programs that support the vast majority of farmers and rural communities. Overall OBBB represented a mixed outcome: a long-term win for conservation funding, but a failure to invest in long-term solutions that promote markets and invest in production systems that build all farmers’ autonomy and self-determination.

Appropriations debates intensified through the summer. The House advanced a $25.5 billion FY26 agriculture bill along party lines with major cuts to conservation, research, and local food systems programs, along with several harmful policy riders. The Senate, in contrast, passed a bipartisan $27 billion bill that largely preserved funding for core farmer- and community-serving programs. With no agreement in place by September 30, the government entered the shutdown that lasted from October 1 to November 12.

The FY2026 agriculture appropriations bill included in the shutdown resolution reflected continued funding cuts to several important USDA programs. While some programs maintained their current funding levels, others saw reductions, limiting USDA’s capacity to provide technical assistance, support innovative production, and strengthen local and regional food systems at a time when farmers need those services most.

Pressing USDA to Better Serve Farmers

With the start of the new Trump Administration came major shifts in USDA leadership and direction. Throughout the year, NSAC challenged the agency’s harmful program terminations, staffing cuts, and policy reversals, while lifting up farmer stories and working to advance our coalition’s priorities wherever possible. NSAC and partners worked extensively to secure funding from the Inflation Reduction Act of 2022 for critical conservation and rural energy programs this year. Delays and cancellations in payments by the Trump Administration left tens of thousands of farmers and ranchers without funds that were already contractually committed by the federal government. Despite over $2.3 billion in signed contracts nationwide, these interruptions forced farmers to cover project costs out of pocket, threatening farm viability and undermining trust in federal programs. Across all of our campaign priorities, our coalition worked to ensure USDA hears from the producers most affected by its decisions and remains accountable to the communities it is meant to serve.

Proposed USDA reorganization: In July, USDA announced a reorganization proposal with little detail and no meaningful input from farmers. NSAC submitted extensive comments outlining how the plan could destabilize critical functions, from agricultural research to conservation programs to components of the farm safety net. We also mobilized farmers, advocates, and partner organizations to weigh in, despite USDA’s failure to follow the standard Federal Register comment process for a proposal of this scale.

USDA staffing crisis: This year revealed the depth of USDA’s ongoing staffing crisis. Through our multi-part blog series, we highlighted how the loss of more than 18,000 staff positions, and additional reductions expected under proposed restructuring, has already weakened the agency’s ability to deliver conservation assistance, research, technical support, and other essential services. By documenting impacts across key agency mission areas, especially at NRCS, we helped policymakers and the public understand the stakes and the urgent need for a transparent, farmer-informed process to rebuild USDA’s capacity. 

With these agency-wide challenges in view, our campaigns worked on multiple fronts to hold USDA accountable and push to safeguard the programs farmers rely on.

Farm Safety Net 

• NSAC recently published a major analysis of the current farm crisis, highlighting rising production costs, collapsing crop prices, and unprecedented instability in federal programs. NSAC has continued to press USDA to take immediate action to restore program stability, provide revenue-based relief and loan protections, and strengthen the farm safety net so that farmers can weather this crisis and stay on their land.
• In early December, USDA announced the Farmer Bridge Assistance (FBA) Program to address the economic impacts of tariffs and provide needed economic relief. NSAC, in partnership with the National Young Farmers Coalition, provided a swift analysis of the announcement and the limited program details that were released. NSAC highlighted the importance of FBA as a first step in providing economic assistance to farmers, but underscored the need for additional action to repair and expand the safety net to support all farmers. 
• 2025 marked ten years since the first Whole Farm Revenue Protection (WFRP) crop insurance policies became available for producers. Since the introduction of this new risk management option in the 2014 Farm Bill, NSAC continues to advocate for improvements via legislation and regulatory changes at USDA that would make the product more accessible and functional for a broader set of producers. 
• USDA has continued to distribute disaster relief funding through the Supplemental Disaster Relief Program (SDRP) throughout this past year. Prior to the announcement of SDRP Stage 2 in late November, which specifically provides assistance for non-insured crop producers, NSAC provided guidance to Farm Service Agency (FSA) leadership on how to ensure accessibility to program funds for those producers. These recommendations included streamlined and reduced paperwork, clearer instructions in USDA documentation, and exemptions to the requirement for crop insurance enrollment among others. NSAC continues to provide support to our members as Stage 2 of SDRP applications remain open through April of 2026. 

Local and Regional Food Systems

• Early in the year, USDA abruptly paused and then later terminated the Local Food Purchase Agreement (LFPA) program, a nationally popular program with bipartisan support that helped farmers grow and sell produce into local schools, hospitals, and institutions. NSAC swung into action in partnership with  National Farmers Union to deliver a letter with more than 1,000 signatures urging the program’s reinstatement. We helped over 100 farmers share their stories about why this program matters for their communities and businesses in press stories nationwide and raised the alarm on Capitol Hill, hosting briefings and meetings led by affected farmers, which led to bipartisan support for legislative solutions for the future of this program. 
• This year, NSAC focused on deepening stakeholder engagement around the FDA Food Traceability Rule, working closely with the Reagan-Udall Foundation to explore new possibilities for future food safety improvements and gather industry insights to inform more practical, effective implementation.
• In October, USDA’s Beef Strategy Report offered modest wins for small and very small processors, such as reduced fees for overtime and holiday inspections. But limited funding in the Meat and Poultry Processing Expansion Program underscored the need for continued advocacy to ensure these processors can access the resources they need.

Climate Resilience 

• At USDA, shifting priorities in the Rural Energy for America Program (REAP) and the Rural Development Business and Industry (B&I) Guaranteed Loan programs created uncertainty for farmers seeking to adopt renewable energy. An August memo from USDA deprioritizing larger ground-mounted solar projects and raising questions about whether grants can be used to purchase solar technologies manufactured outside of the US, left producers with few clear answers, even as NSAC pressed USDA for needed guidance.
• NSAC opposed EPA’s proposal to repeal the 2009 Endangerment Finding, as removing the scientific and legal basis for regulating greenhouse gases undermines climate protections. The proposal leaned on a discredited draft claiming climate change is “neutral or beneficial” for most agriculture, contradicting decades of research and farmers’ experience on the ground.
• In September, NSAC worked for weeks both behind the scenes and in the press to persuade USDA to open its SARE funding pool, which helps farmers and researchers address sustainability and profitability concerns on farms. We helped coordinate a letter with more than 500 farmer signatories urging USDA to ensure the timely release of SARE funding. While we succeeded in seeing the RFA released, the delay until September 11 left host institutions little time to secure awards before the fiscal year ended, jeopardizing farmers’ access to regionally specific research. 

Stronger Together

One of NSAC’s longtime coalition sayings reminds us that “No one knows everything. Together we know a lot.” Our coalition is at its strongest when we lean into our shared values and practice relationship-centered, collaborative advocacy. This felt especially true in a year as complex as 2025.

In February, nearly 100 member organizations and more than 30 farmers from 17 states gathered in Washington, DC for our winter meeting and lobby day, one of our largest to date. Meetings were held with roughly 150 lawmakers to share farmer stories and underscore the critical importance of federal agriculture programs. Despite funding freezes and political chaos, our coalition’s collective voice made it clear that Congress must ensure USDA fulfills its commitments.  In August, NSAC coalition members from across the country attended our summer meeting in Stowe, Vermont, to ground ourselves in shared strategy – and of course visit amazing local farms and eat lots of maple creemees.

After many years of planning, NSAC completed a new 5-year strategic plan and has begun a new 2-year policy priority-setting process to be ready for 2026-2028 and beyond. Earlier this year, NSAC also developed an interactive time of our coalition’s history.

Looking Ahead to 2026

2025 presented steep challenges, requiring us to defend decades of hard-won progress while continuing to push forward. This year reinforced the importance of being resourceful and creative in a rapidly changing policy landscape – and we’ll keep it up next year too. Farmers, ranchers, and families nationwide all deserve a food and farm system that nourishes people, stewards our environment, and builds strong economies: we believe this is a future everyone can help create. Here’s a preview of what’s to come from us in 2026:  

• We will continue to campaign around the priorities our members and their thousands of farmer and community leaders bring to our shared table: reforming the farm safety net, bolstering resilient local and regional food systems, and fostering climate change resilience. We’ll bring these priorities to appropriations, to a potential new farm bill, to USDA, and everywhere in between here in DC. 
• We’ll gather in person together with our members and farmer leaders as always: in DC this winter and out in the field in August. This time together helps us build our strategies and strengthen our relationships as we learn from one another and advocate together. 
• Our analysis – always free and available to the public here on our blog – will continue. We will continue to highlight what’s happening in DC, what it means for farmers and eaters, and lift up ways for all of us to be heard on the issues that matter for food and farms. 

Throughout 2026, we will continue mobilizing grassroots action, delivering timely analysis, and supporting our members and partners as we build momentum for a sustainable, resilient, and equitable farm and food future. 

The post Chaos, Collaboration, and Courage: A Look Back at 2025 appeared first on National Sustainable Agriculture Coalition.