Contact: Laura Zaks

National Sustainable Agriculture Coalition

press@sustainableagriculture.net

Tel. 347.563.6408

Release: Hundreds Call for Strong Investments in Farmer-Led Research, Urban Agriculture, and Conservation in FY2027 Appropriations

Washington, DC, April 16, 2026 – Yesterday, the National Sustainable Agriculture Coalition (NSAC), alongside hundreds of organizations, delivered letters calling for strong investments in Fiscal Year (FY) 2027 Agriculture Appropriations legislation. The letters, which focused on the Sustainable Agriculture Research and Education (SARE), the Office of Urban Agriculture and Innovative Production (OUAIP), and Conservation Operations and Conservation Technical Assistance, arrive as Congressional Appropriators are drafting spending legislation, and several weeks after the Administration released its own FY2027 budget proposal.

The Sustainable Agriculture Research and Education (SARE) program is the only regionally based, farmer driven, and outcome-oriented competitive research program that involves farmers and ranchers directly as the primary investigators in research and education projects. SARE provides grants directly to producers, which removes the financial risk of testing new ideas for making their operations more economically viable, productive, and sustainable. To meet the current demand for farmer driven research, stakeholders are requesting full funding for SARE at its authorized level of $60 million.

“Farmers and ranchers are at the center of everything SARE does, from important leadership positions at the national level, to participating in the regional grant review process, to designing and implementing projects for on-farm research. This farmer led model that SARE champions ensures that funding continues to go to America’s most innovative farmers and ranchers,” said Nick Rossi, NSAC Policy Specialist. “Despite nearly 40 years of helping farmers develop and adopt cutting edge practices and systems, SARE has yet to receive its fully authorized funding, and every year more than half of eligible farmer/rancher grants go unfunded.”

The Office of Urban Agriculture and Innovative Production (OUAIP) offers programs and services that support the unique needs of agricultural production in urban, suburban, and indoor settings, ensuring business success and an ample supply of nutritious foods in their communities. OUAIP grants, cooperative agreements, and programming have reached 43 states and Puerto Rico, despite being significantly underfunded. This year, stakeholders are requesting funding at the authorized level of $25 million.

“The combined effect of US Department of Agriculture (USDA) staff losses and cuts to nutrition programs makes OUAIP awards and timely implementation even more essential for organizations and local stakeholders to fill the gaps left in communities. Previous awards have funded incubator farms and community garden infrastructure, as well as producer training and youth education; all of which have been difficult for producers to access in traditional USDA service centers,” commented Hannah Quigley, NSAC Policy Specialist. 

Conservation Operations and Conservation Technical Assistance (CTA) funds facilitate the administration of USDA conservation programs by supporting our conservation workforce, conservation planning, and the extension of specialized technical assistance to producers. According to USDA, CTA funds supported over 4,400 full time NRCS positions in every state in the nation in 2025, as well as TA providers at third-party organizations. This year, NSAC partnered with the National Associations of Conservation Districts, as well as a long list of stakeholders, in requesting $1.05 billion for Conservation Operations.

“Producers across the country depend on the availability of on-the-ground technical assistance to implement effective conservation practices. These funds support conservation professionals providing detailed, unbiased agronomic advice to producers in every state, most often at the county level. It’s no surprise to see such strong support from organizations and producers alike for these investments at a time when producer access to TA is so dramatically reduced,” said Jesse Womack, NSAC Policy Specialist.

### 

About the National Sustainable Agriculture Coalition (NSAC)The National Sustainable Agriculture Coalition is a grassroots alliance that advocates for federal policy reform supporting the long-term social, economic, and environmental sustainability of agriculture, natural resources, and rural communities. Learn more: https://sustainableagriculture.net/

The post Release: Hundreds Call for Strong Investments in Farmer-Led Research, Urban Agriculture, and Conservation in FY2027 Appropriations 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.

Contact: Laura Zaks

National Sustainable Agriculture Coalition

press@sustainableagriculture.net

Tel. 347.563.6408

Release: USDA Halts Rural Energy Efficiency Investments

Washington, DC, April 1, 2026 – On March 31, the United States Department of Agriculture’s (USDA) Rural Business Cooperative Service announced a halt to all awards for the Rural Energy for America Program (REAP) until updated regulations are developed to ensure compliance with Executive Order (EO) 14315. The second Trump Administration has yet to announce new REAP grants – the most recent grants made public were awarded in early January 2025.

“At a moment when farmers and rural small businesses face converging financial pressures, bringing the Rural Energy for America Program to a standstill only increases that pressure. Countless small businesses have invested significant time and resources in this popular, bipartisan program to reduce their energy costs. USDA should implement the REAP program as quickly as possible and provide more clarity on when farmers can expect the program to resume,” said Richa Patel, NSAC Policy Specialist, in response to the USDA announcement.

The USDA announcement did not indicate when the program would resume, while separately confirming that farmers and rural small businesses who applied under the previous 2024 notice will need to reapply once new regulations are in place, and that application processing has stopped immediately. 

In 2025, REAP funding was frozen – and then somewhat reopened – however, the program has still not returned to its pre-2025 standard operating cadence. Since its inception, REAP has funded more than 19,000 grants directly supporting farmers, ranchers, and rural small businesses, helping them improve energy efficiency and produce on-farm renewable energy. The National Sustainable Agriculture Coalition has long advocated for REAP’s ability to support farmers and ranchers in implementing their own projects to produce energy on their farms and cut operational costs.

### 

About the National Sustainable Agriculture Coalition (NSAC)The National Sustainable Agriculture Coalition is a grassroots alliance that advocates for federal policy reform supporting the long-term social, economic, and environmental sustainability of agriculture, natural resources, and rural communities. Learn more: https://sustainableagriculture.net/

The post Release: USDA Halts Rural Energy Efficiency Investments appeared first on National Sustainable Agriculture Coalition.

Contact: Laura Zaks
National Sustainable Agriculture Coalition
press@sustainableagriculture.net
Tel. 347.563.6408

Comment: Farm Assistance Framework Signals Need and Opportunity to Build More Robust Support 

Washington, DC, January 15, 2026 –  Today, the National Sustainable Agriculture Coalition (NSAC) issued the following comment in response to the House Agriculture Committee Minority’s unveiling of a farm assistance framework, attributable to Mike Lavender, NSAC Policy Director.

“The past year has brought unprecedented uncertainty, pushing countless farmers and ranchers to the brink. The Farm and Family Relief Act gets the urgency of this moment right – robust financial relief is long overdue. NSAC urges Congressional leaders to build on this framework toward an outcome that delivers for farmers and families. This includes making sure any financial assistance is available to all farmers who need it, keeping farmers on the land by providing additional loan support, preventing foreclosures, and offering broad eligibility to actively engaged farmers. Still, this immediate financial relief is not enough to break the cycle: we also need investments that build reliable domestic markets and expand access to conservation practices that help farmers reduce persistently high input costs.”

In November 2025, NSAC published Keeping Farmers on the Land, an in-depth analysis of the current challenges facing farmers and ranchers and the solutions needed to support them in the immediate and long term. NSAC continues to advocate for Congressional farm financial assistance that includes these comprehensive solutions.

###

About the National Sustainable Agriculture Coalition (NSAC)The National Sustainable Agriculture Coalition is a grassroots alliance that advocates for federal policy reform supporting the long-term social, economic, and environmental sustainability of agriculture, natural resources, and rural communities. 

Learn more: https://sustainableagriculture.net/

The post Comment: Farm Assistance Framework Signals Need and Opportunity to Build More Robust Support  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.

The National Sustainable Agriculture Coalition (NSAC) traces its earliest roots to the farm crisis of the 1980s, when cycles in the global economy and federal agricultural policy combined to push farmers losing their farms into the national spotlight. The 330,000 farm families who lost their farms between 1978 and 1992 were, unfortunately, not the last. The total number of farms has continued to steadily decrease since then, with the loss of mid-sized farms at a particularly concerning rate.

Within the past couple of years, there has been mounting evidence suggesting a tipping point for farmers and ranchers not unlike that 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 in which farmers’ livelihoods are threatened. Earlier this year, hundreds of farmers – reportedly more than 500 – attended a single meeting to ask for help. Moments of farm crisis – like the one we are in now – stand out from the decades-long drumbeat of farm losses across agriculture.

While the current threat of farm loss is driven by global economies and issues far outside of farmers’ control, the fate of farm families is and will continue to be determined by the structure of US federal farm programs. Agriculture will always have disruptive events, from market disruptions and natural disasters to pandemics and pests. Yet the structure of federal policy determines the impact of those disruptions on farm families, their communities, the land, and the country. Too often federal programs have been structured to amplify the benefits of scale, while further eroding the strength of our communities.

Keeping farmers on the land is in NSAC’s DNA. For decades, NSAC has championed policies that promote markets and production systems that build farmers’ autonomy and self-determination and lessen their vulnerability to disasters. Today, federal policy can still be a vehicle to build a truly sustainable, just agricultural economy – one that sustains farm families and livelihoods, protects natural resources, and supports communities nationwide. 

This blog post offers an in-depth examination of the current state of the US farm economy, the impacts of a down farm economy, and the federal policy solutions necessary to put the US agricultural economy – and the farmers, ranchers, and communities who depend on it – on firm footing for the future.

• The Current Farm Economy
• Impacts to Individuals, Families, and Communities
• Comprehensive and Proactive Solutions
• What Comes Next

The Current Farm Economy

The US farm economy can be exceedingly complex to navigate. Nationwide, there are more than 1.9 million farms. These farms – from rural communities to urban centers and everywhere in between – are incredibly diverse in almost every way imaginable. 

The overwhelming majority of US crop production is represented by just two commodities – corn and soybeans – which were planted on roughly 175 million total acres in 2023. Broadening the scope slightly, wheat (50 million acres) and cotton (10 million acres) enter the picture. Beyond row crops, there are hundreds of thousands of specialty crop farmers in the US, growing almost every imaginable variety of fruit, nut, and vegetable. In 2023, 4.3 million acres were devoted to vegetables and just over 6 million acres in orchard production. Meanwhile, 568,972 farms – roughly 30% of all US farms – specialized in cattle or dairy production in 2022. Another 19% of US farms specialize in other livestock: hogs and pigs, poultry and eggs, sheep and goats, and beyond.

Each farmer must build their own business model – factoring in their unique scale, type of production, and market – to achieve success and longevity. Each of these factors carries with it its own risks and opportunities for growth and stability. Consequently, it’s important to note that farmers can have significantly divergent experiences within the same farm economy. Some may be particularly well positioned to navigate a challenging economy thanks to their strategy or even where they farm, while others may have an entirely different experience.

Yet all farmers – whether they are raising livestock or growing row crops, specialty crops, or even both – face similar hurdles: namely, production costs, crop prices, and market access. 

Production costs

One of the most significant costs nearly all farmers face is for inputs – items produced off farm – that they deem necessary to their farm’s success. Some of the most common production costs include fertilizers, pesticides, and seeds. Determined in large part by global market conditions, fertilizer and pesticide prices are difficult, if not impossible to control with domestic policy, and recent turbulence in most global markets has only exacerbated the problem. In 2024, the cost to farmers of these combined crop inputs (chemicals, fertilizers, and seeds) rose by nearly $20 billion dollars (comparing 2024 to 2016). During that time period, pesticide production expenses jumped 42%, seed expenses jumped 26%, and fertilizer, lime, and soil conditioner expenses rose 44%. During that same time window, the amount of US acres in farms declined significantly, signalling that dramatic increases in production expenses are not being driven by expanded acreage. 

Crop prices

While production costs have risen significantly in recent years, nationwide, farmers are also facing low crop prices. Since the peak highs in 2021 and 2022, crop prices for corn, soybeans, wheat, and cotton have all fallen significantly – corn, soybeans, and wheat are all down more than 50% per bushel, while cotton is down more than 40%. On the back of these low prices, total crop cash receipts – including receipts from farm products like fruits and nuts – are forecast to decrease $6.1 billion (2.5 percent) in 2025. When focusing on some of the most prevalent row crops, we see that the combined cash receipts are even lower – corn, soybeans and wheat are forecast to fall by $6.8 billion in 2025.

Similarly, many specialty crop prices have either dropped or failed to keep pace with the rising production costs highlighted above. Cash receipts for vegetables and melons are forecast to be $520 million lower in 2025 than in 2024 and nearly $1B lower than 2023. At the same time, specialty crop producers have faced increasing production and labor costs. Specialty crop farms also have the highest labor costs as a portion of total cash expenses and are particularly affected by rising labor costs and labor shortages. 

The factors driving low prices are, of course, multifaceted. Farm policies and economic structures incentivize maximizing yield, which often result in overproduction of major US crops – corn, soybeans, wheat – creating a price glut that quickly and severely depresses prices for producers. Similarly, unstable domestic and international market access also impacts the price that farmers receive.

Market access

The US agricultural economy is heavily reliant on international markets. From livestock to grains, commodity production in the US has long exceeded domestic demand for the majority of major commodities. Because domestic demand is exceeded, the US agricultural economy relies on – and is exposed to – often volatile international markets. Sudden changes to trade rules and tariffs have made our usual buyers – like China and Argentina – nervous. Because they cannot reliably count on us, they are now buying from other countries instead. This has introduced significant uncertainty for farmers about markets and dropped crop prices – soybean sales are down 23% from the same time last year because of lower prices. While recently announced trade deals could shift this trend, legitimate uncertainties remain.

Instability of Federal Partnership

Finally, it is worth stating that 2025 has brought unprecedented instability in federal partnership. Although stability is essential for farm planning, farmers have experienced unexpected contract cuts and unpredictable, abrupt trade policy shifts. 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.

From commodity farmers selling into international markets to specialty growers selling at a market down the street, collectively, these freezes and terminations have been felt across all scales and types of American agriculture. Each farmer develops their own unique financing strategy, and federal programs can be an essential piece in the puzzle to demonstrate stable income for the year. But when federal contracts are frozen or terminated with little warning, it not only casts doubt on government dependability, it ultimately undercuts the ability of federal programs to serve as a stable support for farmers of all scales. The damage is much more extensive than just the loss of that specific income. Sudden loss of any source of federal support can impact a producer’s ability to work with their lenders to secure or maintain necessary lines of operating credit for the growing season.

This uncertainty has permeated federal programs throughout 2025, impacting programs that help farmers enter new domestic markets, adapt to natural disasters and add-value to their crop, and expand access to USDA programs and services. It has even jeopardized popular farmer-led programs as recently as September 2025.  Over the summer, Congress passed and the President signed a budget reconciliation bill. This bill cut billions in food assistance and funneled that savings toward commodity payments, all while programs that support the vast majority of farmers and rural communities are excluded from the bill entirely. On top of all of this, USDA has lost nearly 20,000 employees since January while simultaneously proposing a massive department-wide reorganization without any input from farmers – both of which serve to undermine USDA’s support for farmers.

Sum of the Parts

When the tide of these baseline factors turns bad, keeping farmers in business – and on the land – requires a federal response that is finely tuned to the full range of farm and farmer needs.

By nearly any measure 2025 has presented American farmers with an array of serious challenges that, collectively, threaten farm viability nationwide. In fact, a recent survey of agricultural lenders indicates that less than half of US farmers are likely to be profitable in 2026. Yet, this moment of farm financial crisis is not particularly unique, and is just one in a long line of past and future disruptions. The ongoing loss of farms and the difficulty for new farmers to enter farming demonstrate where farm safety net programs have gaps, and how these programs are built to pick winners and losers. Farms going out of business is not a necessity of these disruptions, or even a function of disruptions, but a demonstration that federal safety net programs are not universal.

Over time, intentional decisions made by policy leaders have pushed many farmers toward narrow production choices that often make it difficult to diversify or explore new markets without sacrificing stability. Simultaneously, suffocating consolidation – among but not limited to input producers and livestock processors – leaves farmers squeezed on both ends. Taken together, these dynamics prevent many farmers – whether they grow crops, livestock, or both – from creating a business that can better buffer against shocks, and leaves them highly exposed to risk. 

Ultimately, in this model of agriculture, some years can be good, yet many years are not, even with government support: between 2017 and 2022, more than 140,000 farms were shuttered. Of those, 128,000 (91%) were smaller than 1,000 acres and 82% were smaller than 500 acres. Farms over 5,000 acres were the only category that increased – by over 5% – during this period. And no matter their size, farmers themselves faced “incredible financial, legal, and emotional stress.” Unfortunately, the impacts don’t end there.

Impacts

When the agricultural economy suffers, farmers suffer – ultimately, leading farmers and ranchers out of business. When a farm goes out of business, individuals, families, and communities are impacted, first and foremost as people. Rural communities have alarming rates of mental illness, depression, and suicide. Furthermore, farmers are 3.5 times more likely to die by suicide than the general population, and the suicide rate has increased by 46% in rural America in the last 20 years.

The loss of farms also exacerbates land consolidation. While farm sector consolidation may carry some efficiencies in the aggregate, unchecked consolidation creates a fragile farm economy that is exceedingly expensive for taxpayers and siphons vitality from farming communities.  Data from USDA’s most recent Census of Agriculture continues to show a long-term, concerning trend of more land held by ever fewer farms. As farms go out of business, that land is often subject to development pressure, threatening to permanently remove it from agricultural production. If the land stays in production, it is often bought by a neighbor or corporate investor. Over time, this simple process leaves more and more land in the hands of fewer and fewer farmers. With fewer farms – oftentimes not owned by the farmer themself – the economic diversity and resilience of American agriculture is diminished, leaving it more vulnerable to shocks and dependent on federal payments.

Last but not least, during challenging economic times, not all farmers are impacted equally. Compared to established farmers, new and beginning farmers tend to have less capital on hand, making it more difficult to absorb and survive economic shocks like those presented in 2025. This fact threatens an entire generation of new farmers unless we act swiftly.

Comprehensive and Proactive Solutions

Clearly, farming is a challenging enterprise. Consequently, much of federal food and agriculture policy is rightly structured around supporting farmers when times are tough. The farm safety net – including federal crop insurance, commodity support programs, and disaster assistance programs – is an essential pathway for farmers to manage risk.

While the increased farm subsidies included in the 2025 budget reconciliation bill may offer some farmers short-term relief, relying solely on commodity support programs is not a durable solution to farmers’ financial challenges, in part because the current farm safety net has significant gaps in coverage and efficiency. Moreover, previous farm bill efforts, including the 2018 Farm Bill, proved that simply increasing subsidies has failed to stabilize the farm economy over the long term, leaving producers vulnerable once again. 

Yet even if ideally constructed, the farm safety net is just one aspect of building a thriving agricultural economy. Federal policy must holistically promote markets and invest in production systems that build all farmers’ autonomy and self-determination and lessen their vulnerability to disasters. Ultimately, we cannot afford to continue looking only at short-term solutions while ignoring the warning signs of longer term structural issues.

Rather, our immediate goal must be to keep farms in business now, coupled with a commitment to overhauling the safety net and building out financial resilience. While we face economic signals of farm distress similar to the 1980s, it is time for a fundamental change in how the US responds to those signals. To keep farmers on the land, it’s imperative.

Below, NSAC offers a non-exhaustive set of policy solutions as a starting point for what is needed in both the immediate and near term. Given the diversity of American agriculture, policy solutions may not apply to every farmer and rancher. For example, some may be tailored to commodity crop producers or livestock producers, whereas others are tailored toward specialty crop growers.

Collectively, these solutions prioritize keeping farms in business in the short term and building farm financial independence, self determination, and the ability to weather all nature of disruptions in the long term. These solutions – which reflect the importance of farms at all scales and of all products – prioritize farmers’ entrepreneurship, stewardship, and connection to their community while reducing dependence on taxpayer funds. We encourage Congress and USDA to utilize the full range of tools at their disposal, including government procurement, marketing, regulatory and granting programs, to increase farm viability in both the short and long terms.

The solutions are structured as follows:

• Immediate Needs
  • Farm Loans, Cash Flow Assistance, and Revenue-Based Relief
  • Rental Payments for Marginal Land
  • Enhanced Support for Input-Reducing Conservation Practices
  • Stronger, Reliable Markets for American Farmers 

• Near-Term Needs
  • Prioritize the Next Generation of Farmers
  • Comprehensive Federal Food Procurement Reform
  • Strengthen Regional Food Supply Chains
  • Build a Stronger Farm Safety Net for All

The solutions offered in this section are arranged as indicated above based on the immediacy necessary to keep farmers on the land. Immediate solutions include cash-flow and farm loan assistance, short-term contracts to retire marginal land, and stronger, more reliable markets. Near-term solutions include land access for beginning farmers, increasing market access for meat and poultry producers, comprehensive federal food procurement reform, and more.

Immediate Needs

Farm Loans, Cash Flow Assistance, and Revenue-Based Relief

USDA must provide immediate and near-term relief for all producers to ensure no farms or farmland are lost due to acute financial hardship. The structure of how this support is delivered is vital to ensure that no farms are lost, and farmland is not consolidated further into a diminishing number of larger operations. To ensure that all farms facing financial stress receive the support they need, USDA should:

• Provide loan support to any producer struggling to meet their next payment installment in order to prevent farm loan defaults. 
• Offer cash-flow assistance programs for producers specifically unable to meet payments due to interruptions or challenges in their cash-flow.
• Implement additional assistance payments with broad eligibility and payments administered directly to farmers calculated based on a farm’s revenue, rather than by crop and acreage, to ensure all farms can fairly participate in such a program.

• Ensure all funding goes to active farmers running the operation, not investors or non-operating landowners.
• Allow the use of Farm Service Agency (FSA) Direct Farm Ownership loans for refinancing other debt. 
• Require preferred guaranteed lenders to obtain FSA concurrence before initiating any foreclosure or asset liquidation activities for distressed borrowers.
• Authorize future loan assistance to borrowers who previously received debt forgiveness.
• Make USDA’s Distressed Borrower Set-Aside Program permanent.
• Increase the lifetime debt forgiveness threshold from $300,000 to $600,000 to align with the Direct Farm Ownership loan limit.
• Increase the microloan limit from $50,000 to $100,000 to make this key, streamlined financial tool more useful for a greater number of farms in filling financial gaps.

Rental Payments for Marginal Land

During extended periods of crop prices below cost of production, or exceptional market turbulence, USDA should provide producers with a stable source of income in exchange for conservation value. In this challenging farm economy, this short term source of guaranteed income will afford producers the chance to explore opportunities for new markets, diversified cash crop rotations, or a strategic sale of land. USDA should: 

• Provide short term contracts offering annual rental payments to producers who place marginal land in their operation into perennial cover. 
• Offer a maximum contract length of 3-years.
• Authorize USDA to enroll up to 30 million acres nationwide.
• Offer producers optional support for making profitable changes to their farm business on expiring contracted acres:
  • Offer financial support for business planning services to aid producers in building a value-added component to their farm business.
  • Provide organic technical assistance (TA) for those seeking to transition contracted land into organic production and obtain certification.
  • Allow for construction of infrastructure to support management-intensive rotational grazing on enrolled acres when they are returned to production.
  • Include a 1-year extension of rental payments to the contract holder should they sell contracted acres to a beginning farmer or rancher at the end of the contract.

Dedicated Support for Input-Reducing Conservation Practices

Commitment to soil health-building conservation practices offers a clear pathway to reduced production costs – namely by reducing fertilizer applications – and increased profits per acre over time. USDA should target support to producers eager to adopt conservation practices that significantly reduce the total amount of fertilizer they require, leaving farm businesses far more resilient to spikes in fertilizer prices. Congress should:

• Provide a large, one-time, targeted infusion of funding to working lands conservation programs, Conservation Stewardship Program (CSP) and Environmental Quality Incentives Program (EQIP), requiring that:
  • The majority of funds must be used for Comprehensive Nutrient Management Planning (CNMP) on a wide variety of farms and all facilitating practices necessary to implement such plans.
  • CNMPs should be designed to achieve a reduction to <60% of current rates or <60% of LGU recommended rates for total fertilizer applied across the farm within the life of the plan.
  • A portion of the funding is used to hire NRCS staff capable of writing CNMPs and designing facilitating practices.

Similarly structured investments could also be provided, aiding producers in reducing their reliance on additional inputs like herbicides and pesticides.

Stronger, Reliable Markets for American Farmers 

Reliable markets, whether down the road or across an ocean, are foundational to farmers’ success. This is particularly true during a period of high production and labor costs and relatively lower prices. On the heels of the abrupt cancellation of domestic market initiatives earlier this year, federal policy must play an essential role in fostering the development of new, more robust markets. USDA should:

• Enter into cooperative agreements with states to promote state purchasing and management of contracts with local supply chains to fulfill the annual needs of local, federally funded nutrition programs, such as the National School Lunch Program and The Emergency Food Assistance Program, that are typically managed by USDA commodity procurement. 
• Invest additional funds in new market opportunities for small and mid-size farming operations by awarding states multi-year funding to partner with local businesses and networks to purchase locally produced specialty crops, dairy, and protein to distribute to food insecure communities.     
• Promote increased connectivity between schools and local farmers by authorizing a voluntary pathway that would allow schools the flexibility to use a portion of their school meal entitlement funding to purchase foods directly from farmers in their regions.
• Expand outreach for the Cooperative Interstate Shipment programs footprint to new states in order to expand markets for producers and processors. 

Near-Term Needs

Prioritize the Next Generation of Farmers

During a farm crisis, beginning farmers are often the most at risk. In these moments, the transition of the farm to the next generation can be an important tool to keep the farm in the family’s hands, and both are critical to keeping the land in agriculture. Facilitating a farm transition to a beginning farmer protects the land from development, and maintains the farm as an opportunity for a new generation of farmers to build a future and raise their children on the land. To keep existing early-career farmers on the land and to facilitate farm transitions to the next generation of farmers, USDA should:

• Provide funding for direct assistance and services at FSA to help the next generation of farmers and ranchers afford and acquire land by covering closing costs and down payments; capitalize infrastructure and site improvements; and acquire business technical assistance and farm viability training.
• Prioritize FSA projects that provide direct financial assistance to producers, involve collaborative networks or partnerships, and facilitate transition of farmland from existing to new producers.
• Waive farm management experience eligibility requirements for loan applications where the farm is being transitioned either within the extended family or to a current farm employee.
• Expand access to the Down Payment Loan Program (DPLP), especially for borrowers for whom the program will increase loan feasibility and loan approval, provide a 2-year delay in the start of DPLP repayment or repayment alignment with the new enterprise’s anticipated cash flow, and make down payment loans forgivable after 5 years for borrowers who stay in farming.
• Improve the ability of USDA to identify and address the barriers to intergenerational land transition and new farmer entry by reauthorizing the USDA Commission on Farm Transitions.
• Authorize FSA to make grants or enter into cooperative agreements to assist with heirs property issues, including the creation of Heirs Property and Fractionated Land Legal Clinics.
• Strengthen the Beginning Farmer and Rancher Development program.

Comprehensive Federal Food Procurement Reform

USDA’s annual food expenditures represent an opportunity to address underlying causes of the farm crisis by creating markets that reduce production costs and support business growth and viability among groups underrepresented in the agricultural sector. Specifically, it means creating fair market opportunity for all producers, including beginning, young, veteran, and other historically underserved farmers and ranchers. USDA should:

• Open market access for more farmers and businesses to secure federal food contracts by developing criteria, and dedicating 20% of annual food spending, that consider metrics beyond least cost to reward producers who are using organic production methods and protecting our environment and businesses that purchase from underserved and socially disadvantaged producers.  
• Create a set aside within USDA food purchases to increase meat and poultry purchasing from small processors and small producers that increases over time to provide a stable market while providing recipients with healthy, nutritious protein products.

Strengthen Regional Food Supply Chains

A key element to promoting the integrity of local and regional supply chains – and thereby market opportunities for farmers – includes investing in the middle of the food supply chain, including critically underfunded infrastructure. Congress and USDA should:

• Establish state block grants to build states’ capacity to manage grant and loan programs for food supply chain infrastructure, including for aggregation and distribution, processing, and storage for specialty crops, meat and poultry, and dairy. 
• Continue investment in processing capacity. Together with changes to meat procurement policy at the federal level, this could provide stability to the domestic livestock and poultry sectors, especially independent producers who feel squeezed by a lack of competition in purchasers and processors. Providing a series of small grants, up to $500,000 per grant, to continue to fill gaps in processing capacity across the country would  support the expansion of domestic markets. 
• Promote a variety of technical assistance opportunities for producers that addresses barriers to farmers’ market access.  This includes technical assistance targeted toward food safety planning and certification, business development, and supply chain coordination.
• Build upon the success of the Dairy Business Innovation Centers by establishing regional technical assistance centers that provide business development and other forms of training and resources that fill existing regional gaps and promote growth in emerging sectors, with at least one center specifically around meat and poultry issues

Build a Stronger Farm Safety Net for All

All farmers and ranchers deserve a strong safety net that protects them in times of crisis. The design of farm safety net programs, including crop insurance and commodity support programs, promote a focus on yields and efficiency rather than resiliency. This system currently leaves out many producers altogether, particularly smaller, beginning, and diversified farmers. USDA should: 

• Improve risk management tools including Whole Farm Revenue Protection and the Non-Insured Disaster Assistance Program by streamlining applications, expanding coverage limits and options, and increasing access for small and beginning producers.
• Reform disincentives against the adoption of conservation practices that are perpetuated by federal crop insurance rules, and restructure safety net programs to support on-farm resiliency and reduce the need for ad-hoc disaster relief.
• Structure any supplemental disaster relief programs to maximize eligibility for all impacted producers, and ensure that payments reflect the true value of their losses through revenue-based assistance programs.

The post Keeping Farmers on the Land appeared first on National Sustainable Agriculture Coalition.

Farmers and rural businesses are still waiting to find out if they can access one of the United State Department of Agriculture’s (USDA) most popular programs, the Rural Energy for America Program (REAP). This USDA program, which provides federal grants and loan guarantees for farmers and rural small businesses to invest in energy efficiency and renewable energy systems, has endured a funding freeze, delays, and now a potentially fundamental shift in program functions.

On August 19, 2025, US Secretary of Agriculture Brooke Rollins issued a press release outlining a number of changes to the REAP program, as well as to the USDA Rural Development Business and Industry (B&I) Guaranteed Loan Program. Specific to REAP, effective immediately, the memo outlines restrictions to the loan guarantee program and deprioritization in the grant program for ground mounted solar systems larger than 50kW. The memo also includes language that has caused uncertainty about whether grants can be used to purchase solar technologies manufactured outside of the United States. The impacts of these shifting priorities could be substantial, and the USDA has yet to provide any detailed guidance on how they will be implemented.

This latest announcement comes on the heels of a previous stakeholder announcement from June 30, 2025, that delayed the opening of REAP’s first grant application window for Fiscal Year (FY) 2026. Fiscal Year 2026 applications were supposed to be open from July 1 through September 30 but instead were delayed and the new application cycle has not opened. According to USDA, the delay was attributed to the “overwhelming response and continued popularity of the program resulting in a backlog of applicants.” It was then expected that the FY26 application cycle would open on October 1, a timeline likely complicated by the current shutdown. To date, USDA has yet to issue detailed guidance for farmers, rural small businesses, and technical assistance providers concerning how the new priorities outlined by the Secretary for the REAP grant program will be implemented. 

This new uncertainty surrounding the program is compounded in light of recent events, when  farmers and rural small businesses participating in REAP endured a funding freeze that lasted several months in early 2025. The freeze was the result of an Executive Order issued on January 20, 2025 seeking to shift federal support away from renewable energy. In response, the USDA immediately froze all funding for the REAP program, including for those grants and loan guarantees that were already obligated. It was not until early April 2025 that the USDA finally began to release frozen REAP funding. This long delay led to frustrations and unanticipated expenses for farmers and rural businesses who expected the USDA to honor its commitments.

Program Uncertainty Leading to Mistrust and Delayed Farmer Support

The National Sustainable Agriculture Coalition has been a longtime advocate for the REAP grant program’s ability to support farmers and ranchers in implementing their own projects to help them save money by becoming more energy efficient. The ongoing uncertainty and disruption to these programs have undermined the trust between farmers, rural businesses, and the USDA and threaten the future of this and other programs. During the period of frozen funding, for example, one farmer waiting on their REAP grant indicated they would “think twice about turning to USDA for help any time soon.” 

A grant writing firm that does energy audits and prepares REAP applications shared that  the current instability of REAP has taken a toll. The sudden changes and unclear guidance has put more than 100 grant applications on hold for this firm, representing over $20,000,000 in projects that have been stalled. NSAC urges USDA to provide more concrete guidance regarding how the new REAP priorities will be implemented and the program timeline. Without thoughtful guidance, USDA risks continuing to undermine this popular program. 

According to one REAP grant writing firm, “Many farmers are using decades old grain dryers this harvest because ordering new equipment was dependent upon potential grant funding that never came. Others must now restructure their finances to resubmit applications.”

REAP Is Broadly Popular

The REAP grant program is a well-liked, bipartisan program with a strong focus on smaller farmer-owned projects. Since its inception, REAP has funded more than 19,000 grants totaling more than $1.8 billion in direct support to farmers, ranchers, and rural small businesses to help them improve their energy efficiency and reduce operational costs. 46% of those REAP grants were awarded to agriculture, forestry, fishing, or hunting businesses.

Because of its ability to fit in unutilized spaces, decrease utility bills, and integrate with agricultural activities in agrivoltaic systems, solar is a popular choice for REAP grant applicants. According to the data from Rural Development, 72% of all REAP grant projects are solar. There have been approximately 3,378 REAP grants for solar projects with businesses classed as agriculture, forestry, fishing, or hunting. 

Looking at the descriptions provided of past projects, it is clear that, for the most part, USDA has an interest in keeping the grant program functional and that the changes described in the August 19, 2025, memo may have minimal effects on the majority of REAP grants.  Only about 152 projects of the 3,378 REAP grants that went to farms and agricultural businesses, maximum, would have been affected by the new limitations because they had ground mounted solar installations of more than 50kW.

Even among the small number of projects that would have been affected by the new rules, it is worthwhile to note that many were still farmer-owned and not on productive farmland. Although the solar projects may be ground mounted and over 50kW, they are not on land competing with agricultural production. Rather, they are in proximity to buildings or infrastructure, such as a Colorado potato farm’s 59kW array next to their potato warehouse and a Michigan farm’s 1.2MW system for their poultry and egg barns. Instead of a blanket deprioritization of ground-mounted projects over 50kW, USDA should consider the incredibly varied operations that apply for the program and support producers with options that work best for their circumstances, including for needs over 50kW.

Confusion Remains Over Implementation of these Changes

Without clarifying guidance, it remains possible that the REAP grant program could lose much of its functionality. In the press release, Secretary Rollins says USDA “will no longer fund taxpayer dollars for solar panels on productive farmland or allow solar panels manufactured by foreign adversaries to be used in USDA projects” and, in supportive quotes, Members of Congress refer to “foreign-made solar panels.” The Department of Energy estimates that 85% of the solar modules installed in the US are imported, the majority from China. If guidance is implemented immediately in the next grant application cycle that limits imported solar materials, there are significant concerns that REAP will be impacted. With China responsible for a majority of the global solar market, domestic sourcing requirements could dramatically increase project costs, potentially pricing out the small farmers that REAP is supposed to serve.

Right now, producers are facing some of the toughest economic conditions in decades, and they need USDA programs like REAP that help diversify revenue and reduce costs to remain functional, reliable, and available. In the long run, investing in domestic solar manufacturing would benefit farmers and the US energy sector alike, but until such capacity is in place, restrictions risk cutting off affordable, proven technologies that farmers rely on. The press release also justified these revisions as a means of preventing solar development from displacing productive farmland. However, REAP grant data indicate that only a very small share of projects involved ground-mounted systems larger than 50kW, and among those, most were not located on high-value cropland. Farmers, especially those running small and midsized operations, cannot afford to lose access to cost-saving technologies at a time of historic economic pressure. If USDA wants REAP to remain functional, revisions must be carefully tailored to support domestic innovation without undermining farmer access.

The post REAP Must Remain Functional and Accessible to Farmers appeared first on National Sustainable Agriculture Coalition.

On July 24, 2025, US Secretary of Agriculture, Brooke Rollins, issued memorandum SM-1078-015 outlining a proposed restructuring of the US Department of Agriculture (USDA). The plan was developed without meaningful engagement from farmers or other stakeholders. Since January 2025, USDA has already shed more than 18,000 employees, and the reorganization as proposed will likely drive thousands of additional departures.

Following mounting criticism, USDA created an informal channel for public feedback on the reorganization. The National Sustainable Agriculture Coalition (NSAC) urges farmers, advocates, and organizations to provide comments by emailing reorganization@usda.gov no later than September 30, 2025. However, NSAC remains deeply concerned that USDA has not followed the usual process of publishing a Federal Register notice for public comment, which is standard practice for proposals of this magnitude.

This piece is the third in a series exploring USDA’s staffing crisis and the potential consequences of the reorganization. Here, we focus specifically on staffing losses in the Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) and examine how staff reductions could weaken the agency’s ability to deliver conservation assistance and financial support to farmers and landowners across the country. Our first post in the series examines staff losses across the USDA and states and the second examines the scope and impact of staffing losses within the research agencies. 

A History of Staffing Decline in Vital Agency

NRCS is the primary agency within USDA that delivers on-the-ground conservation assistance to farmers, ranchers, and landowners. Through programs like the Conservation Stewardship Program (CSP) and the Environmental Quality Incentives Program (EQIP), NRCS staff work directly with producers to implement conservation practices that improve soil health, protect water quality, enhance wildlife habitat, and build resilience. NRCS provides both technical assistance and financial assistance programs. Technical assistance involves helping producers develop a customized conservation plan with suggested conservation practices that address their conservation goals. Financial assistance programs are voluntary programs such as EQIP and CSP in which farmers enter into contracts with the agency to provide financial assistance for adopting specific conservation practices best suited to their land and resources. 

Between 2005 and 2023, NRCS has provided $87.3 billion in conservation support to farmers and ranchers, with 61% of that spending ($53 billion) going directly to farmers in the form of financial assistance payments and 37% going to support technical assistance, according to data provided by the agency. 

Figure 1: NRCS Obligations by Type, 2005-2023

NRCS staffing levels have been steadily eroded over the past two decades. In 2005, the agency employed nearly 13,000 staff. By 2019, that number had dropped to just 8,914, a decline of more than 30%. Staffing partially rebounded in recent years, due in large part to dedicated efforts from the previous administration to hire and train new, young conservation professionals and improve producers’ customer experience. Total staff reached 11,623 employees in 2024, a major victory for producers who want faster service at the county level and more consistent access to technical experts. 

Both producer and staff sentiment on the need to have more hands on deck to complete paperwork and prioritize time spent evaluating resource concerns in the field have been well documented. A survey by the Soil and Water Conservation Society of conservation professionals – watershed coordinators, soil and water conservation district employees, NRCS District Conservationists, and NRCS Soil Conservationists – found that 90% of practitioners agreed that “high employee turnover among conservation practitioners negatively impacts conservation momentum.” Conservation professionals were clear: they were already understaffed before the recent losses. 82% of practitioners said that there was a need for “more capacity to provide farmers/landowners with technical assistance” and they consistently rated staff capacity priorities as the highest needs in their local offices. One practitioner reported: “We simply have more landowners coming into the local office requesting assistance with programs than is possible to assist without cutting corners with a soil and water district staff of two and USDA staff of two.” These concerns existed before the NRCS staff were gutted in early 2025.

Losses since January 2025 have brought the number of NRCS staff down to again approximately 9,000 employees, echoing the record lows of 2019 during the previous Trump Administration. The NRCS budget request for fiscal year 2026 calls for a reduction to just 8,000 NRCS employees. This short-sighted goal would leave NRCS woefully underequipped to disperse the historic increase in conservation program dollars provided by the recent reconciliation package.

Figure 2: NRCS Staffing by Year

_{*Current NRCS staffing estimate is based on the separations and DRP information. FY2026 staffing is based on the NRCS budget.}

Conservation Staff Have Been Wiped Out

The NRCS has lost nearly 1 in 4 of their staff since January 2025. The Deferred Resignation Program (DRP) offered buyouts and incentives to encourage federal employees to resign. At NRCS, 2,409 employees, 21% of the workforce, accepted the DRP. 560 NRCS employees accepted the first DRP in February 2025 and another 1,849 accepted the second round of DRP in April. 

In addition to the NRCS employees who left the agency via the DRP, an additional 182 employees (2 percent) separated from the agency in just the first three months of 2025, according to data from the Office of Personnel Management. Separations include retirements (early, voluntary, or for disability), firing, failure to renew contracts, quitting, transferring to another federal agency, or other separation.

Altogether, nearly one in four NRCS employees have departed this year alone.

While the USDA has not publicly provided information on the staff who accepted the DRP, Charles Melton, a former staff member in the Office of the Executive Secretariat who himself accepted the DRP, estimates that it was primarily mid-career individuals with experience who left the department via the DRP: “What the DRP did was remove everyone who had twelve to fifteen years of experience or higher and took them out. It put a big donut hole in an organization that wasn’t fat to begin with,” Melton said. 

The loss of mid-career and experienced staff to the DRP echoes the losses seen following the relocation of the Economic Research Service (ERS) and National Institute of Food and Agriculture (NIFA) to Kansas City, Missouri in 2019. This recent experience showed that it was largely the skilled employees with more than ten years of experience who left both agencies. By 2020, just 19% of NIFA employees had more than a decade of experience, down from over 50% before the relocation. At ERS, by 2021, just 37% of employees had more than a decade of experience, down from 71% before the relocation. 

These staff losses are not sustainable. They threaten NRCS’s ability to deliver timely, effective conservation assistance to farmers at a moment when demand for these services is growing. Annecdotally, NSAC members report NRCS field staff are often either late career or relatively recent graduates. This can prove quite challenging for producers seeking to adopt the most innovative conservation practices available, as younger staff tend to have less experience with agriculture itself, and staff approaching the end of their career may be unfamiliar with newer research on the effectiveness of certain practices. Capable mid-career field staff, with a mastery of natural sciences and a strong understanding of the realities of farming, are by far the most helpful to producers and the most difficult to maintain within NRCS’ workforce. If, as observers are beginning to warn, recent departures have indeed pushed out experienced staff, producers can expect several years of greatly degraded service from NRCS. NSAC strongly supports action from Congress and USDA to prioritize the hiring of mid-career staff and to make policy changes within NRCS that will attract and retain capable young professionals for long-term careers with NRCS.

Table 1: NRCS Staffing Losses 

NRCS Staff Losses Are In the Field

More than 99% of NRCS staff work outside of Washington, D.C.

The latest data from the Office of Personnel Management shows that just 105 employees out of the agency’s 11,623 staff in September 2024 worked in Washington, D.C. with the rest in offices around the country. These staff included 8,397 employees working as natural resource management or biosciences professionals and 1,313 engineers and architects. 

NRCS staff work in every state and territory, providing direct support to farmers and ranchers for their conservation planning and contracts, and every state has lost a significant amount of NRCS staff, as seen in the map below. Indeed, every state except three – Delaware, Michigan, and Arkansas – has lost more than 20% of their NRCS staff and 36 states have lost more than 25% of their NRCS staff.  

Figure 3: NRCS Staffing Losses

Staff Losses Exacerbate Farmer Wait Times and Service Disruptions

Low staffing levels and high demand from farmers and ranchers means that NRCS programs already have long wait times to enroll and many farmers who want to enroll are unable. Demand to participate in the conservation programs supported by USDA staff is extremely high, with tens of thousands of farmers and ranchers applying for contracts each year. Recent reporting by the Institute for Agriculture and Trade Policy (IATP) finds that less than 25% of the applications to the Conservation Stewardship Program (CSP) are granted contracts and only about 26% of the applications to the Environmental Quality Incentives Program (EQIP) are granted contracts. 

Even prior to this latest round of staff losses, NRCS staff were stretched extremely thin with very high workloads. The wait time between when a farmer or rancher applies to one of the NRCS programs and finds out if they were awarded a contract is usually six months and sometimes up to a year. Advocates, like those at NSAC member Rural Advancement Foundation International (RAFI) that help farmers apply for NRCS funding, already encourage patience in navigating the process and caution farmers that it can be a long wait to find out if contracts are approved, and even longer before promised payments are actually received. 

The loss of NRCS staff is already being felt at many field offices and for farmers across the country. Speaking to public radio in Kansas City, a former NRCS district conservationist Jamey Wood said that: “Producers are requesting conservation plans so they can do better conservation work, so they can participate in conservation programs, so they can get financial assistance to help them do conservation…And now, and this is my estimate, you’re going to lose basically a generation of conservation planners.” Maine farmer Seth Kroeck told reporters at Civil Eats that the staff losses at his local NRCS office have threatened the technical support and contracts he has with the agency, saying: “There were two employees that were in that office that I’ve been working with directly on programs, and they’re gone…There were two engineers that were helping us on different irrigation contracts, and they’re gone. It’s kind of a mess.” 

Reorganization Amplifies Risks

The USDA reorganization plan threatens further disruptions to NRCS operations by consolidating its regional offices into five USDA hub locations, from where departmental agencies will be administered if the current reorganization proposal is adopted. Currently, the NRCS divides the nation into four regions, Central, Northeast, Southeast, and West. Each region is led by a Regional Conservationist, responsible for the agency operations, activities, and personnel in that region. 

Two of the four Regional Conservationist positions are currently vacant: the Central and Southeast regions. The planned USDA hubs in Raleigh, North Carolina; Kansas City, Missouri; Indianapolis, Indiana; Fort Collins, Colorado; and Salt Lake City, Utah do not align with any meaningful natural resource regions or existing personnel divisions of the NRCS. Relocating regional duties to these new hubs will likely lead to further staff losses as employees choose not to relocate. This will also create further disruptions in the agency’s ability to fulfill its mission to serve farmers as they endeavor to protect our natural resources. 

What’s at Stake

Farmers and ranchers are facing unprecedented challenges. More frequent flooding and drought, degraded soil and water health, and intensifying economic pressures have placed America’s farmers and ranchers in extreme vulnerability. NRCS delivers both technical assistance and financial assistance to farmers and ranchers to tackle these challenges, but only if the agency has enough staff to deliver them effectively. 

Farmers rely on local NRCS staff to deliver conservation solutions tailored to their land, and staff losses and the reorganization risk hollowing out the agency as farmers enter a time of unprecedented crisis and need. For the foreseeable future, every dollar that ends up on a farmer’s statement of cash flow is going to matter, and that includes cost share dollars delivered through conservation programs. Now is not the time to weaken a single tool in a farmer’s toolbelt.

Beyond the money, conservation planning and practices can lead to reduced input costs for producers, making sound technical advice just as financially valuable to producers as direct cost share. NRCS needs to swiftly change course if it is going to provide both.

NSAC encourages all farmers, advocates, and organizations to share their concerns with USDA by emailing reorganization@usda.gov before September 30, 2025.

The post USDA Staffing Crisis: Conservation Staff Losses Will Further Undermine Services to Farmers and Ranchers  appeared first on National Sustainable Agriculture Coalition.

Contact: Laura Zaks

National Sustainable Agriculture Coalition

press@sustainableagriculture.net1

Tel. 347.563.6408

Release: Strong Farms, Strong Futures Act Introduced 

Washington, DC, July 18, 2025 – On Wednesday, Representatives Lauren Underwood (D-IL) and Zach Nunn (R-IA) introduced the Strong Farms, Strong Futures Act. This bill directs NRCS to establish region and production-specific climate change mitigation bundles within CSP. This expands options available to producers and increases financial support for practices that improve climate resilience and provide additional benefits like increased soil health and water quality. These incentives will help producers expand their climate stewardship and empower more producers to be leaders of America’s ongoing efforts to build innovative conservation systems. 

“The Strong Farms, Strong Futures Act provides ever greater producer choice in the Conservation Stewardship Program. This bill strengthens CSPs ability to provide robust cost-share for producers building complex, innovative conservation systems on their farms, conservation systems that will make them more resilient, profitable, and ecologically sound.” – Jesse Womack, Conservation Policy Specialist at NSAC.

The SFSFA builds on previous legislation introduced by Underwood, creating even more options for producers in CSP. The bill provides increased cost-share for important climate and conservation production systems, focusing the highest levels of cost share on producers doing the most complex conservation work within their operation. This bill ensures that producers who accept the risk of leadership in their conservation efforts are eligible for the highest levels of federal support. 

###

About the National Sustainable Agriculture Coalition (NSAC)The National Sustainable Agriculture Coalition is a grassroots alliance that advocates for federal policy reform supporting the long-term social, economic, and environmental sustainability of agriculture, natural resources, and rural communities. Learn more: https://sustainableagriculture.net/

The post Release: Strong Farms, Strong Futures Act Introduced appeared first on National Sustainable Agriculture Coalition.

Last Updated: April 29, 2025

For more than three months, billions of dollars of lawfully obligated USDA funding have been frozen or terminated. While the agency has still not made public the full scope of what remains frozen or targeted for termination, the harms to communities, farmers, and organizations are already clear. This blog post takes a closer look at what we know—highlighting national and state-level impacts on four programs that support agricultural conservation and resilience, local food systems, and rural clean energy development. 

This post focuses in particular on: (1) the termination of future funding for the Local Food Purchase Assistance (LFPA), (2) the termination of funding for the Local Foods for Schools and Child Care Settings (LFSCC) programs, (3) the pause (and forthcoming restart) of Inflation Reduction Act (IRA)-funded Rural Energy for America Program (REAP) projects, and (4) the restructuring of the Partnerships for Climate-Smart Commodities (PCSC) initiative. The post explores the scope of these four freezes and cancellations, what they mean for each program nationally, and how impacts are playing out across states. 

On April 24, 2025, this post was updated to include new information about changes to the PCSC and to add additional programs that a letter from the USDA to Senator Klobuchar (D-MN) recently confirmed are still frozen. Those additional programs include: (5) American Rescue Plan Technical Assistance Investment Program, (6)  Bioproduct Pilot Program, (7) From Learning to Leading: Cultivating the Next Generation of Diverse Food and Agriculture Professionals, (8) Infrastructure Investment and Job Act Joint Fire Science Program (Research & Development), (9) Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act Restoration/Revegetation, (10) Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act Capital Maintenance and Improvement, (11) Regional Conservation Partnership Program, (12) Forest Service Reverse 911 Grant Program, (13) Forest and Grassland Collaboratives, (14) Conservation Outreach, Education and Technical Assistance, (15) Increasing Land, Capital and Market Access Program, (16) Farm Loan Borrower Relief Program, and (17) DSA COVID Relief Program. While the freeze on some of these programs funded through the Inflation Reduction Act and the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act has been lifted by a court-ordered preliminary injunction on April 15, there still have not been widespread agency communications to the public to clarify the status of many of these programs. Uncertainty persists as some program funding has been frozen, then released, and then frozen again in the past several months. Agreement holders continue to receive little to no information from the agency about why the freeze is ongoing and when they might expect to be repaid for costs incurred. 

NSAC and our members and other food and farm stakeholders continue to experience ongoing payment delays and limitations for programs beyond the four specific programs detailed in this post; organizations are facing layoffs and programmatic impacts with accumulating unpaid federal reimbursements. As a result, the full impact of the funding freeze and terminations at the USDA will be much larger than the direct impacts to these specific programs. The agency administers hundreds of programs, and the National Sustainable Agriculture Coalition (NSAC) has identified more than thirty under direct threat. 

NSAC welcomed USDA’s actions to finally move on honoring existing farmer contracts and release obligated IRA-REAP funds and hopes that those funds are released before farmers relying on them incur further harm from delayed repayment. Given the uncertainty that remains regarding contract modification requests and the release of obligated funds, the IRA-REAP program is still discussed throughout this post.The USDA also recently announced major changes to the PCSC program, which will now operate under the new name Advancing Markets for Producers (AMP). While NSAC is relieved that this announcement finally takes steps to address the uncertainty for participants and partners regarding the frozen funds, the termination of PCSC projects as part of this reconstitution has caused delayed payments to farmers, lost jobs in rural communities, and unnecessary bureaucratic processes. There is still significant concern regarding the failure to honor existing partnerships and the implementation of planned changes. Given the uncertainty around how this transition will be implemented and the scope of PCSC’s previous commitments, the program is still discussed throughout this post.

The National Scope

Across these programs, more than $6 billion has been frozen or terminated. This money is already legally promised through signed agreements but has not been paid due to the ongoing freeze, or has only recently begun flowing again due to a court order. The table below summarizes the national scope of the cancellations and freezes for these programs.

* remaining obligations calculated using data from USASpending.gov

** planned obligations calculated using data from Sam.gov

States with the Largest Frozen or Canceled Funds

The states with the largest overall amounts of frozen or canceled funds through these four programs are California ($392 million), Texas ($378 million), and Virginia ($320 million). On average, states have lost $101 million per state in frozen or cancelled funds, and 33 states and the District of Columbia have all lost more than $50 million in frozen or cancelled funds. It is important to note that many PCSC programs span multiple states, so the scope of the impact for many states is much larger than even these numbers represent. 

States with the largest amount of remaining IRA-funded REAP obligations to be paid are Illinois ($99 million), Pennsylvania ($42 million), and Michigan ($37 million). On average, states have more than $17 million in remaining IRA-REAP obligations, and 24 states and Puerto Rico all have more than $15 million in remaining IRA-REAP obligations frozen.

{Updated April 7, 2025} The majority of PCSC projects span multiple states. To account for this, the map below shows PCSC awards by both the address of the grant recipient and by the primary place of performance for the work. 

States with the largest amount of remaining PCSC frozen obligations (by the address of the recipient) are Virginia ($255 million), Texas ($191 million), and California ($188 million). On average, states have nearly $65 million in remaining PCSC obligations frozen, and 19 states and the District of Columbia have more than $20 million in remaining PCSC obligations frozen.

States with the largest amount of remaining PCSC frozen obligations (by the primary place of performance) are California ($152 million), Texas ($104 million), and Missouri ($102 million).  More than $1.85 billion in PCSC grants fund initiatives that operate across state lines to such an extent that no single state can be identified as their primary location. As a result, these grants are designated as multistate.

The interactive map below shows the overall funds frozen or cancelled for these programs in each state. Click on a state to see the specific amounts frozen or cancelled for each program, and click on “get the data” to download the data.

REAP, PCSC, ARPA Technical Assistance, Bioproduct Pilot Program, From Learning to Leading, the three Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act programs, and RCPP remaining obligations were calculated as the full obligations minus the full outlays reported on USASpending.gov as of April 21, 2025. LFPA and LFS award amounts were publicly reported by USDA before cancellation. Forest Service Reverse 911 Grant Program, Forest and Grasslands Collaboratives, Conservation Outreach, Education, and Technical Assistance, Increasing Land, Capital, and Market Access Program, Farm Loan Borrower Relief Program, and DSA COVID Relief Program obligations were obtained from Sam.gov. The map was updated on April 7, 2025, to include PCSC remaining obligations by the state of primary performance, in addition to the address of the recipient. The total funding frozen or cancelled for each state reflects the PCSC address of the recipient.

Local Foods Programs Terminated

In October 2024, USDA announced additional funding for existing LFPA and LFS programs in addition to funding for a new program that would support local food purchases in child care settings. On March 10, 2025, however, all of these new contracts with states, tribes, and local agencies for these programs were terminated. 

These investments, while small in terms of the overall federal budget, provide big returns for farmers and rural communities. LFPA and LFS help states and tribal nations buy food from local and regional producers and distribute it to schools and communities in need. LFPA funding is awarded to state and tribal governments, which then partner with local organizations and food hubs to purchase food directly from producers and distribute it through food banks, pantries, and other community channels. LFS provides funding to state agencies to offer additional cash incentives for every meal served that uses local products. Both programs enable the purchase of fresh locally grown or raised foods that they otherwise would not have been able to purchase, expanding options for consumers and markets for farmers.  

Local food purchases like those supported by LFPA and LFS are considered “multipliers”, meaning that every dollar of federal funding generates additional economic activity as it moves through the economy, so the impact of these cancellations is much greater than the federal dollars themselves.

FarmsSHARE, an LFPA project coordinated by the Carolina Farm Stewardship Association, is a great example of the type of activity supported by LFPA. FarmsSHARE connects approximately 350 farms across the Carolinas with 18 food hubs and other purchasers. FarmsSHARE has delivered 179,457 food boxes to food insecure families and serves more than 1,400 families each week. Without federal LFPA funding, the future of projects like FarmsSHARE that serve both farmers and food insecure families is dim.

LFS programs like the one in Washington state, managed by the Office of Superintendent of Public Instruction, work with school districts to bring locally grown foods into schools. In the Selah School District, for example, LFS funding supported the purchase of over half a million pounds of dried cherries directly from Rowley and Hawkins Fruit Farm. The cherries are not just served in school meals, they are also used as a learning tool in the classroom, helping students connect with local agriculture and get excited about nutritious foods on their plates. Federal funding through LFS has made these programs possible for farms and schools across the country.

REAP Funds Are Being Released, But Questions Remain

Following President Trump’s executive order on January 20, 2025, projects that are part of the Rural Energy for America Program (REAP) that were funded by the Inflation Reduction Act (IRA) were frozen, and payments to recipients were stopped. More than $911 million in obligated funds through REAP have been frozen, although on March 26, 2025, USDA announced previously obligated REAP funds would be released. However, questions remain about the release of obligated funds.

The March 26 announcement that previously obligated IRA-REAP funds would be released also included a message that USDA was giving funding recipients thirty days to “review and voluntarily revise their project plans to align with President Trump’s Unleashing American Energy Executive Order issued on January 20, 2025.” What this means for recipients and the release of their already obligated funds remains unclear. Farmers say they are receiving unclear guidance from USDA about the revisions, but, at this time, our understanding is that USDA does not intend to terminate any REAP agreements based on the information provided via the form or on the decision not to submit the form. State Energy Coordinators should confirm that guidance. While existing farmers’ contracts should now be honored, the ability to proceed with new REAP IRA obligations remains uncertain.

REAP provides grants and loan guarantees to help farmers, ranchers, and rural small businesses invest in renewable energy systems and energy efficiency improvements. This includes things like installing solar panels, upgrading to energy-efficient equipment, or improving building insulation. Through these investments, REAP helps farmers lower energy costs, boosts rural economic development, and supports the transition to clean energy in agricultural and rural communities. Like many USDA programs, it operates on a reimbursement model, meaning that farmers and small businesses have been waiting to be reimbursed for costs they have already incurred. 

REAP projects like Maine farmer Kevin Leavitt’s installation of solar arrays to power his greenhouses or Maryland farmer Laura Beth Resnick’s project to install solar panels on her barn have already been completed, and the farmers are now awaiting reimbursement funds.

Partnerships for Climate Smart Commodities Invest in Farm Resilience and Viability

Partnerships for Climate Smart Commodities (PCSC) were public-private partnerships that support the adoption of agricultural practices that promote on-farm conservation and resilience and the development of markets for commodities produced using those practices. PCSC agreements were with partner organizations ranging from large agribusiness corporations to farmer cooperatives; more than 14,000 farms are enrolled in PCSC projects, and more than 3.2 million acres of working agricultural land are enrolled. 

PCSC funds have remained frozen since President Trump took office, despite court orders directing the Administration to halt the funding freeze. On March 28, 105 PCSC organizations and 260 farmers sent a letter to Secretary Rollins detailing the positive impact the program has had on farming operations nationwide and requesting clarification on the future of the program.

On April 14, 2025, USDA announced plans to dramatically change and relaunch the PCSC program as the Advancing Market for Producers (AMP) initiative. However, the change has added new requirements that 65% of all funds must go to direct payments to producers, which could significantly limit the capacity of some projects to provide vital technical assistance and market support. A large number of projects have already received termination letters if a preliminary review determined they did not meet the new requirements, and the process for resubmitting proposals under the new AMP initiative remains unclear.

As just one example, PCSC supports partners like Pasa Sustainable Agriculture, which is helping 2,000 farms across the East Coast adopt well-established conservation practices such as cover cropping, reduced tillage, and prescribed grazing. Pasa was awarded a $55 million PCSC grant to collaborate with twenty other organizations to recruit and train farmers in these practices, but the future of their program is now at risk due to the frozen funds. According to data from USASpending.gov, Pasa is still owed more than $52 million in obligated funds. Due to the freeze of these legally obligated funds, Pasa has had to furlough staff. The longer the legally obligated funding remains frozen, the more devastating the long-term effects will be for groups such as Pasa and the farmers they work with. Organizations will be unable to retain their highly specialized staff, and farmers will lose trust in government partnerships, undermining not just PCSC but other federal programs. 

Conclusion

The funding freezes and cancellations in 2025 have created significant challenges for farmers and organizations that have utilized these investments to build viable and resilient farms, strengthen regional supply chains, and put healthy food on the plates of our most vulnerable community members. With more than $6 billion in frozen or canceled investments across the country, projects that strengthen rural economies and advance conservation are now in limbo—despite many having already been awarded funding or initiated implementation. NSAC is glad to see steps taken to honor existing farmer contracts with USDA’s announcement that IRA-REAP obligated funds will be released. NSAC hopes that this will occur in a fair and timely manner, but USDA must make its guidance clearer that modifications to projects are not required for payments to be processed, nor will failure to propose modifications result in terminations. NSAC urges USDA to quickly release all frozen funds before these impacts to our farms and communities become irreversible.

NSAC remains committed to advocating for transparency, timely communication, and the restoration of funding so that farmers and their partners can continue this critical work.

The post USDA Programs Freeze: What We Know appeared first on National Sustainable Agriculture Coalition.