A Deep Dive into the Farm, Food, and National Security Act of 2026
The following piece was produced by AFT’s Vice President of Policy Tim Fink, Senior Policy Advisor and National Agricultural Land Network Director Cris Coffin, Senior Policy Manager for Conservation and Energy Samantha Levy, and Farm Viability Policy Manager Emily Liss.
Very early in the morning on March 12, the Farm, Food, and National Security Act of 2026 (referred to throughout this piece as the FFNS) was reported out of the House Agriculture Committee in a 34-17 vote, with support from all Committee Republicans as well as seven Democrats (Representatives Costa, Davis, Davids, Vasquez, Gray, McDonald Rivet and Riley).
In substance, this bill was largely similar – though not without some key differences – to the 2024 House Farm Bill which was reported out of committee with the support of four Democrats, but was never taken up for a vote in the full chamber. The largest partisan division in the 2026 debate centered on significant cuts made to nutrition programs, particularly SNAP, as part of last year’s H.R. 1 (also known as the Republican reconciliation package or the One Big Beautiful Bill Act [OBBBA]).
On February 19, AFT released a statement commenting on the legislation. While this statement was largely positive regarding changes made within the bill’s Conservation Title (detailed below), we think there are opportunities to improve upon the bill. There is a strong need for continued bipartisan negotiations and inclusion of critical priorities in other AFT mission areas, particularly those addressing farm viability and Smart Solar development.
Throughout the process of developing a Farm Bill, AFT has sought to build bipartisan support for our Farm Bill priorities and present non-biased information. In this spirit, this blog post examines where the FFNS stands relative to AFT’s Farm Bill priorities. These priorities were developed through a process that included 16 workshops in 7 regions across the nation that engaged over 300 farmers, ranchers, non-profits, researchers, and other stakeholders.
AFT priorities that were included in the bill are noted below with a (+). Priorities that were not included are signified with a (–). Situations where a priority was partially advanced are noted with (+/-)
Conservation Title Funding
Farmland Protection
Conservation Practice Adoption
Smart Solar
Farm Viability
Farmland Access
The Bill’s Path Forward
PRESERVE ALL IRA FUNDING WITHIN THE CONSERVATION TITLE +
Analysis of the FFNS’s conservation funding should ideally factor in the full history of its new conservation dollars, starting four years ago with the Inflation Reduction Act (IRA). Throughout the Farm Bill process, AFT’s top priority was the transfer of all unspent IRA conservation funding into the Farm Bill Conservation Title. A Democratic reconciliation package signed into law in August 2022, the IRA included nearly $20 billion in new funding for four conservation programs: the Environmental Quality Incentives Program (EQIP), the Conservation Stewardship Program (CSP), the Agricultural Conservation Easement Program (ACEP), and the Regional Conservation Partnership Program (RCPP). Rather than being general program funding, the IRA conservation funding was restricted to projects and practices that reduced, sequestered, or avoided greenhouse gas emissions (often referred to as the “climate sideboards”).
AFT had long supported the transfer of all unspent IRA conservation funding into the Farm Bill Conservation Title for two reasons. First, it would transform this investment from a one-time infusion of conservation dollars into an increase in budget baseline for these programs, thereby generating more conservation funding over the long term. Second, much of the funding was placed on hold in early 2024 by the Trump Administration’s executive orders prohibiting spending focused on climate change. Although the IRA was investing in many popular bread-and-butter conservation practices (e.g., cover crops, no till), the climate focus of the funding in the law made it vulnerable to further funding freezes, and potential rescission by Congress.
As a result of the successful advocacy of many conservation organizations, including AFT, the Republican reconciliation package – signed into law in July 2025 – transferred all unspent IRA conservation funding (roughly $14 billion) into the Farm Bill Conservation Title. This transfer was an enormous win resulting in the single largest baseline increase for conservation programs in over 20 years. AFT remains incredibly grateful to the House majority for taking this critical step to support farmers, and to Democrats for including this major conservation investment in the IRA in the first place.
With the goal of the IRA transfer accomplished, AFT’s new top priority leading into the 2026 Farm Bill is to ensure that all of this new funding remains in the Conservation Title, not necessarily that the allocations among the various programs remain as defined in the Republican reconciliation package. AFT is pleased to report that the FFNS retains all IRA conservation funding within the Conservation Title. However, it does redistribute some of the funding amongst programs within the Title, a move that AFT is neutral on.
Leading up to the markup, there was significant media attention to how the FFNS would reduce EQIP budget authority (relative to the Republican reconciliation package) by roughly $1 billion over 10 years. While this is technically correct, there are several factors that played into this decision. During reconciliation, the Committee “parked” additional funding in EQIP to cover anticipated new costs associated with changes in the Conservation Title, changes that could only be achieved within the context of a Farm Bill because of the restrictions on the reconciliation process. These new costs include:
New programs like the Forest Conservation Easement Program (FCEP)
Existing conservation programs that lack baseline (aka “orphan programs”) such as Feral Swine and CRP-TIP
Increased budget outlays for existing programs based on Congressional Budget Office (CBO) scoring of the Committee’s proposed program changes, which includes important updates to ACEP (see below) to make it work better for farmers and ranchers
Since the Committee had determined that each Farm Bill title should remain budget neutral, the options for the Committee to cover these new costs were to:
Not create any new programs or make program changes scored to have a budget impact,
Make cuts to many of the conservation programs that received less funding, or
Reduce EQIP to cover the costs (which is what the Committee chose to do and had budgeted for accordingly within the 2025 reconciliation bill).
Even after the reallocation of a small percentage of EQIP funds, the program still received the highest increase in funding of any conservation program when compared with the 2018 Farm Bill. In fact, its baseline is increased by over $1.2 billion per year for all future farm bills.
FARMLAND PROTECTION PRIORITIES:
Farmland loss threatens the future of American agriculture. According to AFT research, from 2001–2016, the U.S. paved over, fragmented, or converted 11 million acres of agricultural land to uses that jeopardize agriculture and is projected to lose at least 18.4 million acres more by 2040. Once this finite resource is developed, it never returns to farming.
The Farm Bill represents an important opportunity to leverage federal funding to enable more landowners to voluntarily protect their farmland and ranchland in perpetuity. AFT has coordinated a Farm Bill Agricultural Land Protection Partnership of agricultural land trusts and state Purchase of Agricultural Conservation Easement (PACE) programs seeking additional funding for – and programmatic improvements to – ACEP which provides federal matching funds for the purchase of Agricultural Land Easements (ACEP-ALE). We have also recommended changes to RCPP to make it a more efficient tool for farm, ranch, and forest land protection.
Here is a summary of how our Partnership’s farmland protection priorities fared in the FFNS:
Increase Funding for ACEP +
With the Republican reconciliation package’s transfer of the IRA funding into the Farm Bill baseline, ACEP funding has been significantly increased. Compared to the $450 million annual funding level provided in the 2018 Farm Bill, the FFNS maintains the funding levels set in the reconciliation package at $650 million in FY 27, $675 million in FY 28, and $700 million in FY 29, FY 30, and FY 31.
Enable More Landowners to Participate in ACEP-ALE +
Because ACEP-ALE only provides up to 50% of the value of an easement, the program is problematic for landowners who live in regions with no source of state or local matching funds and are not in a financial position to donate a large percentage of the easement value. A high Partnership priority was increasing the federal cost-share for ACEP-ALE, and we are grateful to the Committee for increasing it to 65% for general ALE projects, and to 90% for projects involving socially disadvantaged landowners. Importantly, the House also included an option we recommended – a lower federal cost-share of 25% for easements held only by a state or local partner with no federal right of enforcement. For state PACE programs that have had trouble reconciling their easement terms with those of USDA, or landowners who mistrust government, this is a valuable option.
Strengthen Partnerships and Address Program Inefficiencies in ACEP and RCPP +
The FFNS includes many Partnership priorities intended to streamline program administration and recognize the expertise of state and local partners. Several provisions are intended to strengthen the certification process, including:
Clarifying congressional intent around entity certification
Lowering the threshold of projects required for certification and providing an additional pathway for certification
Allowing certified entities to use and modify their easement deed terms so long as these terms are consistent with program purposes
Extending certification to RCPP easement projects
We were also pleased to see the House adopt both of our recommendations related to the Adjusted Gross Income (AGI) requirement. The bill eliminates the AGI requirement for the ACEP program – a requirement which has been problematic both because it precludes high quality land from being protected if owned by someone over the AGI threshold, and because the eligibility determination requires the involvement of FSA and the IRS, which has led to delays in some projects. Importantly, the bill also excludes the income received from the sale of an easement in AGI calculations for other Farm Bill programs, eliminating a disincentive to sell an agricultural conservation easement.
The Committee also took several of our recommendations related to easement modifications. The proposed language allows for modifications that align with program purposes and address changing circumstances that adversely impact agricultural viability, including changes in water availability. The language also creates a new category of “de minimis” adjustments, offering a streamlined pathway for resolving minor issues such as correcting typographical errors and changes to building envelope boundaries. Importantly, the language also clarifies that easement modifications are not considered a major federal action under the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). These changes are intended to address landowner concerns over often extensive delays or denials of minor modification requests.
Improve the Buy-Protect-Sell language established in the 2018 Farm Bill –
The 2018 Farm Bill included specific authorization for projects that allow a land trust to purchase farmland in fee, protect the land with an easement funded in part through ACEP-ALE, and sell the protected land to a qualified farmer. This type of project, known as “Buy-Protect-Sell” or “BPS,” enables land trusts to better help young and historically marginalized producers purchase protected land. The Partnership has recommended several modifications to the 2018 Farm Bill language that have made it difficult to use this mechanism. The House did not include our recommendations in their Farm Bill, but we are hopeful that some of these recommendations will be included in a Senate version.
CONSERVATION PRACTICE ADOPTION PRIORITIES:
Many producers across the country have adopted conservation practices that increase their farm viability and soil health, improve water quality, and help them build resilience to extreme weather. However, as the most recent Census of Agriculture shows, these practices remain underutilized (for example, the 2022 Census revealed that only 7% of eligible cropland was planted with cover crops). This is because producers face numerous barriers when experimenting with new ways of farming. Even if there is a high potential that these new practices will pay off over time, there are questions and risks associated with any changes, especially during the transition period. Commonly reported barriers include cost; risk; lack of access to the right equipment, information, or support; and insecure land tenure preventing upfront investment with long-term payoff. Furthermore, with the recent reductions in USDA-NRCS staffing and rising input costs, these barriers have only become more acute, making it even more urgent to find solutions to help producers overcome them.
Farm Bill conservation programs like EQIP, CSP, and RCPP provide essential cost share and technical assistance to help producers implement these practices. These popular programs need robust funding and adequate technical assistance (TA) – in the form of NRCS agents and non-profit conservation organizations, an updated Technical Service Provider program, and by supporting farmer-to-farmer networks – to address service gaps and meet demand. AFT’s top conservation practice priorities for the Farm Bill include: retaining all IRA funding increases made by the 2025 reconciliation bill within the Conservation Title, establishing a new federal match for state and Tribal soil health programs, and enabling greater farmer-to-farmer technical assistance to complement available TA. Below is a summary of these priorities and how they fared in the FFNS:
Maintain Increases to Conservation Program Funding +
As noted above, the FFNS maintained billions of dollars in conservation program increases from the IRA and the 2025 reconciliation package within the Conservation Title while advancing significant increases to future program funding baselines. While this required movement of funding between programs within the Conservation Title to remain budget neutral, all baseline increases were maintained at the levels established by the 2025 reconciliation package.
Establish a Federal Matching Grant for State and Tribal Soil Health Programs +
NRCS conservation programs provide critical, science-based financial and technical assistance. But there is often not enough funding to meet demand, they do not reach all producers who seek assistance, and they do not invest in equipment purchase or other local needs critical to successfully implementing many soil health practices. In response, many states have been filling these gaps by establishing their own soil health programs. But state budgets are notoriously constrained—most of these programs begin with less than $1 million, and struggle to grow even when they are popular and oversubscribed.
Inspired by the NO EMITS Act (H.R. 4163) from the previous Congress and the Agricultural Resilience Act (H.R. 3077), the House bill proposes a $100 million per year investment to create a new federal match for state and Tribal soil health programs. The benefits of creating such a program are twofold: (1) states and Tribal nations with programs can augment their investments further – leveraging taxpayer dollars to meet more demand or expand to new areas of need, and (2) states and Tribes with interest but no program are incentivized to create and invest in new ones.
The location of this new program within CSP is a detail that has drawn attention. While some have framed this exciting step forward in soil health policy as a cut to CSP, AFT does not see it this way, nor do we want to pit one conservation priority against another. CSP is a popular and oversubscribed Farm Bill program that takes a whole farm approach to advance sustainable farming systems. State and Tribal soil health programs are underfunded programs created to fill gaps and meet local needs for support in adopting soil health practices. These are two complementary approaches needed to create a more complete system of support to reach the same goals. As with EQIP, the committee was considering ultimate Farm Bill changes it had first attempted in 2024 when it transferred unspent conservation funding from IRA to the Farm Bill via the 2025 reconciliation package. In the FFNS, the Committee increased CSP’s baseline from $1 billion in 2018 to $1.375 billion for all future Farm Bills – a significant improvement. The Committee did this while also adding nearly $2 billion in new funding for both CSP and for this new soil health program over the ten-year Farm Bill time horizon. In other words, this shift accounted both for a welcome increase to CSP, and for the creation of this innovative new program which, like the other changes described above, could only accomplished in the Farm Bill (and not reconciliation).
As this Farm Bill process moves forward, AFT will continue to seek creative solutions with Congress and partners for the incorporation of this program in ways that retain the full IRA transfer within the Title, ensure robust funding increases for each conservation program, and maintain the new increases for program baselines. We hope to ultimately establish this match as a new program with baseline.
Support Greater Farmer-to-Farmer Conservation Education –
Farmer-to-farmer education and support is one of the most effective ways to overcome conservation practice adoption barriers, including how to manage the costs and perceived yield loss risks that keep farmers from feeling confident trying new practices without hurting their business. There is no better or more trusted voice to turn to with questions or needs than other farmers who have firsthand experience with both the successes and failures of transition. While NRCS agents, soil and water conservation district (SWCD) employees, non-profit conservation organizations (NGOs), Cooperative Extension, and private actors can provide some support, only farmers know the realities other farmers face.
Increasing access to this peer support is a crucial part of an all-hands-on-deck approach to technical assistance that will result in successful long-term conservation practice adoption. However, regular, coordinated farmer-to-farmer education exists in very few communities, and can be hard for farmers to find and tap into. SWCD agents, NGOs, Cooperative Extension, and others rush to fill these gaps by hosting conservation networking events, setting up on-farm demo days, or matchmaking early adopters with mentees interested in conservation but who do not know where to begin. But funding for this crucial coordination work to pay farmers for their time and set up the structure to enable them to do what they do best – share information borne out of experience – is not accessible or widespread enough to realize the full potential of this simple strategy. Language providing more support for farmer-to-farmer conservation networks, such as that in the Farmer-to-Farmer Education Act of 2025, is absent from the FFNS. AFT hopes to work with the committees to recognize and increase funding for this effective strategy as the Farm Bill process moves forward.
Other Conservation Practice Policy Notes
In addition to the efforts mentioned above, AFT applauds the inclusion of the Increased TSP Access Act of 2025 within the legislation. AFT is also supportive of efforts to streamline the conservation practice standard approval and review processes, which was included in the bill. Finally, AFT welcomes efforts within the bill to strengthen State Technical Advisory Committee engagement in conservation program implementation.
SMART SOLAR PRIORITIES
AFT has long been concerned about the threat rapidly developing utility-scale solar projects pose to keeping our most productive agricultural land in farming. However, AFT has also long recognized the opportunity that solar leases can provide for farmers and ranchers to diversify their revenue with steady income and improve the viability of their operations, therefore keeping land in agriculture. This is why AFT has always taken a nuanced and balanced approach to advancing Smart Solar policy, seeking to maximize these benefits and minimize negative impacts like conversion of farmland or displacement of farmer-renters. These recommended Smart Solar strategies include:
Prioritizing solar on unproductive land, buildings, and contaminated areas
Following best practices during construction, operation, and decommissioning to protect soils and conserve water
Advancing agrivoltaics—the integration of active agricultural production into the land between and beneath solar arrays
Improving farm viability for landowners and for farm communities as a whole
Solar is an important part of any “all-of-the-above” U.S. energy strategy to ensure we are able to meet mounting energy demand with affordable power that increases American energy independence. Recent policy changes enacted by Congress (such as the phasing out of renewable tax incentives in the 2025 reconciliation package), and programmatic changes advanced by the administration, have slowed and restricted solar development. Because of these recent changes, the studies cited during the Farm Bill markup – including the 2021 U.S. Department of Energy study which projected the conversion of over 10 million acres if the U.S. is to decarbonize the grid by 2050, as well as AFT’s own Farms Under Threat: 2040 modeling revealing that 83% of new solar development would take place on agricultural land (with almost half on our most productive land) – are now out of date. These studies were conducted at a time when national policy was advancing an aggressive solar buildout. Now this spigot has slowed.
While AFT appreciates the attention and efforts to protect agricultural land from conversion to solar, these policy changes mean this particular threat has slowed and new threats (e.g., data centers) have become more prominent. But more importantly, USDA’s energy programs governed by the Farm Bill were not – and are not – contributing to this problem in any appreciable way. In fact, they are there to help farmers and ranchers afford to invest in the very projects that will support their viability, and in turn keep their land in production. USDA is also one of the few sources of support for rural cooperatives and rural small businesses looking to reduce costs and increase their energy independence, including – should they so choose – through renewable energy generation. The current FFNS language casts too wide a net by making it nearly impossible for USDA to contribute to solar projects, in particular, unless they are very small, or the farmer is using the power mainly for their operation (provided that they also get approval from their local government – a new requirement farmers would need to meet given how the FFNS was written).
While we are concerned about the bill’s larger top-down restriction on rural community access to solar support, several positive changes were included, such as language:
Directing USDA to study agrivoltaics – or solar projects that integrate active production of a marketable agricultural product into a solar array (referred to within the FFNS simply as “shared solar and agricultural production”)
Directing USDA to require implementation of best practices that ensure land put into solar preserves soils and can return to agricultural production after project removal (though this language will need some clarification and amendment in order to apply to existing USDA programs)
Streamlining and strengthening technical assistance for the Renewable Energy for American Program (REAP)
However, other important opportunities to support farm and ranch viability and advance Smart Solar projects in this language have not yet been realized. This includes strategies to further advance agrivoltaics and to enable these producers using this approach to access USDA programs. Below is a summary of AFT’s Smart Solar recommendations for this Farm Bill and how they fared in the House version:
Advance Solar Projects that Improve Farm Viability while Keeping Land in Production –
Inspired by H.R. 1592, the FFNS would restrict USDA’s ability to fund solar arrays that convert prime, unique, or statewide or locally important farmland out of production, except in the case of smaller arrays of five acres or less, or for arrays under 50 acres where: a) the majority of the power is used for the farm AND b) local governments grant their permission (a new requirement this language adds for farmers seeking such grant funding). Additionally, the bill includes language limiting USDA funding for any solar project with components that come from a Foreign Entity of Concern (e.g., China).
Taken together, these sections serve as severe restrictions on USDA’s ability to assist farmers and ranchers who have voluntarily decided to seek support for these projects to improve their bottom line, and for rural small businesses and electric cooperatives looking to diversify energy generation and increase their own independence and financial viability. The FFNS definition of conversion could use further clarification, and could explicitly account for agrivoltaic projects that keep farmland in production.
For these reasons, in spite of AFT’s support for the language in Section 9012 requiring conservation plans and decommissioning funding for solar projects sited on productive farmland, AFT is supportive of Representative Budzinski’s amendment #53 – which was offered, debated, and withdrawn – to strike Section 9012 restricting USDA support for solar on productive farmland. No such amendment was offered to address the FEOC restriction, which also would be severely limiting to USDA’s ability to support solar projects.
We believe there are better opportunities to achieve the goals AFT and members of this Committee share to minimize farmland conversion and support farm viability through USDA energy programs, such as directing USDA to incentivize agrivoltaic projects and solar projects developed on marginal farmland. These strategies would be more consistent with the goals and purposes of the Rural Development programs—to reduce input costs and contribute to farm viability while keeping land in farming. AFT will continue its work with the House and the Senate to ensure Farm Bill energy policy simultaneously increases farm and ranch viability, minimizes conversion of productive farmland, and advances an all of the above energy independence and affordability strategy.
Advance the Study of Agrivoltaics +
If best practices for construction are followed, and with a strong and clear definition for what qualifies as “agrivoltaic”, agrivoltaic projects could be a promising strategy to keep land in production when it is developed for solar. This strategy received bipartisan verbal support during markup, and could present a common sense, bipartisan path forward. Inspired by the Agricultural Resilience Act (H.R. 3077) and the SUNRAY Act (Last Congress: H.R. 7391), FFNS directs USDA to study the viability and scalability of different agrivoltaic production systems. The bill, thanks to an amendment added during markup, also positively directs USDA to provide outreach on REAP to advance solar projects that integrate livestock and crop production. The bill, however, does not include several other AFT recommendations that would further advance agrivoltaic projects, such as:
Defining the term “agrivoltaics” in statute to ensure that these solar projects accommodate and support a viable farm or ranch throughout the full life of the array,
Providing funding to USDA to carry out the study,
Ensuring farmers and ranchers operating within solar arrays are eligible for USDA program support, and
Instructing USDA to incentivize solar projects that keep productive land in farming (though instructing the agency to ensure outreach is done through REAP is a first step in the right direction).
AFT looks forward to working with members of Congress on both sides of the aisle and in both chambers to advance these strategies.
Examine the Impacts of the Solar Buildout on Farmland and Farm Communities +
As inspired by H.R. 8277, the House proposes to invest in research to answer key questions slowing the advancement of Smart Solar, including determining expected impacts to productive farmland, farmer-renters, land access, and rural economies. If well done, this study’s information could be a critical decision-making aid for local and state governments, and for the federal government and others weighing the pros and cons of utility-scale solar projects proposed on land within their jurisdiction or ownership.
Require that Best Practices are Followed as a Condition of Receiving USDA Funding +/-
In the 2024 version of the House Farm Bill, solar projects could still access USDA support if they received local government approval. However, these projects would be required to follow best practices to protect soils and farm infrastructure from damage, and to decommission the array and restore the land so that it could be farmed in the future. These commonsense requirements would have served as a model to governments, developers, and others on how to protect land that a farmer decides to temporarily put into solar. But, in the 2026 FFNS, the blanket local government exemption was removed, and instead subhoused as a second condition for projects under 50 acres that predominantly power a farm or ranch to meet to receive USDA support. With this change, the best practices section no longer applies to any bill language or USDA programming. AFT recommends restoring the local government exemption – at least for any project under 50 acres – and again tying the best practices language to this exemption.
Clarify that Producers Farming within Solar Arrays can Access USDA Farm Programs –
AFT has sought to clarify that agrivoltaic producers who farm within solar arrays are eligible for all USDA farm support programs. At times, administrative decision-making recognizes solar arrays as an industrial use, not an agricultural use. This can unintentionally ignore a new technology and prevent producers growing crops and raising livestock within solar arrays from receiving critical support available to other farmers (e.g., crop insurance, conservation assistance). This small but important change was not included in the FFNS, but we hope it will be incorporated into report language or added to a future iteration of the bill.
FARM VIABILITY PRIORITIES:
According to the 2022 Census of Agriculture, 36% percent of farms operated at a net loss. Given this, it is perhaps unsurprising that between 2017 and 2022, the U.S. lost nearly 7% of all farms. Simply put, more must be done to support our nation’s farmers, especially those with small and midsized operations. This support must include additional one-to-one business technical assistance to help farmers and food entrepreneurs build the business and financial skills necessary to run successful, resilient operations. It includes expanding local and regional markets and ensuring that USDA programs and policies consider the needs of smaller farms and ranches in their operation and outreach. It also means addressing the needs of farmers impacted by PFAS contamination head on by providing the relief and technical assistance needed to stay safely in business as well as investing in the necessary research to address this critical issue.
Address PFAS Contamination of Farms and Ranches +/-
AFT leads the PFAS and Agriculture Policy Workgroup, which released a comprehensive set of federal policy recommendations in September 2025. These recommendations urge Congress and the administration to provide relief and support to impacted producers, protect impacted producers from liability under CERCLA, reduce additional PFAS contamination, advance research, and increase federal coordination and communication with the public. The FFNS included three provisions related to PFAS: First, it lists PFAS as a “high-priority initiative” for research and extension. Second, it establishes a Center of Excellence dedicated to improving food quality, which includes research into the uptake of PFAS in food. Centers of Excellence are universities that partner with state and federal agencies to lead on research and education in a particular area. Third, the bill creates a new mandate for USDA to partner with other agencies to advance research, including working with the Department of Defense (DOD) to mitigate the impacts of PFAS released by DOD on farmland.
While these mark important steps forward, AFT believes that a dedicated PFAS relief and support program, such as that proposed in the Relief for Farmers Hit with PFAS Act, is essential to addressing this issue. This provision was not included in the FFNS. AFT looks forward to continuing to work with the House and Senate Agriculture Committees toward securing this goal.
Authorize the Local Food Purchase Assistance Cooperative Agreement Program +/-
In 2021, USDA launched the Local Food Purchase Assistance (LFPA) and the Local Foods for Schools (LFS) Cooperative Agreement Programs to provide funding for state and tribal governments to purchase and distribute local food at food banks, pantries, and schools. These programs helped to expand markets for producers, while addressing local food insecurity and getting nutritious food to local communities. AFT praises the Committee for including a “Local Farmers Feeding Our Communities Program” modeled on LFPA and LFS. However, the legislation would provide no mandatory funding for this program, instead providing just a $200,000 authorization of appropriations. Without the commitment of mandatory funding this program will likely be unable to meet its substantial demand.
Authorize the Regional Food Business Centers and the Resilient Food Systems Infrastructure Program –
As part of the efforts to build more resilient local and regional supply chains, USDA created twelve Regional Food Business Centers (RFBCs) across the nation and the Resilient Food Systems Infrastructure (RFSI) Program with funding from the American Rescue Plan Act (ARPA). The Centers, which were cancelled in 2025, served as regional food systems development hubs and represented partnerships among numerous organizations to coordinate, build capacity, and provide the business technical assistance critical to the success of small and midsized farms and ranches. RFSI was created to build markets for small farm and food businesses, support the development of value-added products, and help increase supply chain coordination. Because the RFBCs and RFSI were created with temporary funding, authorizing them in the Farm Bill is critical in order to ensure that this important work can continue. The FFNS does not presently include either the Centers or RFSI.
Create an Office of Small Farms –
Small farms are essential to local and regional food supply chains, bolstering rural economic vitality, food security, and community resilience. However, according to the U.S. Census of Agriculture, small farms—defined here as 180 acres or less—make up nearly three quarters of the nation’s agricultural operations, but only receive 13% of government payments. While small farms are not expressly ineligible, many USDA programs have been designed with a one-size-fits-all approach that can disadvantage participation by small-acreage operations. To address these concerns, AFT supports the creation of an Office of Small Farms within USDA as defined in the Office of Small Farms Establishment Act. This proposed new office would improve program accessibility for small-scale operations, operate an anonymous hotline, and provide grants and technical assistance to these types of producers. An Office of Small Farms was not included in the FFNS.
Address Heirs’ Property +
Heirs’ property is a form of fractionated property ownership which, when it occurs on farmland, can make it challenging to access USDA or other government programs, and can be easily forced to auction by real estate interests. This form of ownership is particularly prevalent in Black communities in the Southeast and is often the result of informal land transfer caused by not having a will. The House bill reauthorizes the Heirs’ Property Relending Program, and creates a new program based on the Heirs Education and Investment to Resolve Succession of Property Act. This would allow USDA to enter into cooperative agreements with nonprofits to provide legal and accounting services to underserved heirs to resolve undivided ownership issues for farmland.
Other Farm Viability Notes
The House bill did not make any major cuts to important viability programs such as the Beginning Farmer and Rancher Development Program (BFRDP) or the Local Agriculture Market Program (LAMP). Within LAMP, the bill creates a simplified application process for certain project categories requesting fewer than $100,000 of funding.
FARMLAND ACCESS PRIORITIES:
Land access is reported as the number one challenge facing aspiring farmers. With agricultural land values rising almost 50% over the past decade, the dream of farmland ownership has never been further out of reach for new farmers, especially young and historically underserved producers. These skyrocketing costs are fueled by steep competition among investors, established farmers, and developers. The need for better policy to address land access could not be more urgent. Nearly one-third of the country’s total agricultural land will change hands over the next twenty years as the current generation of farmers retire. The land access policies put in place now will determine not just the availability and affordability of land for the next generation of farmers and ranchers, but also the nation’s ability to provide economic opportunities in rural communities and address national and global food security.
Reauthorize the Commission on Farm Transitions +
AFT is pleased to see reauthorization of the Commission on Farm Transitions in the House bill. The provision was created by the 2018 Farm Bill, but never implemented by USDA. The 10-member Commission would be tasked with studying and proposing solutions to the barriers facing both retiring and next generation producers in transitioning land and other assets. This includes examining the effectiveness of existing programs and policies, the availability of resources such as credit and business technical assistance, and the impacts of trends such as consolidation and foreign ownership. Updates to the Commission language were proposed in the bipartisan Farm Transitions Act.
Expedite Approvals for Farm Ownership Loans +
Currently, the market for farmland is extremely competitive and fast-paced, with land often being purchased in cash. The speed of these transactions puts farmers and ranchers who rely on the Farm Service Agency’s farm ownership loans at a distinct disadvantage, since it can take months for these loans to be approved. The House bill includes a welcome five-year pilot program to streamline and expedite approvals for both bridge and farm ownership loans.
THE BILL’S PATH FORWARD:
House Agriculture Committee Chairman Thompson has mentioned the goal of having their Farm Bill taken up for consideration by the full House of Representatives this spring. Given the level of bipartisan support provided to this bill within the Committee, there is at least a chance of its passage in the chamber, though the majority will be working intensely to assure the near unanimous support of their caucus while garnering additional bipartisan votes. We expect most Democrats will continue to oppose any Farm Bill legislation that does not rescind or delay the changes made to SNAP in the 2025 Republican reconciliation package.
Advancement in the House will potentially be a key factor in Senate negotiations. Senate Agriculture Committee Chairman Boozman has recently floated the idea of a Farm Bill introduction in Spring. The Senate would likely take up its own version of the legislation, rather than working from the House language. Bipartisan support will be even more critical in this chamber where the legislation would need to clear the sixty-vote filibuster threshold to secure its passage.
In short, the road to passing a Farm Bill in 2026 is not clear. But what is clear is that our nation’s farmers and ranchers are staring down another year of high input costs, low prices, extreme weather, and market and trade uncertainty. The passage of a Farm Bill remains both urgent and essential to provide the certainty farmers need to run viable operations, and to enable the types of improvements needed to ensure that programs are working well for the very people they are intended to serve.
As we move forward, AFT will continue its fight for the best possible Farm Bill. We will continue to serve as a resource and thought partner for both parties and both chambers. And we will continue to stay laser focused on our mission and the very people AFT was created to serve: our nation’s farmers and ranchers.
