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

Release: FY2027 USDA Budget Proposal is a Historic Setback for Farmers and Rural Communities 

Washington, DC, April 3, 2026 –  Today, the National Sustainable Agriculture Coalition (NSAC) responded to the Trump Administration’s release of the US Department of Agriculture’s (USDA) Fiscal Year (FY) 2027 Budget Proposal. The Administration’s FY2027 discretionary funding request for USDA is more than $2 billion below the Administration’s FY2026 USDA request.

“The Administration’s USDA budget proposes one of the most staggering disinvestments from farmers and rural communities in recent memory. Amidst rising farm bankruptcies and unprecedented instability in American agriculture, this budget proposal would double down on the damage and radically reduce USDA’s ability to serve farmers. The budget entirely eliminates funding for farmer-led agriculture research, conservation support that helps farmers build productivity and resilience, and investments in urban agriculture and rural small businesses alike,” said Mike Lavender, NSAC Policy Director.

The budget proposal includes significant staffing cuts at the Farm Service Agency, a USDA agency that is essential to supporting farmer viability in county offices across the country. Similarly, the budget would siphon significant funding directly from farmers by using popular conservation programs – such as the Conservation Stewardship Program and the Environmental Quality Incentives Program – to pay for Natural Resources Conservation Service staff. 

Additionally, the following programs would receive zero discretionary funding in FY2027 under this budget proposal:

• Conservation Technical Assistance
• Sustainable Agriculture Research and Education Program
• Farming Opportunities Training and Outreach Program:
  • Beginning Farmer and Rancher Development Program
  • Outreach and Assistance to Socially Disadvantaged and Veteran Farmers and Ranchers Program
• Office of Urban Agriculture and Innovative Production
• Local Agriculture Market Program:
  • Farmers Market Promotion Program
  • Local Food Promotion Program
  • Value Added Producer Grants
• Organic Transitions Research, Education, and Extension Program
• Healthy Food Financing Initiative
• Rural Energy for American Program
• Rural Microentrepreneur Assistance Program
• Rural Business Development Grants

Stay tuned to the NSAC blog for deeper analysis of the FY2027 USDA budget in the coming days.

###

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 and get involved at: https://sustainableagriculture.net

The post Release: FY2027 USDA Budget Proposal is a Historic Setback for Farmers and Rural Communities appeared first on National Sustainable Agriculture Coalition.

Contact: Laura Zaks

National Sustainable Agriculture Coalition

press@sustainableagriculture.net

Release: Cynthia Hayes Memorial Scholarship Welcomes Applications for its Eighth Cycle

The Cynthia Hayes Memorial Scholarship honors the co-founder of the first network for African American organic farmers in the United States

Washington, DC, April 3, 2026 – Last week, the National Sustainable Agriculture Coalition (NSAC) and the Southeastern African American Farmers Organic Network (SAAFON) opened applications for the eighth cycle of the annual scholarship honoring Cynthia Hayes, the late co-founder and former director of SAAFON. 

The scholarship welcomes applications from Black and Indigenous undergraduate and Masters students from all Tribal Nations, US states, and territories. In their application essay, students should describe their interest in and experiences with food justice and sustainable agriculture with a focus on Black farmer communities in the United States or the interconnected futures of Black and Indigenous farmers. The Cynthia Hayes Memorial Scholarship will offer one graduate and two undergraduate students a $5,000 award

“The Southeastern African American Farmers Organic Network is proud to announce another year of the Cynthia Hayes Memorial Scholarship, honoring our co-founder and visionary organizer. As SAAFON celebrates our 20 year anniversary this year, we are reminded of the importance of investing in the next generation of leadership in the sustainable agriculture sector, and we look forward to joining NSAC in welcoming our new scholars to the movement,” said Whitney Jaye, Co-Executive Director at SAAFON. 

“It is an honor to help administer the Cynthia Hayes Memorial Scholarship. The applicants represent the best and brightest of the upcoming class of Black and Indigenous leaders in sustainable agriculture, and I am so grateful that NSAC and SAAFON are able to invest in them in memory of Cynthia Hayes,” says Tyler Edwards, Grassroots Advocacy Coordinator at NSAC.

To be considered, undergraduate students must be either entering their third year of enrollment or the first semester of their fourth year during the Fall semester of 2026. Graduate students must have completed at least 4 courses by Fall 2026. All applicants must have at least one semester left before graduation. Applicants will be evaluated on their interest in sustainable agriculture, policy, and grassroots organizing, and must have demonstrated knowledge or experience in racial equity and an interest in pursuing leadership or a career in the sustainable food and farm movement.

The deadline to apply is May 1, 2026. To apply, visit our job website. 

Questions related to the Cynthia Hayes Memorial Scholarship should be directed to scholarship@sustainableagriculture.net.

###

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 and get involved at: https://sustainableagriculture.net

The post Release: Cynthia Hayes Memorial Scholarship Now Accepting Applications appeared first on National Sustainable Agriculture Coalition.

Contact: Laura Zaks

National Sustainable Agriculture Coalition

press@sustainableagriculture.net

Comment: NSAC Condemns USDA’s Withdrawal of Support For Next Generation Farmers

Washington, DC, April 1, 2026 – The National Sustainable Agriculture Coalition (NSAC) issued the following comment, attributable to Nick Rossi, NSAC Policy Specialist, in response to the termination of the Increasing Land, Capital, and Market Access (ILCMA) Program.

“Reliable access to land, capital, and markets is among the biggest challenges facing beginning and other underserved farmers. USDA’s summary termination of investments to expand access to these crucial resources not only undercuts years of locally-led work to support the next generation of farmers, but entirely contradicts the administration’s stated goal of supporting American family farms and rural communities. Farmer-serving organizations have spent years hiring staff, building partnerships, and recruiting farmers, only to have their funding cut just as projects were preparing to launch. At such a pivotal moment for American agriculture, the decision to terminate these projects is reckless and puts the future of farming and farm  communities at further risk.”

Over the last decade, farmland prices have significantly increased, nearly doubling in some parts of the Midwest, and risen far higher in areas with pressure due to real estate development or commodity prices. The ability to access land is a crucial component of ensuring land remains in agriculture and that new farmers can build economically viable businesses. ILCMA was intended to help address this problem by increasing access to farm ownership opportunities, increasing access to markets and capital that affect the ability to access land, and increasing land ownership, land succession, and agricultural business planning. 

USDA terminated 49 of the 50 ILCMA projects; projects ranging from the creation of a Land Access and Farm Academy Program in the Southeast to projects improving access to affordable, geographically appropriate farmland and assistance with the removal of barriers to urban farmers participating in agricultural grant and loan programs in the Midwest. NSAC condemns this decision, which undermines creative solutions to some of our farmers’ most pressing challenges, setting back American farmers and the very future of our food system. Read more about the projects that USDA terminated here.

###

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 and get involved at: https://sustainableagriculture.net

The post Comment: NSAC Condemns USDA’s Withdrawal of Support For Next Generation Farmers 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 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.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Disaster Assistance Frameworks

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

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

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

Specialty Crop Assistance Framework

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

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

State Disaster Block Grant Authority

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

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

Equitable Access to Land and Capital

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Crop Insurance 

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

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

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

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

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

Fair Competition 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Local Food: Market Access and Development

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

Local Farmers Feeding our Communities

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

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

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

Food Safety Outreach Program

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

Local Agriculture Market Program 

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

Federal Procurement Reform 

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

Cooperative Interstate Shipment Program

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

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

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

Business Technical Assistance 

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

Local Food: Supply Chain and Infrastructure Support

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

Infrastructure

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

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

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

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

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

Workforce Development

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

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

Local Food: Access

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

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

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

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

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

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

Editor’s Note: This is the first post in a four-part blog series analyzing the Farm, Food, and National Security Act of 2026, which was reported out of the House Agriculture Committee on March 5. This post provides an overview of the markup process and the bill as a whole, as well as its likely (or unlikely) path to becoming law. Subsequent posts provide a deep dive analysis of the bill’s potential impacts on local and regional food systems, the farm safety net, and conservation, climate resilience, and sustainable and organic research. 

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

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

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

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

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

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

Summarizing the Markup

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

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

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

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

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

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

Where to from Here

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

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

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

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

Contact: Laura Zaks

National Sustainable Agriculture Coalition

press@sustainableagriculture.net

Tel. 347.563.6408

Comment: Without Investments and Reforms, House Bill Rings Hollow

Washington, DC, March 5, 2026 – The National Sustainable Agriculture Coalition (NSAC) released the following statement attributable to Mike Lavender, NSAC Policy Director, following the House Agriculture Committee’s 34-17 passage of the Farm, Food, and National Security Act of 2026.

“Almost any farmer will tell you that farm policy is fundamentally broken – but instead of taking real strides toward a better future, the House farm bill doubles down on a system that simply isn’t working. The bill offers unfunded authorizations and more status quo instead of meaningful reforms or bold investments in infrastructure, markets, and proven programs for farmers. We appreciate lawmakers on both sides of the aisle who offered amendments to rectify the shortcomings of the bill. But for the countless farmers struggling to make ends meet, the scattered policy improvements in this bill ring hollow without the resources to fuel them. 

The path to a farm bill remains through a true bipartisan process. More than seven years removed from the last farm bill, NSAC encourages Senate and House policymakers to work together toward delivering a new farm bill that invests in healthy communities, levels the playing field for small and mid-sized farmers, equips farmers with the tools and resources they need to build resilient and viable operations, and fosters the next generation of farmers and ranchers.“

Stay tuned to the NSAC blog in the days ahead for deeper analysis of the Farm, Food, and National Security Act of 2026.

###

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 and get involved at: https://sustainableagriculture.net

The post Comment: Without Investments and Reforms, House Bill Rings Hollow appeared first on National Sustainable Agriculture Coalition.

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

Farmers’ Voices

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

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

Coalition Work

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

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

Our Voices Heard

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Perennial Advocate Award

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

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

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

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

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

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