Contact: Laura Zaks

National Sustainable Agriculture Coalition

press@sustainableagriculture.net

Tel. 347.563.6408

Release: More than 300 Farm Groups Urge Congress to Reject House Farm Bill

Washington, DC, April 24, 2026 – Today, the National Sustainable Agriculture Coalition (NSAC), along with hundreds of farmer‑serving, farmworker, farms, and other stakeholders engaged in the future of American agriculture and food, urged House leaders to reject the Farm, Food, and National Security Act of 2026 (H.R. 7567) and return to the table to craft a farm bill that truly serves all farmers and communities.

“The farm bill can and should be a vehicle for the stability and prosperity of all of American agriculture. This letter from hundreds of farmers and the organizations that serve them shows that the House farm bill has fallen well short of that mark. Amidst rising farm bankruptcies and unprecedented economic and policy instability, the House bill chooses more of the same, neglecting the kinds of investments and policies that our farmers not only deserve but desperately need. We encourage the House of Representatives to deliver a bill that brings stability and growth for all farmers by rejecting H.R. 7567 in pursuit of a better alternative,” said Mike Lavender, NSAC Policy Director.

With farm bill reauthorization already more than two and a half years overdue, the letter stressed that urgency cannot be an excuse for bad policy. “Congress must reject H.R. 7567 and deliver a bipartisan farm bill that strengthens the safety net, invests in local and regional markets, protects workers, and advances a just, climate‑resilient food system for all,” the letter states.

Find the letter 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: https://sustainableagriculture.net/

The post Release: More than 300 Farm Groups Urge Congress to Reject House Farm Bill appeared first on National Sustainable Agriculture Coalition.

Contact: Laura Zaks

National Sustainable Agriculture Coalition

press@sustainableagriculture.net

Tel. 347.563.6408

Release: Transparency and Oversight Needed to Ensure New USDA Reorganization Avoids Disrupted Services for Farmers, Processors, and the Public

Washington, DC, April 23, 2026 – Today, the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) announced the reorganization of the Research, Education, and Extension (REE) and Food Safety mission areas. This reorganization will move over 200 technical and administrative staff from the Food Safety and Inspection Service (FSIS) out of the National Capital Region (NCR), relocate staff from the Economic Research Service (ERS), National Institute of Food and Agriculture (NIFA), and the National Agriculture Statistics Service (NASS) staff to St. Louis or Kansas City, and close one of USDA’s historic research centers, the Beltsville Agricultural Research Center (BARC). 

While the National Sustainable Agriculture Coalition (NSAC) supports USDA’s stated goals of enhancing effectiveness, accountability, and service delivery, USDA’s reorganization plans lack transparency and have disregarded input from farmers and the general public. Previous reorganizations have led to loss of staff and knowledge, and with REE and FSIS already struggling with staffing, the advancement of USDA’s reorganization plan risks undermining their core functions.  

“The 2019 relocation of ERS and NIFA drained talent and crippled productivity, conditions now at risk of being repeated. The further relocation of ERS, NIFA, and NASS staff will likely bring about service disruptions and a greater loss of institutional knowledge. In addition, despite the significant public feedback to the contrary, the reorganization would close the Beltsville Agricultural Research Center, disrupting decades of invaluable agricultural research,” said Nick Rossi, NSAC Policy Specialist.

“The relocation of FSIS personnel was entirely absent from the USDA Reorganization plan in 2025. Without stakeholder input and proper forewarning, this abrupt relocation could lead to service disruptions for inspection personnel, undermining initiatives to support small and very small processors. We look forward to further public documentation explaining how this move will support these processors,” said Connor Kippe, NSAC Policy Specialist.

In September 2025, NSAC submitted feedback to USDA during a public comment period regarding the Reorganization Plan.

###

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: Transparency and Oversight Needed to Ensure New USDA Reorganization Avoids Disrupted Services for Farmers, Processors, and the Public appeared first on National Sustainable Agriculture Coalition.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Contact: Laura Zaks

National Sustainable Agriculture Coalition

press@sustainableagriculture.net

Tel. 347.563.6408

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

### 

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

The post Release: Hundreds Call for Strong Investments in Farmer-Led Research, Urban Agriculture, and Conservation in FY2027 Appropriations appeared first on National Sustainable Agriculture Coalition.

Contact: Laura Zaks

National Sustainable Agriculture Coalition

press@sustainableagriculture.net

Release: Coalition Urges Congress to Bolster Domestic Markets, Fund Local and Regional Food Procurement in Farmer Relief Package 

Washington, DC, April 15, 2026– Today, National Sustainable Agriculture Coalition (NSAC), National Farmers Union, American Farmland Trust, and National Association of State Departments of Agriculture led an agricultural coalition letter urging Congress to include funding for local and regional procurement of domestically produced agricultural products in any upcoming farmer economic relief package. 

“Reliable markets are foundational to farmers’ success – now is the moment to ensure that any agricultural economic relief package invests in stable domestic markets that will support farmers both today and well into the future,” said Mike Lavender, Policy Director for NSAC. “Congress can spur federal investments in locally-led procurement that will open market opportunities for small and mid-sized farmers – supporting their financial resilience, and solidifying their connectivity to their local communities.” 

As family farmers and ranchers continue to face severe economic pressure driven by market volatility, rising costs, trade disruptions, and extreme weather, the groups emphasized that additional assistance will be necessary. The letter argues that Congress should pair near-term relief with investments that build stronger domestic markets and create reliable demand for American-grown products. 

“Local and regional supply chains are not only a cornerstone of rural economic resilience—they are essential to national food security,” the letter states.  

The coalition pointed to bipartisan, bicameral legislation already introduced in Congress, including the Strengthening Local Food Security Act (S.2338) and the Local Farmers Feeding Our Communities Act (H.R. 4782), as models for implementation. 

The groups also highlighted USDA’s previous Local Food Purchase Assistance and Local Food for Schools programs as proof that the approach works. Those programs helped states, Tribes, and territories purchase approximately $850 million in locally grown food from over 15,000 farmers and ranchers, strengthening regional supply chains and expanding market opportunities for small and mid-sized producers. Together, these programs stimulated nearly $1.6 billion in economic activity. 

“Family farmers are squeezed by low prices, rising costs, and deep uncertainty. Investing in local and regional food procurement isn’t just good policy — it’s how we keep family farms viable and rural communities strong,” said Rob Larew, President of National Farmers Union. 

“Congress has an opportunity to deliver both immediate relief and long-term resilience by including funding for local and regional food procurement in their upcoming farmer assistance package,” said John Piotti, President and CEO of American Farmland Trust. “These investments create reliable demand for farmers and ranchers, provide nutritious food to communities across the country, keep more dollars circulating in rural communities, and help ensure that American agriculture can thrive well into the future.” 

“NASDA members are advocating for Congress to include robust funding for procurement of regionally produced food in any upcoming farmer economic relief package,” NASDA CEO Ted McKinney said. “Strategic investments in these programs directly support small and medium-sized American farmers and ranchers, strengthen local and regional supply chains and expand access to a variety of nutritious foods in communities across the country. Prioritizing procurement of local products can help deliver meaningful economic relief to U.S. farmers while advancing food security, improving nutrition outcomes and building a more resilient food system for the future.” 

Read the full letter here. 

 ###

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: Coalition Urges Congress to Bolster Domestic Markets, Fund Local and Regional Food Procurement in Farmer Relief Package appeared first on National Sustainable Agriculture Coalition.

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

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

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

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

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

Conservation Programs and Funding

Funding

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Total new baseline authority = $452 million 

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

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

Precision Agriculture

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

Conservation Stewardship Program (CSP)

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

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

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

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

Environmental Quality Incentives Program (EQIP)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Alternative Manure Management Practices (AMMP)

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

Grazing Lands Conservation Initiative (GLCI)

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

Research, Education, and Extension Programs

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

Sustainable Agriculture Research and Education (SARE) program

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

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

Organic Agriculture Research and Extension Initiative (OREI)

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

Organic Transitions Program (ORG)

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

Precision Agriculture

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

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

Agriculture and Food Research Initiative (AFRI)

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

Farming Opportunities Training and Outreach (FOTO) program

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

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

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

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

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

1890 Land Grant Institutions

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

National Organic Program (NOP)

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

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

Contact: Laura Zaks

National Sustainable Agriculture Coalition

press@sustainableagriculture.net

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 made public were awarded in early January 2025.

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

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

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

### 

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

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