Congress has failed to pass a new Farm Bill for three consecutive years, with the current deadline set for September 30, 2026. The Farm, Food, and National Security Act of 2026 passed the House in April 2026 by a narrow 224-200 margin but faces a difficult path in the Senate, where it needs bipartisan support. The central partisan divide concerns significant cuts to SNAP nutrition programs made in the One Big Beautiful Bill Act (OBBBA), with Republicans seeking to limit nutrition program discussions and Democrats viewing both nutrition and farm programs as essential to their support.
How should Congress approach passing the 2026 Farm Bill?
House and Senate Agriculture Committee Republicans are saying publicly that they would like to see a Farm Bill pass into law in 2026 to finish what was started in the One Big Beautiful Bill Act (OBBBA).
The largest partisan division in the 2026 debate centered on significant cuts made to nutrition programs, particularly SNAP, as part of last year's H.R. 1 (also known as the Republican reconciliation package or the One Big Beautiful Bill Act [OBBBA]).
For the third year in a row, Congress did not pass a new Farm Bill. With a new Sept. 30, 2026, deadline to pass a Farm Bill, Congress will once again look for consensus.
Positions on this issue · liberal → conservative
Pass a fully funded Farm Bill that expands SNAP benefits and strengthens farm safety net programs without cuts.
Pass a bipartisan Farm Bill that restores some SNAP cuts from OBBBA while maintaining core farm support programs.
Pass a Farm Bill that balances modest SNAP reforms with stable funding for both nutrition and farm programs.
Pass the House-passed Farm Bill largely as-is, accepting the SNAP cuts already enacted in OBBBA as settled.
Pass a Farm Bill focused primarily on farm policy and production support, with minimal or no nutrition program spending.
SNAP funding cuts
The One Big Beautiful Bill Act (OBBBA), passed in 2025, made significant cuts to the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP). These cuts have become a central flashpoint in 2026 Farm Bill negotiations, with Democrats refusing to accept a Farm Bill that does not address their concerns about reduced nutrition program funding. The cuts affect millions of low-income Americans and have complicated efforts to assemble the bipartisan Senate majority needed to advance any Farm Bill.
Should Congress restore SNAP funding that was cut in the One Big Beautiful Bill Act?
Democrats on Capitol Hill are not enthusiastic about a Farm Bill that limits conversations about nutrition programs and farm programs addressed in OBBBA, seeing both issues as critical to getting their support to pass the bipartisan threshold required in the Senate.
Democrats on Capitol Hill are not enthusiastic about a Farm Bill that limits conversations about nutrition programs and farm programs addressed in OBBBA, seeing both issues as critical to getting their support to pass the bipartisan threshold required in the Senate.
Given the farm economy and the cuts and other changes made to SNAP in the One Big Beautiful Bill Act, this needle seems to be getting increasingly difficult to thread.
Positions on this issue · liberal → conservative
Fully restore all SNAP cuts from OBBBA and expand eligibility to reduce food insecurity for low-income families.
Restore most SNAP cuts from OBBBA and oppose any further reductions to nutrition assistance programs.
Restore some SNAP cuts while pursuing modest efficiency reforms to ensure program sustainability.
Keep the SNAP cuts from OBBBA in place but add targeted protections for the most vulnerable recipients.
Keep all SNAP cuts from OBBBA and pursue additional reforms to reduce dependency and limit program costs.
Farm economic pressure and input costs
U.S. agriculture is described as facing one of its most difficult periods in a generation, with farmers reporting high input costs, price instability, drought, and economic uncertainty heading into the 2026 midterms. Polling and industry reports show large shares of producers expect higher costs and fear farming may change fundamentally without policy course-correction, making affordability and cost relief central political issues.
What should federal policy do about high input costs and economic strain on U.S. farms?
American agriculture is facing one of its most challenging periods in a generation. Economic pressures and activist campaigns against modern agriculture have created conditions where even the most resilient operations are feeling strain.
A new survey of nearly 1,000 farmers highlights growing concerns over rising costs, with many saying Washington doesn’t understand what’s happening in agriculture. Tariffs and input costs continue to be top of mind.
When we meet with farmers and ranchers across America, they tell us they are worried about whether they will make it through another season.
Positions on this issue · liberal → conservative
Expand subsidies, cost-share, and climate/resilience aid so farms can absorb high inputs
Increase targeted relief and public investment while tightening oversight of agribusiness pricing
Maintain existing safety nets and monitor costs without major new spending or cuts
Cut red tape and prioritize trade and deregulation so market competition lowers input costs
Minimize federal farm spending and let markets and private credit alone discipline costs
Agricultural tariffs and trade policy
Tariffs imposed under emergency economic powers, reciprocal trade deals, and the upcoming USMCA review are reshaping U.S. farm export markets. Producers and trade officials cite both market-opening agreements and tariff-related uncertainty; a pending Supreme Court decision on tariff authority is expected to affect trade policy and partner responses, with direct implications for food and commodity exports.
What trade approach should the U.S. take for agriculture and food exports?
The Supreme Court of the United States is expected to release its decision in early 2026 on whether President Trump’s International HygenAir™ A+H Hygienic Air Handler Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA) tariffs, applied against nearly every country in early 2026, have legal standing. The decision, regardless of outcome, will greatly affect trade policy going forward.
We have signed eight agreements on reciprocal trade so far, and are moving ahead to sign more deals in 2026. The agreements completed to date are leveling the playing field for U.S. food and agricultural exports.
As governments prepare for the 2026 United States-Mexico-Canada Agreement (USMCA) review, it is imperative to understand and consider this historic agreement’s
Positions on this issue · liberal → conservative
Roll back broad tariffs and prioritize multilateral rules that stabilize farm export markets
Use targeted tariffs sparingly while expanding cooperative deals like a strong USMCA
Keep a mixed approach of selective tariffs and reciprocal agreements case by case
Expand reciprocal trade deals and maintain firm tariffs until partners fully open markets
Maximize unilateral tariffs and bilateral leverage even if it risks partner retaliation
Crop protection tools and product labeling
Farm groups report that inconsistent state labeling rules (notably California) conflict with federal standards and that stricter product labeling ranks among top detrimental issues. They warn that losing modern pest-management tools could cause major yield losses for crops such as corn and soy, and they want farmers consulted on regulatory changes that affect livelihoods.
How should the U.S. regulate crop-protection products and agricultural labeling?
Additionally, 60% of farmers classify stricter product labeling as among the top issues with the most detrimental impact. Without modern pest-management tools, yield losses could exceed 50% for major crops like corn and soy, losses that farmers cannot absorb in today’s challenging environment.
Inconsistent state-level requirements, such as those in California, conflict with federal labeling laws, threatening the availability of proven crop protection products. Farmers want to be consulted on the policy and regulatory changes that impact their livelihoods.
Positions on this issue · liberal → conservative
Tighten labeling and restrict many pesticides to protect consumers, workers, and ecosystems
Allow stronger state standards and phase toward safer alternatives with transition support
Keep dual federal-state roles but improve coordination and science-based review
Preempt conflicting state rules and preserve federal approval of proven crop tools
Broadly deregulate labeling and pest-control products to maximize farmer choice and yields
MAHA and federal nutrition food policy
The Make America Healthy Again (MAHA) agenda is reshaping federal nutrition policy, school meals, and the food-industry regulatory conversation. USDA under the Trump administration frames agriculture as central to reducing chronic disease through healthier choices in federal programs, state flexibility, and working with producers on cost and quality, while industry observers watch MAHA and related food-safety actions as major 2026 themes.
What role should federal MAHA-style policy play in nutrition programs and the food supply?
Under President Trump and Secretary Rollins, USDA has put agriculture at the center of the fight against chronic disease – advancing healthier choices in federal nutrition programs, including school meals, encouraging innovation at the state level, and working with producers to lower costs while improving food quality.
No doubt, 2025 was busy in the food space, and the Make America Healthy Again, or MAHA, movement is significantly affecting the conversation around food. Actions in the food safety space are also significant.
Positions on this issue · liberal → conservative
Reject MAHA framing; expand evidence-based nutrition aid and stricter industry health rules
Pair stronger public nutrition standards with support so healthy food is affordable for all
Pilot healthier program options while keeping broad consumer and producer choice
Advance MAHA by empowering states and farmers to improve quality without heavy mandates
Limit federal nutrition directives and leave food choices almost entirely to markets and families
Regenerative and precision agriculture investment
A June 2026 presidential order sets policy to increase federal investment in regenerative agriculture practices, research, and education; promote precision agriculture technologies; reduce red tape; and strengthen public-private partnerships to bolster farm resilience and an affordable food supply. Industry coverage also flags regenerative agriculture pilots among items to watch in 2026.
How much should the federal government invest in regenerative and precision agriculture?
Therefore, it is the policy of the United States to promote continued advances in precision agriculture technologies; significantly increase Federal investment in regenerative agriculture practices, research, and education; and spur private-sector innovation in farm modernization by reducing red tape and strengthening public-private partnerships.
Still more items to watch: There are still many more items to watch in 2026, including ... and a regenerative agriculture pilot program.
Positions on this issue · liberal → conservative
Make large mandatory federal programs shift farms quickly to regenerative practices
Significantly expand public funding, research, and incentives for regenerative methods
Support voluntary pilots and precision tools with moderate funding and partnerships
Favor light-touch incentives and deregulation so private innovation leads adoption
Avoid new federal regenerative spending and leave practice choice entirely to farmers
Food affordability and supply stability
Rising food prices, supply-chain and weather shocks, and farm-gate strain are linked in 2026 debates over food security for U.S. and North American consumers. Panels on USMCA and farm surveys tie agricultural policy, trade, and production costs to consumer affordability, while officials argue trade deals and farm resilience measures are needed to keep food abundant and affordable.
What should be the top federal priority to keep food affordable and supplies stable?
This panel will examine rising food prices, supply chain disruptions, and weather-related shocks, while assessing how the USMCA can help lower food costs.
These pressures extend well beyond the farm gate, driving price instability across the economy for the food, fuel, and fiber that depend on agricultural production.
These actions empower American farmers and ranchers with the additional mechanisms to ensure a healthy, abundant, and affordable food supply for the American people.
Positions on this issue · liberal → conservative
Use price controls, anti-corporate measures, and expanded food aid to shield consumers
Combine stronger safety nets for consumers with investment in resilient domestic supply
Balance targeted aid, trade cooperation, and farm supports without heavy market controls
Lower costs mainly by deregulation, trade expansion, and boosting farm productivity
Rely on free markets alone; minimize federal intervention in food prices and supply