Overview of USDA Funding Agreements and Recent Impacts

USDA funding recipients have long been subject to specific terms and conditions that govern their federally-funded projects, in part based on the Uniform Grants Guidance issued by the Office of Management and Budget. This guidance includes a provision rarely – if ever – invoked allowing a signed agreement to be terminated, “to the extent authorized by law, if an award no longer effectuates the program goals or agency priorities.” 2 CFR 200.340(a)(4). However, it has not been until the second Trump Administration that USDA has started relying on that provision to terminate hundreds of signed agreements, evidently in pursuit of rooting out what this Administration has termed “illegal diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI).” USDA’s authority for these terminations has been challenged in the courts by both organizations and states whose funding was abruptly canceled, with early indications of a likelihood of success on the merits in at least one case. 

Even while these lawsuits unfold, USDA has taken additional steps to limit the kinds of activities that projects might undertake to expand equitable access to opportunity for all farmers, and particularly for the farmers, ranchers, and communities that have historically been – and in many cases continue to be – underserved by USDA resources. This includes the release of new General Terms and Conditions at USDA at the end of December 2025, which have generated significant stress and confusion among federal grantees due to their breadth and the vague terms they contain related to DEI, general, and civil rights compliance. Several of these new Terms and Conditions have already been challenged in court, with the plaintiff states recently receiving a preliminary injunction given the impacts of these terms on their funding and the states’ likelihood of success on the merits.

These kinds of actions are not limited to USDA; they are occurring across the federal government. This includes recent proposed updates to the SAM.gov portal, which would require federal grantees to certify compliance with Executive Orders regarding so-called “illegal DEI,” immigration, and national security. And most recently, and the primary focus of this post, the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) has proposed revisions to the rules that govern federal financial assistance agreements, including agency grants, cooperative agreements, “and other agreement[s] for assistance”. 

This proposed rule would expand on and codify the anti-equity provisions and termination authority discussed above – despite active legal challenges to these authorities and the significant disruptions and harms their use has levied on farmers and farmer-serving organizations. It also includes other changes to federal grantmaking that raise significant concerns for USDA funding recipients. 

Key Concerns and Impacts

The proposed rule contains a wide range of changes to federal grantmaking, including by elevating these provisions from non-binding guidance for agencies to binding regulations. This analysis focuses on several key concerns with the rules as applied to USDA-funded projects: broad termination authority, compliance with vague and undefined terms, new burdens on grantees and partnership projects, politicization of funding decisions, and uncertain scope. 

Broad Termination Authority Destabilizes Longstanding USDA Partnerships

One of the most problematic aspects of the proposed rule for agricultural stakeholders is the expansion and codification of what the rule is calling the federal government’s “discretionary termination” authority. The expanded language would permit termination of a signed agreement at any time if the agency determines “it is in the interest of the Federal agency or pass-through entity, including if a Federal award does not effectuate program goals, Federal agency priorities, or the national interest as they exist at the time of the termination.” This is an incredibly permissive standard, and one that largely ignores Congress’ role in establishing agricultural program goals and priorities through the Farm Bill. The proposed rule does not define “national interest,” which is often used interchangeably in the rule with “public interest,” which is also undefined. The proposed rule also adds a new authority to temporarily suspend program funding “at any time” and for any reason where it determines suspension is “in the interest of the Federal agency.”

These unbounded authorities to terminate or suspend lawfully signed agreements are unquestionably one of the most destabilizing aspects of the proposed rule. Farmers, farm service providers, and countless others across the food and agricultural supply chain rely on the USDA to uphold their end of an agreement. As we have already seen over the past two years, sudden funding freezes and program terminations have upended farmers’ business plans and planting decisions, delayed and prevented farmland purchases, prompted layoffs, and left farmers in the lurch awaiting reimbursements for purchases made under duly executed agreements.

While the proposed rule seeks to encourage multi-year project funding as purportedly being more stable for grantees and efficient to administer, in reality this intention is directly undercut by the agency’s expanded ability to terminate a project at any time. USDA operates numerous multi-year funding programs, from five-year Regional Conservation Partnership Program (RCPP) projects to help farmers apply regionally-relevant conservation practices in targeted areas, to three-year Beginning Farmer and Rancher Development Program (BFRDP) grants to support trainings for next-generation farmers, to multi-year research projects on cover cropping systems through the Sustainable Agriculture Research and Education (SARE), to grants designed to support meat processing capacity expansion, and many more. 

It can take years to get these multi-year partnership projects off the ground due to the time and effort involved in the lead up to and during the application process, and in the post-award agreement negotiation. It is unconscionable to expect USDA partners to expend that degree of effort to launch and implement a project while the agency maintains wide latitude to terminate the project at any time, and without notice or opportunity to adjust the project prior to termination. The full impact of such terminations on the partners – including foregone opportunities, sunk costs, reputational damage – and on the farmers lined up to participate, not to mention the lost community and public benefits that these projects yield, is nearly impossible to measure and impossible to fully recover under these rules.

Putting aside whether such broad termination authority is lawful, the proposed rule would do away with farmers’ and organizations’ right to appeal such a termination administratively, foreclosing the opportunity to explain the project’s alignment with the agency’s newly identified priorities or to identify a pathway to make any necessary changes to the project to support alignment. Rather than retaining the termination option as a last resort, this proposed change makes it the norm, guaranteeing uncertainty at best and chaos at worst for USDA-funded projects, particularly when projects span changing Administrations, ultimately penalizing farmers for shifts in national political leadership that are well beyond their control. Farmers and farmer-serving organizations depend on a stable business relationship with the USDA. The unfettered ability to suspend or terminate duly executed funding agreements – particularly without any obligation for USDA to seek modification first before terminating, and without any opportunity to appeal the decision – erodes confidence in USDA as a trustworthy business partner and will severely undermine the agency’s mission and vision.

Vague and Undefined Terms Raise Constitutional and Compliance Concerns

The proposed rule continues along a similar path as USDA’s General Terms and Conditions discussed above, prohibiting funding recipients from engaging in so-called “illegal DEI” and other vague or undefined terms. These prohibitions are troubling for several reasons. 

First, as noted above, USDA has used this as grounds to terminate agreements already, and the courts have not upheld that authority. In fact, grantees whose Increasing Land Capital and Market Access projects were canceled earlier this spring just received a preliminary injunction, with the court finding USDA’s actions “suspect” and questioning USDA’s ability to “terminate grants for the very reason that the grants further the aims Congress explicitly instructed [USDA] to pursue.” 

Second, the restriction of activities based on vague or undefined terms poses compliance challenges for grant recipients. Grant recipients are also responsible for ensuring any subawardees are complying with these vague terms, including a new responsibility for grantees to ensure subawardees are not taking any action that would “damage the reputation” of the Federal government. If such damaging action is determined by the Federal government to have happened, they can direct the grantee to terminate the subaward or decide to terminate the award in its entirety. No guidance is offered in the proposed rule explaining what kinds of activities would be considered damaging, or how a lead grantee is supposed to verify compliance, increasing uncertainty and administrative burdens for grantees, and especially those engaged in partnership projects.

New Burdens on Grantees & Partnership Projects

The rule poses additional administrative and compliance burdens on grantees, and in particular on grantees involved in projects that involve multiple partners or subawardees. In addition to the foregoing, the proposed rule would:

• Eliminate the use of fixed amount subawards, limiting an otherwise valuable tool for managing multi-partner projects, particularly those that provide micro-grants for farmers, and encourage smaller-scale producer participation, along the lines of the guaranteed minimum payment amounts for producers to to enroll in certain conservation programs.
• Grant USDA the authority to shift from advance payment to reimbursement during the grant project. For farmers and lower-resourced organizations, advance payments offer a critical way to procure the goods or services necessary to carry out the work funded under the agreement. In fact, some farm bill programs – like EQIP – have advance payment options explicitly authorized by statute. For programs where advance payments are not statutorily protected, the ability of USDA to midway switch to a reimbursement method could have significant budgetary impacts for organizations that develop (and receive USDA approval for) project budgets years in advance given their limited ability to switch payment methods partway through a planned project.
• Allow agencies to add or change agreement terms throughout the course of the project, based on an assessment of risk that does not have to be clearly articulated at the time the grant was awarded, impacting compliance obligations and organizational planning.

Countless USDA programs are statutorily designed as partnership projects, and partnerships are often encouraged and prioritized as part of grant application review processes. The uncertainty and increased compliance obligations posed by these new provisions stand to severely undermine USDA’s ability to implement these Congressionally-directed programs.

Politicization of Funding Decisions

The rule also seeks to codify some of the recent changes initiated across agencies during the DOGE funding review process and subsequent Executive Orders, which place significant authority over funding decisions not with expert career agency personnel and peer reviewers, but with political appointees. These appointees would now have the ability to pre-screen applications and remove them from consideration altogether if they fail to “advance the President’s priorities” or are determined to “promote anti-American values.” These terms are undefined, leaving grantees uncertain as to whether developing a proposal that addresses the goals outlined in the program’s Notice of Funding Opportunity (NOFO) is sufficient to be eligible for funding, and potentially conflicting with the program’s underlying congressionally-defined purpose and goals.

Lack of Clarity Regarding Scope

The lack of clarity regarding how these rules will apply across the many programs USDA offers exacerbates the uncertainty regarding the impacts of this proposed rule.

The proposed rule applies to federal financial assistance agreements, including agency grants, cooperative agreements, and “other agreement[s] for assistance”, leaving many questions regarding applicability across USDA’s varied program offerings. The rule differentiates between “discretionary” and “non-discretionary” awards, signaling that programs like SNAP and ARC/PLC or other direct payments are unlikely to be covered. It is equally clear that traditional competitive grants operated by agencies like the National Institute of Food and Agriculture or the Agricultural Marketing Service fall under its purview. But it offers no specificity with regard to the unique agreements that USDA enters into with farmers to carry out programs like the Environmental Quality Incentives Program and the Conservation Stewardship Program; agricultural credit programs like Farm Ownership Loans; and other discretionary agreements. The broader the reach of these rules, the more instability it injects into an already destabilized agricultural sector, and the more damaging the impacts when USDA freely exercises its “discretionary termination” authority.

How to Take Action

Agricultural stakeholders are encouraged to submit comments to the public docket here before midnight EST on Monday, July 13. For guidance on how to approach submitting a comment, we encourage you to utilize this worksheet developed by Farm Commons. 

The post Proposed Grant Rules Increase Uncertainty, Risk for Farmers  appeared first on National Sustainable Agriculture Coalition.

Contact: Laura Zaks

National Sustainable Agriculture Coalition

lzaks@sustainableagriculture.net 

Tel. 347.563.6408

The Cynthia Hayes Memorial Scholarship honors the co-founder of the first network for African American organic farmers in the United States by providing $5000 scholarships to two undergraduate students and one graduate student who identify as Black and/or Indigenous. 

Washington, DC, June 30, 2026 – At the end of May, the Cynthia Hayes Memorial Scholarship Review Committee, composed of representatives from the Southeastern African American Farmers’ Organic Network (SAAFON), NSAC, and an existing Cynthia Hayes Memorial Scholar, completed the meticulous process of discussing this year’s applications. With joy and gratitude for each of the students who submitted applications, the Committee is proud to present this year’s scholars.

Daniel Sanders is a citizen of the Seminole Nation of Oklahoma and is working towards a Bachelor’s degree in Applied Industry Leadership at Oklahoma State University Institute of Technology. His passion for food sovereignty came after getting a work-study position in the campus garden at College of Muscogee Nation. It was there that he became closer to his Seminole/Mvskoke roots and his people’s traditional agricultural practices. He learned of the large communal fields his ancestors planted. Their crops were grown organically, with love, and for the entire community. This is a value he holds dear to his heart and strives to incorporate in all of his work.

“Food is medicine. I believe a healthy diet is essential for the well-being of an individual and their community. By combining my ancestor’s agricultural knowledge with modern sustainable growing practices, I hope to help underrepresented communities gain access to food, improve health outcomes, strengthen food sovereignty, and build more resilient local food systems,” says Daniel.

After his work-study position, Daniel continued to work for College of Muscogee Nation Extension as a research assistant. This allowed him to further help educate the surrounding community of Mvskoke traditional agricultural knowledge, as well as help community members start their own gardens, and conduct research on Black Mvskoke crops.

“Food justice and environmental justice are inseparable—the same communities denied access to clean air and water are often also denied access to healthy food. My goal is to ensure that land, food, and a healthy environment are recognized as rights, not privileges, and to build the policy frameworks that make that a reality for frontline communities,” says Sulaiman.

In high school, Sulaiman worked as a Student Grower at Bethel AME Ardmore Victory Gardens, putting freshly harvested produce directly into the hands of residents with limited access to fresh food. Since arriving at Howard, he has continued this work at Halo G.R.E.E.N. Garden, where he now serves as President. Sulaiman is passionate about regenerative agriculture, food sovereignty, and building a food system rooted in justice and equity for Black and Indigenous communities.

Peninnah “Nina” Morgan is a community organizer from rural Alabama whose work focuses on environmental justice, food sovereignty, and community-driven planning. Her interest in food systems began as a volunteer with Flash Mob Grow Space, a Birmingham-based organization that used guerrilla gardening to expand access to healthy food and strengthen self-determination in historically disinvested neighborhoods. That experience sparked a deep appreciation for the ways farming can cultivate not only food, but also community power. It later inspired her to work alongside community members to organize pop-up free markets that distributed fresh food, PPE, and other essential resources at the height of the COVID-19 pandemic.

“‘Destroy through building’ has become my guiding philosophy. As a community organizer working on the frontlines of environmental justice, I see this as transforming systems rooted in exploitation and harm by building a political economy grounded in care, human rights, and collective stewardship. Through landscape architecture, planning, and agroecology, I hope to support communities impacted by extractive industry and austerity in building just and resilient futures,” says Nina.

Currently, Nina serves as an apprentice with Fountain Heights Farms Cooperative, supporting Black farmers across Central Alabama while learning Afro-Indigenous agricultural practices. She is also pursuing a dual Master’s degree in Community Planning and Landscape Architecture at Auburn University, where she is focused on learning how agroecological design, and community-driven planning can advance environmental justice and build community power. In her spare time, she enjoys working outside at her off-grid homestead and learning space, Humble Hill.

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: NSAC and SAAFON Celebrate the Eighth Cohort of Cynthia Hayes Memorial Scholars appeared first on National Sustainable Agriculture Coalition.

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 July 2026, we are in uncharted waters – over seven and a half years have passed since the 2018 Farm Bill was signed into law, the longest such stretch in recent memory. In 2025, the One Big Beautiful Bill Act (OBBB, P.L. 119-21) split the traditional farm bill coalition by updating some farm bill policies while excluding the rest – from rural development and credit, to conservation and local and regional food systems – leaving them to an uncertain future.

As of posting, the Agricultural Act’s immediate prospects remain hazy. While Chairman Boozman has signaled that a Committee markup could be held in the near future, the hypothetical markup date has slipped repeatedly in recent months. Meanwhile, Ranking Member Amy Klobuchar (D-MN) has made clear that Committee Democrats want the farm bill to directly alleviate the OBBB’s impacts on the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program before entertaining a broader negotiation. Ultimately, 60 votes are required to approve a farm bill in the Senate – and in the 119th Congress, that means a successful Senate farm bill must be the product of a bipartisan process.

The remainder of this blog post offers NSAC’s initial deep dive analysis of the Agricultural Act of 2026.

Title 1 – Commodities

The Agricultural Act discussion draft addresses select components of Title I programs, with the most significant changes being proposed to disaster assistance programs. In 2025, Congress approved and the President signed the One Big Beautiful Bill Act (OBBB), which addressed many of the policies typically included in Title 1 of a farm bill. 

New Disaster Assistance Frameworks: Similar to the House’s Farm, Food, and National Security Act of 2026 (FFNSA), the Agricultural Act includes two provisions that significantly impact the future delivery of ad hoc assistance: a Specialty Crop Emergency Assistance Framework and an authorization of state disaster block grants. 

• Through the Specialty Crop Assistance Framework, the discussion draft establishes a consistent method for delivering ad hoc aid to specialty crop farmers. The proposed program – which shares some similarities with the Marketing Assistance for Speciality Crops (MASC) program, but is not identical – would calculate payments for future ad hoc assistance programs based on sales from the previous market year (Section 1304). However, while the proposed framework is a step in the right direction, as written it includes high payment limits of $900,000 for farmers deriving at least 75% of their income from farming activities. While specialty crop farmers may need higher payments than commodity growers due to higher costs, payment limits must still be structured to responsibly and equitably deliver program resources. The framework  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. 
• Separately, the Agricultural Act also gives the US Department of Agriculture (USDA) the authority to administer future disaster programs through state block grants (Section 1305). While block grants in theory provide flexibility to tailor programs to local needs, 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. As written, the draft provides few protections to ensure these issues do not hinder relief efforts when administered through state block grants.

Limited NAP Improvements. Despite a continued need to improve risk management tools for farmers without access to traditional crop insurance, the Agricultural Act only makes a small improvement to the Noninsured Crop Disaster Assistance Program (NAP) – allowing NAP payments for losses due to damage to shared community ditches used for irrigation. Instead, the bill should institute reforms – such as creating a revenue-based option within NAP – to streamline paperwork burdens for new farmers and to serve as an on-ramp to enroll in WFRP.

Title 2 – Conservation

The Agricultural Act discussion draft misses the opportunity to drive agricultural conservation forward by undoing generational reinvestments in popular, oversubscribed conservation programs, failing to address USDA staffing cuts, and leaving out provisions that could build the resilience of farm operations.

Cuts to Popular Conservation Programs. The Agricultural Act cuts over $1.9 billion from the first five years of the Environmental Quality Incentive Program’s (EQIP) budget window, and $500 million permanently from the Conservation Stewardship Program’s (CSP) baseline. Both cuts will result in an immediate reduction in the resources available to producers in 2027, though EQIP’s long term baseline budget is maintained after 2031. CSP on the other hand, takes a permanent, unacceptable cut. These reductions come as reports show producers are once again struggling to access CSP and EQIP due to lack of funding, with only 24-37% of valid applicants receiving contracts in 2025. Any farm bill that moves forward this year must not reduce budgets for these popular programs; rather, it should include additional resources commensurate with the high producer demand for conservation we see across the country.

No Staffing Fix. In order to effectively administer conservation program resources, the Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) needs field staff. NRCS lost 23% of its staff between January 2025 and January 2026, reducing its ability to give farmers a reasonable customer service experience. NRCS staff work directly with farmers and landowners to identify conservation practices that are well-suited to their needs and local natural resource concerns. They provide vital technical assistance for farmers and landowners and help them apply for and manage contracts with conservation programs that help share the cost of conservation practices. Any farm bill that passes this year must address the ongoing staffing shortages at USDA, and at NRCS in particular.

Updates to CRP. The draft includes a number of positive reforms to the Conservation Reserve Program (CRP), and a few problematic omissions. The bill restores support for mid-contract management activities necessary to maintain the conservation value of enrolled acres, and further offers dedicated funds for cost share for grazing infrastructure to help ensure that appropriate acres remain in perennial cover at the end of a contract. Additionally, the draft adjusts the Conservation Reserve Enhancement Program’s (CREP) authority to better tailor the program toward supporting producers transitioning to dryland farming in the west. These are positive changes that NSAC welcomes. However, there are a few significant omissions. The draft does not raise the overall acreage cap for CRP, despite the broad need for more CRP-enrolled acres at this moment in history. The draft also fails to renew funding for the Transition Incentive Program, one of the few conservation programs designed to transition land to the next generation of farmers and ranchers.

A Lack of Resilience. The Agricultural Act leaves out major provisions of the Agriculture Resilience Act, the comprehensive farmer-informed legislation designed to support more resilient operations. This includes no meaningful investments in perennial production systems, including agroforestry, which remain among the most powerful agriculture systems for mitigating the impacts of climate change while delivering a host of additional conservation benefits. It fails to provide mandatory funding for the Grazing Lands Conservation Initiative which would help grazers access dependable technical assistance. It also lacks support for alternative manure management practices to help midsized livestock operations shift to more ecologically friendly technologies. Disappointingly, the bill fails to add carbon sequestration and greenhouse gas reduction as a new goal to EQIP that states can seek to address when selecting priority practices for higher cost-share rates – provisions that were included in the House’s FFNSA. This is a common sense approach to targeting conservation funds to address the climate crisis. Any farm bill that moves forward this year must close these gaps and match the scale of investments producers desire to build long-term environmental resilience and economic viability. 

Title 4 – Nutrition

The Agricultural Act discussion draft includes some positive, bipartisan provisions in the nutrition title – but falls short of following through thanks to a lack of guaranteed funding and provisions that would limit local food representation and market access.

Strengthening Local Food Security. The Agricultural Act discussion draft illustrates the clear bipartisan, bicameral support for creating permanent pathways that support local and regional markets for farmers. The draft includes a state-led local food purchasing program, the Strengthening Local Food Security Program (Section 4306), that would build upon the success of the former Local Food Purchase Assistance Program. While the Senate draft is modeled after the program including in the House-passed FFNSA, it modifies a few elements to reflect the priorities of Senators Justice (R-WV) and Reed (D-RI) from the Strengthening Local Food Security Act (S. 4223). This would ensure a greater share of food purchases (51%) are made from small and mid-sized farms, and beginning and veteran farmers. It also ensures funding can be used for all costs associated with implementation, including technical assistance to farmers. However, the draft fails to include schools as a recipient and significantly hinders the success of a future program without mandatory funding (Section 4306). 

GusNIP. Other provisions in the discussion draft have the potential to limit local food representation within federal nutrition programs. The draft adds a provision within the Gus Schumacher Nutrition Incentive Program (GusNIP) that would prioritize projects that offer all forms of fruits and vegetables year-round (Section 4303). This risks a larger share of incentive funding being spent in big box retailers rather than with farmers in local market settings. 

SNAP. There are a number of proposed changes to the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) that would carry an uncertain impact on farmers. These include permanent authorization of online retail with greater restrictions on who is authorized to accept benefits online, and the addition of protein as an eligible food type for incentive programs (Section 4103, 4104, 4106). However, there is no inclusion of a sought after provision that would provide some states more time to address error rates and reduce their overall cost-share to their SNAP programs. 

Title 5 – Credit

The Agricultural Act discussion draft includes several modest improvements in the credit title of the bill by streamlining access to credit and allowing for preapproval for some loans. The draft also increases some loan limits, but does not include a corresponding increase in FSA funding authorization, potentially resulting in bigger loans to fewer farms.

Streamlining access to credit. The discussion draft makes modest improvements to streamline access to farm credit, allowing for a preapproval pilot program for direct farm ownership loans, a prompt approval program for direct and guaranteed loans under $1 million, and increased funds for state mediation programs (Sections 5211, 5214, 213). Similar to the House’s FFNSA, the draft allows limited refinancing of guaranteed loans into direct loans, potentially forcing borrowers to the brink of financial crisis before qualifying for this refinancing opportunity (Section 5210). The draft reduces the prohibition on loan eligibility for farmers who previously received debt relief from a lifetime ban to a seven year waiting period, and removes the requirement for beginning farmers and ranchers engaged in cooperatives or other business arrangements to be related by blood or marriage (Section 5212). Unlike FFNSA, this draft does not reduce experience requirements for farm ownership loans, nor expand state mediation programs to Tribes.  

Increased loan limits. The draft 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, matching the changes included in the House’s FFNSA. These changes include increasing microloan limits from $50,000 to $100,000, direct operating loans from $400,000 to $750,000, direct farm ownership loans from $600,000 to $850,000, guaranteed farm ownership loans from $1.75 million to $3.5 million, and guaranteed operating loans from $1.75 million to $3 million. These changes are not paired with any corresponding increase to the total funding authorization for FSA to make these loans. This combination is concerning, as it could result in bigger loans to fewer farms, while adding to increasingly large debt burdens on borrowers without strong protections from overcollateralization. (Sections 5201, 5208). 

Title 6 – Rural Development

Alongside relatively minor programmatic tweaks, the Agricultural Act discussion draft includes several bipartisan provisions which could enhance investments in small and very small meat processing plants, though these investments are undermined by an eligibility expansion beyond the original intent. 

Investing in Meat Processing Capacity.  The discussion draft includes strong bipartisan provisions for investment in small and very small meat processing plants and the resources those plants need to appropriately adopt food safety practices. The $25 million authorization of appropriations for a program prioritizing small and very small processors will continue to make investments to reduce farmer wait times, and improve processor viability. However, this investment is weakened by the fact that the bill expands eligible applicants to include land grant universities, state departments of agriculture, and other organizations with already existing capacities well beyond the small and very small meat processors for whom this program was intended. (Sec. 6315)

Resources for Rural Producers and Communities. Beyond the investment in meat processing infrastructure, the discussion draft addresses programmatic tweaks, such as expanding loan size and uses for the Rural Microentrepreneur Assistance Program (Section 6230), increasing training and resources for veteran farmers in the Appropriate Technology Transfer for Rural Areas Program (Section 6221), and standardizing multiyear grants for Rural Cooperative Development Grants (Section 6219). 

The discussion draft would also codify the Rural Development Innovation Center with an emphasis on promoting efficiency and coordination among Rural Development programs with input from public and private stakeholders (Section 6234). 

Title 7 – Research

Overall, the Agricultural Act makes little progress when it comes to investing in publicly funded research that benefits small to mid-sized farmers and ranchers. 

Minimal Programmatic Improvements; Lack of Some Necessary Reauthorizations. The discussion draft reauthorizes the Sustainable Agriculture Research and Education program as well as the Organic Agriculture Research and Extension Initiative while offering no additional funding or meaningful changes to either program. Furthermore, it makes few to no improvements to Agricultural Research Service research initiatives, including no reauthorization for USDA Climate Hubs or the Long-term Agroecosystem Research (LTAR) network, as well as no authorization for the Organic Transition Program (ORG) or meaningful efforts to coordinate organic and sustainable agriculture at USDA-REE. (Sec. 7201-7203, 7209)

Resources for 1890s. The draft does, however, make meaningful strides to better support our nation’s historically black land grant universities. This includes the creation of at least three new 1890’s Centers of Excellence potentially focusing on climate resiliency, forestry resilience and conservation, food safety and value-added agriculture, food and agricultural sciences, and social sciences as areas of focus with an increase from $10 million to $20 million in discretionary funding. In addition, funding for 1890’s Extension was increased from 20 percent (as per the National Agricultural Research, Education, and Teaching Policy Act of 1977 (NARETPA)) to no less than 40 percent. (Sec. 7110)

Seeds and Breeds. The discussion draft also adds regionally adapted cultivar and breed development to the list of Agriculture and Food Research Initiative (AFRI) research priorities. However, the bill does not include the funding NSAC and others have advocated for to ensure that regionally adapted seed and breed development receives meaningful support. (Sec. 7507)

Workforce Development. Meat processing plants are in need of workforce development, and while the discussion draft takes some steps by including meat processing as a topic area for AFRI – Education and Workforce Development Grants it doesn’t sufficiently expand funding to support this new area of focus. It also does not limit this workforce development funding to small and very small meat processors, opening the door for these limited funds to go to training for the largest plants and companies, and not benefit those with greater economic need. (Sec. 7507)

Food Safety. 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 discussion draft 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. (Sec. 7301)

Title 10 – Horticulture

The Agricultural Act discussion draft offers few if any meaningful strides forward for organic and urban agriculture, while missing the opportunity to help fuel local and regional food systems.

Organic Production and Markets. The Agricultural Act makes modest progress for organic producers by increasing the authorized funding levels for the National Organic Program, beginning at $26 million in fiscal year 2027 and rising in steps to $34 million in fiscal year 2031. At the same time, it leaves out several of the investments the organic sector needs most. The discussion draft does not provide meaningful relief from rising certification costs, increase mandatory funding for organic research, improve organic dairy data collection, or make the investments needed to help farmers transition to organic production and expand domestic organic markets. (Sec. 10105)

Urban Agriculture. The Senate discussion draft takes a similar approach to the House by clarifying and narrowing the scope of services of the Office of Urban Agriculture and Innovative Production to emphasize the Office’s mandate to support farmers in urban areas navigating critical conservation and business technical assistance services. It authorizes cooperative agreements to maximize on the ground support, which is particularly important during a time of record low staffing levels. However, NSAC has concerns with particular provisions that would limit Urban FSA County Committees to the original pilot ten locations while there are twenty seven actively seated across the nation. Moreover, without a prescribed level of annual mandatory funding, the Office may continue to be underfunded and under-resourced (Section 10111). 

Local Market Development. Despite a long and successful track record of the Local Agricultural Marketing Program Grants (Value-Added Producer, Farmers Market and Local Food Promotion, and Regional Food System Partnership Program), the Senate does not take the same opportunity the House did to expand upon the popular turnkey grants with additional activities. This, paired with no funding increases, limits USDA’s ability to meet program demand and risks underinvesting in local agricultural markets for the lifespan of the farm bill (Section 10103). 

Specialty Crop Support. For broader specialty crop support, the Senate proposed changes to Specialty Crop Block Grants that respond to stakeholder concern. Earlier this year, USDA attempted to impose cost-share requirements for future rounds of grants; the Senate followed the lead of the House by including a provision that would prevent this in addition to requiring States to solicit annual input from producers and industry groups (Section 10109). 

Title 11 – Crop Insurance

The Agricultural Act discussion draft takes limited steps towards improving crop insurance options for farmers and ranchers, largely failing to address well-documented barriers uninsured farmers face in accessing coverage.

FCIC Board & Specialty Crop Advisory Committee. The Senate discussion draft establishes a Specialty Crop Advisory Committee to inform the development and expansion of crop insurance, and makes changes to the Federal Crop Insurance Corporation (FCIC) Board. A Specialty Crop Advisory Committee can serve an important role in improving available options for specialty crop farmers. However, as written, the discussion draft does not require any appointees to specifically represent beginning, small, diversified, or organic farmers, and therefore may not reflect the specific needs of the full diversity of American specialty crop farms. The draft requires the inclusion of a beginning farmer member on the FCIC Board, but the newly required specialty crop representative is unfortunately added only as a non-voting board member (Section 11001).

Reimbursement rates for Approved Insurance Provider Administrative and Operating Costs. The OBBB Act passed last year increased administrative and operation (A&O) reimbursement rates for approved Insurance providers (AIPs), specifically for areas with high loss ratios. The discussion draft codifies those changes for the 2026 and subsequent reinsurance years, tying future rates for a given policy to that in place for the 2026 reinsurance year. However, as written, the language leaves open the possibility for new policies approved after 2027 to have no statutorily directed A&O rates, and thus an opportunity for higher reimbursement rates than currently permitted for any existing policy. Rather than taking meaningful steps to improve access to stronger risk management tools for currently uninsured farmers, the draft prioritizes guaranteed revenue for private insurance companies. (Section 11008).  

Fails to strengthen WFRP or other insurance options for uninsured farms. The Senate draft fails to take any meaningful steps toward improving Whole Farm Revenue Protection or Micro Farm policies. The draft requires a review of the insurable revenue limit currently in place for the policy (Section 11013), but in no way addresses the program’s well-documented challenges and solutions. The draft instructs USDA to research several new crop insurance policies, including index based policies for specific weather events such as hurricanes, frost, or freezes. It also instructs USDA to publish a report within 18 months on the barriers for organic farmers to accessing crop insurance (Section 11014). While the discussion draft amends the eligibility definitions for the additional crop insurance premium discounts passed in the OBBB Act and now includes veteran farmers, such a change will have limited impact if not paired with solutions to the many barriers to accessing insurance these farmers face (Section 11006). 

Title 12 – Miscellaneous 

Food Safety Support for Small-Scale Meat Processors. The discussion draft requires USDA’s Food Safety Inspection Service (FSIS) to establish a searchable database of all the peer-reviewed, publicly-available validation studies for Hazard Analysis and Critical Control Points (HACCP) plans for small and very small plants; create and make available to small and very small plants models of HACCP plans for multiple types of small plants, including but not limited to a HACCP plans for slaughter plants and processing only plants, and based on the different types of products processed by plants; and create and publish guidance for public comment and input on how to get your HACCP plan approved. (Sec. 12107)

Interstate Market Access. While the Senate proposal does provide for further outreach to state departments of agriculture regarding the Cooperative Interstate Shipping (CIS) Program, it does not change the federal cost share for that program or the state meat and poultry inspection programs – both of which are key changes needed for the program to better work with and regulate small and very small meat processors. (Sec. 12111). It does however, include some small steps towards greater market access for state inspected plants by including the DIRECT Act in this bill, which allows for online sales of retail quantities of state inspected meat to cross into interstate commerce, usually not possible for state inspected meat without further utilization of the CIS program. (Sec.12110)

No Limits on Vertical Integration. The discussion bill introduced new, potentially anti-competitive methods of ownership that might directly counteract the benefits of other investments in the bill. Including the A-Plus Act (Sec. 12106) would likely create more vertically integrated markets, where a stockyard is also the only meat processing operation in an area.

Farming Opportunities, Training and Outreach. The Senate Bill reauthorizes the Farming Opportunities Training and Outreach (FOTO) program, which includes 2501 and the Beginning Farmer and Rancher Development Program (BFRDP). However, it does not offer increased funding or technical changes that would significantly benefit America’s underserved farmers or the next generation of farmers and ranchers. (Sec. 12511)

The post Digging Deeper into the Senate’s Farm Bill ‘Discussion Draft’ appeared first on National Sustainable Agriculture Coalition.

Contact: Laura Zaks

National Sustainable Agriculture Coalition

press@sustainableagriculture.net

Comment: Senate Farm Bill Draft Offers Untapped Potential

Washington, DC, June 24, 2026 – The National Sustainable Agriculture Coalition (NSAC) released the following statement attributable to Mike Lavender, NSAC Policy Director, in response to the Agricultural Act of 2026 discussion draft released by Senate Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry Chairman John Boozman (R-AR):

“At such a critical moment for farmers and American agriculture, prioritizing investments that ensure the long term success of farmers and their communities is paramount. The Senate discussion draft offers minimal improvements and fails to respond to States’ requests to delay SNAP cost share requirements, all but eliminating a viable path on the Senate floor. Ultimately, the proposal falls well short of tapping its full potential – and in doing so doubles down on a food and farming system that simply isn’t working. 

Farmers are calling for expanded market access right here at home through new investments in proven models that support farmers and help them nourish their communities. Amidst high production costs, unstable markets, and low crop prices, we should re-envision the farm safety net by improving access to risk management tools for farms of all shapes and sizes. Finally, we must prioritize investments in long-term solutions that build resilience into individual farm businesses – from improving access to on-farm conservation programs for all farmers, to support for diversified farming systems that work in concert with natural resources.

We appreciate the Committee’s continued push toward reauthorizing a much needed farm bill  and urge Congress to put farmers back in control of their own future by prioritizing meaningful, long-term farm bill investments over short-term band-aids on a broken system. NSAC is eager to work toward a farm bill that bolsters domestic markets with guaranteed investments in local food infrastructure and procurement, expands rather than stifles access to critical on-farm conservation resources, and builds a more fair farm safety net for all.” 

Stay tuned to NSAC’s blog for deeper analysis and coverage of the farm bill reauthorization, including the Agriculture Act of 2026, in the days ahead.

###  

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: Senate Farm Bill Draft Offers Untapped Potential appeared first on National Sustainable Agriculture Coalition.

“Farmers have waited far too long for a new farm bill while dealing with rising input costs, market volatility, and shrinking margins,” said Darin Von Ruden, a Wisconsin farmer and president of the state’s Farmers Union chapter. Farmers across the country agree and have been clear with Congress: they need a new farm bill that provides investments and policy solutions that will meaningfully improve not only the immediate crises farmers are facing, but also the long-term resilience and viability of their farms. As the House recently passed its Farm, Food, and National Security Act of 2026 and attention turns to the Senate, this blog post uplifts farmers’ perspectives on how the House bill falls short of what they really need to see from a new farm bill, and what changes are urgently needed in the Senate and any final version. Grounded in comments from small, mid-sized, and diversified producers, these stories reveal what’s at stake for conservation, local and regional food systems, the farm safety net, and the basic capacity of the US Department of Agriculture (USDA) to serve the people who grow our food. 

The National Sustainable Agriculture Coalition (NSAC) opposed the House farm bill as it offered only scattered policy improvements without the resources to fuel them. Members of Congress who voted for the bill were quick to point to support from farmers, making the same mistake previous farm bills have made: monolithing farmers and suggesting status quo ‘one-size-fits-all’ policy approaches will benefit all farmers. As focus shifts to the Senate Agriculture Committee, it is important to uplift the perspectives of farmers who believe the House farm bill does not fully address their needs. Right now, Congress is at a crossroads – they could take the quickest possible path, keep things ‘business as usual’ and pass a farm bill filled with short-term bandaids, or they can work towards a pragmatic, comprehensive, and fair farm bill that fosters food system resiliency, improves farmers’ livelihoods, and sets up the next generation of American farmers to thrive.

Farmers Want a Better Farm Bill

While the general public may not closely track the farm bill, farmers with operations of all shapes and sizes certainly do. After the House passed its farm bill proposal, NSAC surveyed its member organizations to hear farmers’ opinions,  with responses ranging from small urban growers to large row crop operations. While perspectives differ based on growing practices, experience with federal programs, and geography, a common thread was the persistent challenge of accessing federal programs that would improve operations and overall viability, exacerbated by limited conservation program funding, understaffing at USDA agencies responsible for program outreach and implementation, or the outright termination of popular, effective programs. 

As the Senate prepares to move forward with its farm bill proposal, these farmers’ stories should be heard, considered, and addressed. The farmers who agreed to provide stories had the choice to be named and quoted in this blog post or to contribute anonymously. Quotes from farmers who chose to remain anonymous are attributed only by geography. 

A Farm Bill that Leaves Many Farmers Behind

Below are some of the most salient points farmers shared with us about the inadequacies of the House’s farm bill. Commentary is organized around four key areas: threats to climate and conservation efforts, local and regional food systems, a fair farm safety net, and USDA’s ability to effectively fulfill its mission of serving American farmers and the public. 

Climate and Conservation

While there were some bright spots in the Conservation title of the House farm bill, farmers were quick to point to an overall lack of new investments needed to address high demand for conservation. Farmers in Iowa and Illinois cited reduced funds for Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) programs like the Environmental Quality Incentives Program (EQIP) and the Conservation Stewardship Program (CSP). One farmer specifically emphasized that these programs are in high demand because they are so accessible and beneficial for small acreage and urban farmers. 

Patrick Brown of Brown Family Farms in North Carolina says it’s in his blood to farm. His grain operation was established in 1865; for generations, his family has weathered storms and taken advantage of opportunities like EQIP to sustain their business. He spoke of the increased competition for these cost-share programs that are likely to occur with less funding available, saying: “up to $600 million has been completely cut from EQIP… making the pot of money that you compete for in the program smaller.” He added that, as currently structured in the House farm bill, it carves out $100 million per year from CSP for state soil health programs. Instead, he suggests soil health programs should be funded through different programs like RCPP, “so that the CSP funding pie does not get smaller for producers like [us],” he said.

Farmers adopting conservation practices that protect the soil, water, and air – by extension improving their neighboring communities’ health and wellbeing – should be supported in their efforts. Instead, the bill siphons off resources from the nation’s most popular conservation programs, increasing competition for limited funding. Coupled with the unresolved staffing crisis at NRCS and USDA as a whole, this is a recipe for reduced access and degraded customer service for all farmers, particularly small farms. Any farm bill that passes this year must both preserve and increase resources for conservation programs and ensure robust staffing levels for NRCS.

Local Food Systems

In Ohio, Shagbark Seed & Mill’s founder, Michelle Ajamian, expressed disappointment at the lack of investment in local food systems. Speaking about the Local Food Purchasing Assistance Program (LFPA), which was terminated two years ahead of its expected run, Ajamian said, “In just two years, we were able to purchase over a half million pounds of black beans from our region’s organic farmers for all 12 Ohio food banks.” She later elaborated that the termination of LFPA pushed the mill into the red, forced them to lay off workers, and bear the news to the farmers who had already planned fields and purchased seed that they would not be able to bring in their beans for the foreseeable future. 

“When the billion-dollar program that purchased crop from farmers in all 50 states was terminated without notice, I had hoped the farm bill would include local buying for food access, but it doesn’t look good. So much for the administration’s promise to ensure more money goes to farmers to feed our citizens,” Ajamain said.

Another farmer in Pennsylvania added that there were not enough funds allocated for SNAP, SNAP-Ed, which saw its funding slashed by last year’s reconciliation bill, or for local food purchasing. When most think of the threats to SNAP, many think of small children, the elderly, and those most vulnerable in our society. Notably absent from these conversations are how farmers and their bottom lines will be impacted. Both SNAP and SNAP-Ed have been demonstrated to be spurs of economic activity, with every dollar spent on SNAP reportedly generating $1.50 in economic activity.

An Illinois farmer noted that the loss in funds for SNAP in the farm bill signaled a massive failure for those accessing locally grown produce. For his part, Brown, in North Carolina, shifted his focus out. “Overall the bill does not include nearly enough of the priorities that regional food systems and small and mid-size farmers need,” shared Brown. In March, NSAC argued that disproportionately investing along the food supply chains could lead to supply without adequate markets available for producers, a point farmers we spoke to inherently understood.

Investing in programs that allow farmers to gain access to a stable local market and meat processing facilities closer to home, while making food more accessible to millions of people who struggle to put food on the table, is a simple way a farm bill can invest in strengthening local and regional food systems and economies while actively creating jobs in rural communities. The House farm bill fell short of the mark in investing in such programs. While it did allow for the creation of a program that would replace LFPA, for example, it did not include funding for that program.

Safety Net for Small and Beginning Farmers

Rising production costs, low crop prices, and unpredictable market conditions are threatening farmer livelihoods. The current economic environment replicates the conditions preceding the 1980s farm crisis, during which farmers were pushed off their land, farm consolidation skyrocketed, and rural communities collapsed, many never to recover. This catastrophic precedent illustrates the critical role the farm safety net plays in maintaining farm viability under the present circumstances. 

The farm safety net provides support through disaster assistance, farm credit, and crop insurance. The current construction of the farm safety net typically tends to function well for most large commodity operations; however, most small, beginning, and diversified farmers report that these systems don’t benefit their operations. As stated by two farmers from Illinois, the farm safety net doesn’t work for them because it is “hard to access for small diversified farm systems.” 

The impacts of an insufficient farm safety net are severe. Without strong support, a large percentage of small, mid-sized, diversified, and beginning farms may be forced into foreclosure, leading to scarcity of local fruits and vegetables, and an increase in expensive imported produce. As demonstrated during the 1980s farm crisis, policy decisions that leave out wide swaths of farmers can decimate rural communities and squander their trust. A chain is only as strong as its weakest link, which means the Senate has an opportunity to avert a second farm crisis by supporting the farms that are most vulnerable to external factors through this farm bill. 

Understaffing and Access

In 2025, 20 % of USDA staff left the agency either because they were abruptly laid off through Reduction in Force or through the Deferred Resignation Program in a purported effort to streamline federal services and reduce waste and fraud. This broad and indiscriminate staff reduction left 141 counties across the United States with zero USDA support staff, while 1,197 counties, or 53 percent of counties in the country, had a net staff loss. Understaffed offices limit USDA’s ability to fulfill its mission of serving farmers. “The bill does next to nothing to increase staffing levels at local NRCS and FSA offices, a key concern we’ve heard from many of the farmers…especially after the huge staff losses of last year,” Brown said.

One Illinois farmer expressed her concern about grant funding, explaining that “a lot of small farmers rely on [grant funds] to sustain themselves and continue to help at-risk populations.” She added to the urgency of the matter, noting that “local farmers are important and are becoming obsolete.” A couple of other Illinois farmers likewise highlighted the lack of support for farmers like them in the House farm bill version. “Loss of USDA staff makes access even more difficult,” one remarked. Another explained that adjustments to FSA loan programs were improvements on the surface that could easily go to expanding existing large operations that don’t need government support while leaving small farms with even less access to those loan programs. “Combined with no meaningful increase in total available funding, means that smaller operations will likely lose out at the local FSA office,” he shared.

USDA has been nicknamed the “People’s Department,” but without resources that allow it – and, crucially, its staff – to fulfill its mission, farmers are left scrambling to find someone who can help them when they want to apply for a cost-share program, write a conservation plan, or receive a loan.

A Strong Farm Bill

As the Senate drafts its own version of the farm bill, it must keep in mind everyone who participates in our food and agricultural system, whether they run large, medium, or small operations. It must consider those who grow diverse and specialty crops, who are engaged in localized food production and marketing, and those using conservation practices. While farmers shared the shortcomings of the House version of the farm bill, they also had a clear vision for what a strong farm bill that supported all farmers would look like. 

Von Ruden was quick to point to the need to support small farms. “That means a stronger safety net, meaningful support for conservation, and policies that address consolidation,” Von Ruden said.

One of the farmers in Illinois echoed that sentiment. “A strong farm bill aggressively reduces consolidation in our food and farm system and prioritizes the needs of small and beginning farmers and those who have been historically disadvantaged by prior Farm Bills,” he explained. He pointed to a state program in Illinois called the Local Food Infrastructure Grant program as a model that the federal government could explore. “Federal funding has largely shied away from investment in hard assets due to concerns of fraud or negligence. I would support greater oversight, including direct farm visits and supported audits, if it meant that the USDA was investing more directly in the relocalization of our food system,” he closed.

A farm bill that also supports those who have been traditionally disenfranchised resonated with Swanson, who shared what a strong farm bill meant to her: “Being allowed to stand up for minority populations while supporting small food production.” 

Another farmer in Ohio reinterpreted what is implied in the title of the House bill as “Farm, Food, and National Security Act of 2026,” by saying that to her, a strong farm bill “focuses on homeland security, which means nothing less than supporting Family Farms and the food processors that they work with [who] are committed to growing and distributing healthy food for all while keeping soil and water clean and fertile. Give them the hand up to transition to organic and install on-farm renewable energy systems to ensure we have food for all.” 

As the Senate takes up the responsibility of crafting a meaningfully bipartisan farm bill, these stories offer members of the Senate Agriculture Committee grounding in what is needed to draft a farm bill that can adequately address the needs of all our nation’s farmers. 

The post Farmers React to House Farm Bill appeared first on National Sustainable Agriculture Coalition.

Editor’s Note: This series draws on analysis the National Sustainable Agriculture Coalition (NSAC) conducted in partnership with Bernie Kluger, Managing Partner at Prospect Partners, LLC. 

Bernie has led strategic realignments, crisis recoveries, and major capacity-building initiatives in government, higher education, and the private sector. Prior to joining Prospect Partners, Bernie served as enterprise lead for organizational effectiveness and workforce development at the US Department of Agriculture (USDA). At USDA, Bernie tackled complex multi-stakeholder negotiations that delivered results for the public, including a nationwide hiring surge that powered a $40 billion expansion in operational capacity.  Bernie holds a B.S. in Political Economy from Williams College and an M.B.A. from Columbia University.  He lives in Washington, DC.

This blog post is the third in our series updating analysis on the widespread staffing crisis across the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA). While our previous post showed that all USDA agencies lost staff during 2025, losses of direct farmer-support staff at the Farm Service Agency (FSA) are particularly concerning as farmers face an ongoing crisis and struggle to stay on the land. In this post, we examine previously unpublished data on FSA County employees to show a troubling loss of local staff. 

Through a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request, NSAC and our colleagues at Prospect Partners have confirmed that over one-third of FSA local offices experienced a net loss of staff by the end of 2025, with 42 offices ending the year with no FSA County employees. These losses compound cuts previously reported on other locally stationed staff in the Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) and Farm Service Agency (FSA) who provide direct support to America’s farmers and ranchers. NSAC urges Congress to prioritize reversing FSA staffing losses, ensuring that the local staff who administer programs passed by Congress to help farmers access the credit and other resources they need to build and grow viable operations are present in every community that needs them.

Farm Service Agency: Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) Data Reveals Majority of Counties Lost Staff

USDA reduced the number of front-line staff at the US Farm Service Agency (FSA) by 8% in 2025, according to data recently obtained through a Freedom of Information Act request. Over one-third of FSA local offices lost FSA County employees by year’s end, with 42 offices ending 2025 with no FSA County staff. Cuts to FSA County staff were USDA’s largest termination of community presence in over a decade. These findings build on federal data released in March 2026 showing widespread loss of FSA Federal personnel in 2025. 

Figure 1: FSA County Staffing Losses (Jan 2025-Jan 2026)

FSA’s Heritage of Local Presence and Control

Many federal agencies, including the US Postal Service and US Small Business Administration, maintain local presence in the communities they serve. Among such agencies, the Farm Service Agency has a unique heritage of local presence, with over 2,000 reported offices nationwide in 2025 and a commitment to local input regarding who staffs those offices in each county. 

Every FSA office in the country is required by law to have an advisory board, called a County Committee, made up of local elected farmers and ranchers. Since the 1930’s, County Committees have provided grassroots input on FSA programs and hiring. Historically, approximately two-thirds of the FSA workforce have actually served as employees of these local committees, not the federal government. FSA’s locally employed staff are commonly referred to as FSA County Office (FSACO) employees.

This analysis focuses on changes in headcount among FSACO employees, who have primary responsibility for FSA front-line services and are relied upon by local farmers and ranchers to navigate an array of federal agricultural programs.

Top Findings

US farmers and ranchers ended January 2025 with access to 7,672 FSACO staff stationed across 2,037 offices in 2,012 counties. By the end of January 2026, staffing dropped to 7,022 FSACO staff, an 8% decline, across 2,018 offices in 1,992 counties.

• 89% of the FSA County staff lost between January 2025 and December 2025 were full-time, permanent employees.

• The positions with the steepest losses are County Program Analysts, a direct farmer-facing role where staff helps with “interpreting and explaining procedures, program regulations and forms to producers.” FSA lost 614 County Program Analysts between January 2025 and December 2025, the staff farmers and ranchers rely on most to navigate programs and paperwork. 

• Leadership took a significant hit, as well, with 122 positions lost among County Executive Directors and 47 County Executive Directors in Training between January 2025 and December 2025. These experienced leaders manage county office service centers and provide essential outreach to producers, “working closely with farmers and ranchers to promote environmental and economic growth and sustainability.” Major losses in farmer-facing and leadership positions remove a vital conduit between local communities and federal staff, leaving county offices less equipped to deliver the programs and support that American farmers depend on. 

FSA County Employees: Local Impact of Staffing Reductions 

Net staffing reductions among FSACO employees were widely distributed across rural America. Among counties that started the year with FSA County staff, federal data shows a net reduction of FSA County employees in 704 (34%) counties in the United States and territories. Staffing was flat in 1,122 (54%) counties, with only 232 (11%) showing a net increase. Among counties that started the year with FSA County staff, 38 (2%) counties ended 2025 with no FSA County staff, including three counties unstaffed in Florida and four in Texas.

FSA County Employees: Regional Highlights

Major agricultural states in the Midwest and Southeast lost the most FSA County staff during 2025. The largest staffing losses were in Illinois (51), Indiana (48), Nebraska (43), North Dakota (41) and Georgia and Texas (39 each). Smaller states saw steeper percentage declines, with the largest in Arizona (31%), Hawaii (25%), Vermont (22%), Wyoming (21%), and Rhode Island (20%). Minnesota lost 7% of its FSA County staff. Two states–Indiana and North Dakota–appear on both lists, meaning they lost both large numbers of staff and a substantial share of their total FSA County workforce. 

Figure 2: Top 10 States with FSA County Staff Losses (Jan 2025-Jan 2026)

The formerly staffed county offices that ended 2025 with zero FSA County staff are spread widely across the West, Midwest, and Southeast, as seen in the map above. 

FSA Federal Employees: Adding to the Impact of County Staffing Reductions 

USDA has historically staffed local FSA offices with a combination of FSA Federal and FSA County employees, the former being locally stationed staff who are employed directly by the Farm Service Agency. FSA Federal employee data, which the federal government published at data.opm.gov on March 4, 2026, shows that headcount declined among FSA Federal employees at more than double the rate of FSA County employees. Headcount among FSA Federal employees fell by 21% in 2025, compared to 8% for FSA County employees. 

Figure 3: Count of FSA County and FSA Federal Employees (Feb 2016- Jan 2026)

FSA Federal employee staffing levels declined in 45% of counties and were flat in 44% of counties. In that same period, 11% of counties experienced a net increase in FSA Federal staff. Nationwide, 127 counties lost all of their FSA Federal employees in 2025, reducing the number of counties with FSA Federal staff from 932 to 805. 

Figure 4: Net Staffing Change Among FSA Federal Employees in US Counties (Jan 2025-Jan 2026)

The FOIA data obtained for this analysis make visible what farmers and ranchers across the country have been experiencing firsthand: the front-line staff who help them navigate federal programs, manage paperwork, and access a safety net built over decades are disappearing from their communities. With 42 county offices ending 2025 with no FSA County staff, and FSA Federal staff declining at more than double the rate of county staff, the cumulative impact on local agricultural communities is severe. FSA’s heritage of local presence and community accountability — embodied in the County Committee system — was built precisely because federal agricultural programs work best when administered by people who know the land and the farmers they serve. That heritage is now at risk.

Congress must act urgently to reverse FSA staffing losses at both the county and federal level. America’s farmers are in crisis: trade disruption, volatile markets, and a string of natural disasters have put enormous pressure on farm operations of every kind. FSA County staff are the people farmers call when they need to access the programs designed to help them weather exactly these kinds of challenges — including the Emergency Loan program, Emergency Conservation Program, Farmer Bridge Assistance, and the Supplemental Disaster Relief Program. Every one of these programs requires local FSA staff to administer them. NSAC urges Congress to use the appropriations process and the Farm Bill to mandate and fund the restoration of FSA staffing to levels adequate to deliver these essential programs, and to ensure that no county is left without local FSA presence.

The post USDA Staffing Crisis: Losses Reduce Local Presence in Communities Nationwide appeared first on National Sustainable Agriculture Coalition.

The United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) spends roughly $4 billion buying food at the lowest price possible, and American family farmers are locked out due to high volume and complex federal contracting requirements. Yet there is a low-cost policy solution that would unlock this existing funding source for more farmers to compete. 

NSAC members National Farm to School Network, Center for Good Food Purchasing, Food Corps, and National Young Farmers Coalition, in partnership with Friends of the Earth, Chef Ann Foundation, and Scratchworks, have heard demands from school nutritionists, farmers, and local food distributors. Farmers want reliable local markets, and schools want fresh, reliable, nutritious foods to serve to students. A school district in Arkansas noted, Produce purchased through broadline distributors is not as fresh as items grown and sourced locally. 

More than 450 schools, farmers, and nutrition organizations are requesting that Congressional agricultural leaders authorize schools to use their entitlement funding to purchase from their local farmers and ranchers. Read more below in a cross-post from the National Farm to School Network.

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE 

June 10 – As the Senate prepares to release its Farm Bill text, a group of 450 organizations submitted a letter urging Congress to improve the National School Lunch Program for farmers and schools through a new “Local Food Purchase Option.” This policy solution would create a new pathway in the USDA Foods program that would allow schools to use existing entitlement funding on minimally processed, locally sourced food. School districts, farmers, aggregators, parents, and nonprofits from 43 states and Washington D.C. have signed on in support. Together, they back this commonsense solution to benefit small and mid-sized American farmers and ranchers while improving school meal quality for students.

Red Tape, Rising Costs, and the Case for Change

30 million children benefit from the National School Lunch Program each day. As part of this program, schools receive entitlement funding that they spend on commodity foods purchased by the U.S. Department of Agriculture. This accounts for 15-20% of the food on students’ lunch trays, amounting to approximately $1.6 billion each year. However, many schools would prefer having the option to spend this entitlement funding on fresh, local foods, which they are limited by within the current program.

“We are surrounded by cattle farms and produce farms but don’t have the funds to work in partnership with them. Being able to use all or part of our entitlement funds towards a partnership would be a dream” says Janene Hatton of Scott County Schools in Kentucky. “The freshest food is transported within a few miles instead of being processed hundreds or thousands of miles away before reaching the plates—that’s the way it should be!” 

While there is interest, red tape and large volume requirements largely exclude family farms from participating in the USDA Foods programs. “We are a large-scale greenhouse grower of hydroponic lettuce in Central Mississippi and would like the opportunity to supply our schools with fresh, healthy chemical-free lettuce. The current local produce to school program makes it difficult to meet the requirements of supplying the entire state,” says Leigh Bailey of Salad Days, LLC, referring to the USDA DoD Fresh program, one of USDA’s current entitlement programs that allows schools to purchase fresh produce. 

Connecting small and mid-size farmers to schools is more important now than ever. According to the American Farm Bureau Foundation, the farm bankruptcy rate increased by 46% in 2025 compared to 2024. School nutrition programs can provide a lifeline and stable revenue source for these farmers, as was demonstrated by USDA’s COVID-19 era Local Food for Schools (LFS) program. However, the second round slated to bring $660 million over three years directly into the hands of family farmers was terminated in March 2025.

“When the LFS grant program was active, we built a network and strong relationships with schools across the state of Arkansas” says John Wahrmund of Wahrmund Farms in Arkansas, who scaled up his farm after USDA announced the second round of LFS. “We invested in a large walk-in freezer to keep inventory and meet the needs of school nutrition services in a timely manner. We received extremely positive feedback about our beef, and know that programs found our product superior, our service superior, and student participation increased. Schools would love to purchase from us and other local food producers if funding were accessible. These purchases would support our family farm, our local processors, and our schools fueling our local economy. Local food purchasing is a win across the board for farmers, schools, and communities.” 

Rising food costs are making it harder for school nutrition professionals to maintain these connections, keep quality food on the menu, and reduce the use of ultra-processed foods. Like Janene Hatton from Kentucky, many simply want more flexibility in how they can spend the funds they already have.

‍The Opportunity for Action Through the Farm Bill

Signatories of this letter see a clear solution: open a new optional pathway within the existing USDA Foods program for schools to divert a portion of their entitlement funds to spend on local, fresh, and minimally processed foods. States can design their programs to best suit their contexts, whether through subawards to schools, contracts with food hubs, or a statewide solicitation for local food. This concept is modeled after the successful Local Food for Schools program, but without the same price tag, since the funds are already there. 

“Our food hub experienced a loss of $500,000 per year when the Local Food for Schools and Local Food Purchase Assistance programs were canceled,” says Peter Kraus of Iowa Food Hub. “Schools tell us they loved our products, but would not continue to purchase without the incentives. We can grow the food system when there are reliable markets.” 

If just 10% of Iowa’s entitlement funds were diverted through this program, it would direct $1.9 million of existing federal funds to local farms and generate $3.3 million in local economic activity, according to National Farm to School Network’s calculator.

Authors of this letter call on the Senate Agriculture Committee to create this new pathway in their version of the Farm Bill. Senate Agriculture Committee Chairman John Boozman (R-AR) has said that the Committee will be introducing text in June.

“Many of our Network Partners, particularly schools, have wanted this pathway for decades. As we continue to advocate for dedicated funds to support local food purchases, more flexibility with entitlement funds is yet another solution to enhance the school food marketplace for family farmers” says Jessica Gudmundson, Executive Director of the National Farm to School Network. As the letter states, “this is a rare bipartisan opportunity to cut red tape, invest in American family farmers, and give schools the flexibility to build stronger local food economies.” With the Farm Bill window open, now is the time to act.

###

About USDA Entitlement Local Purchase Option

You can learn more about the USDA Entitlement Local Purchase Option, read the letter, sign-on in support, and estimate the impacts to your state by visiting the website here: https://www.farmtoschool.org/policy/usda-entitlement-local-food-purchase-option 

About National Farm to School Network

National Farm to School Network is the leading voice for the U.S. farm to school and farm to early care and education movement, working as an information, advocacy and networking hub for communities to bring local food sourcing, gardens, and food and agriculture education into schools and early care and education settings. Learn more at: http://farmtoschool.org.

Media Contact: info@farmtoschool.org

The post 450 Organizations Push Congress to Unlock Local Food Funding for Schools appeared first on National Sustainable Agriculture Coalition.

Editor’s Note: This series draws on analysis the National Sustainable Agriculture Coalition (NSAC) conducted in partnership with Bernie Kluger, Managing Partner at Prospect Partners, LLC. 

Bernie has led strategic realignments, crisis recoveries, and major capacity-building initiatives in government, higher education, and the private sector. Prior to joining Prospect Partners, Bernie served as enterprise lead for organizational effectiveness and workforce development at the US Department of Agriculture (USDA). At USDA, Bernie tackled complex multi-stakeholder negotiations that delivered results for the public, including a nationwide hiring surge that powered a $40 billion expansion in operational capacity.  Bernie holds a B.S. in Political Economy from Williams College and an M.B.A. from Columbia University.  He lives in Washington, DC.

This blog post is the second in a series updating analysis on the widespread staffing crisis across the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA), focusing on the Natural Resources Conservation Service. While our previous post showed that every USDA agency lost staff during 2025, staff losses in direct farmer- and rancher-serving offices are particularly concerning as America’s farmers grapple with severe and ongoing economic and weather disruptions. 

Staff in the Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) work directly with farmers, providing technical assistance, financial support, and guidance to navigate the suite of programs offered by the agency. Losses in these direct farmer-serving agencies mean that US farmers, ranchers, and landowners have fewer experts in their communities to turn to for assistance. The National Sustainable Agriculture Coalition (NSAC) urges Congress to prioritize restoring NRCS field staff capacity, as farmers facing increasingly unpredictable weather impacts cannot afford to lose the local conservation expertise they depend on to build environmentally and economically resilient operations. 

Conservation Staff Depleted

NRCS lost 23% of its staff between January 2025 and January 2026. NRCS staff work directly with farmers and landowners to identify conservation practices that are well-suited to their needs and local natural resource concerns. They provide vital technical assistance for farmers and landowners and help them apply for and manage contracts with conservation programs that help share the cost of conservation practices. 

The NRCS staff position that experienced the largest losses was Soil Conservationist, with a loss of 711 Soil Conservationists during the time period and an additional 283 Soil Conservation Technicians. Soil Conservationists are the primary field staff who work directly with landowners on conservation planning and implementation, and Technicians provide field-level support for conservation work, often handling site assessments, measurements, and installation oversight alongside Soil Conservationists. 

Examining NRCS staff losses at the county level shows more clearly how many US farmers, ranchers, and landowners now lack access to local NRCS staff in their counties. In January 2025, 2,386 counties across the US had NRCS staff working in their local county office. By January 2026, 141 of those counties had lost 100% of their NRCS staff. This means that farmers and landowners in those counties lost staff with local relationships and local knowledge, and that the remaining NRCS staff are now stretched thin over larger geographic areas. 

The map below shows the NRCS staffing levels for every county and the change from January 2025 to January 2026, using data from the Office of Personnel Management.

Figure 1: County-Level NRCS Staffing Losses (Jan 2025-Jan 2026)

Major agricultural states in the Midwest and West lost the most NRCS staff during 2025. The largest staffing losses were in Texas (144), Kansas (127), Missouri (105), Wisconsin (100), and Colorado (99). States with smaller starting NRCS staff saw deeper percentage declines, with the largest in Rhode Island (44%), New York (38%), Colorado (36%), and Maine (35%). Kansas, Massachusetts, Arizona, and Florida all lost 34% of their NRCS staff. 

Figure 2: Top 10 States with NRCS Staff Losses (Jan 2025-Jan 2026)

Loss of Key Conservation Positions

The picture sharpens further when looking specifically at five specific occupations most central to NRCS’s conservation mission: Soil Conservation, Soil Conservation Technicians, Soil Science, Agronomy, and Rangeland Management. Together, these occupations lost 1,178 employees in 2025, nearly one in five positions. One hundred thirty-nine counties with at least one employee in these key roles in January 2025 had none by January 2026. Kansas lost key conservation staff in 15 counties; Indiana and Texas each lost coverage in 10. Georgia, while not among the top states for total job losses, lost all key conservation staff in 9 counties — a pattern of losses spread thinly across many locations rather than concentrated in larger offices, leaving widespread gaps in local coverage across the state. 

Farmers Feel the Impacts of Staffing Loss

The consequences of these staffing losses are already reducing farmer access to conservation programs. According to a recent analysis by NSAC member organization the Institute for Agriculture and Trade Policy (IATP), acceptance rates for the Environmental Quality Incentives Program (EQIP) and Conservation Stewardship Program (CSP) dropped sharply in fiscal year 2025. Only about 24% of EQIP applicants and 37% of CSP applicants were awarded contracts in FY2025 — a steep drop from FY2024, when approximately 43% of EQIP applicants and 54% of CSP applicants received contracts. NRCS staff are essential at every step of that process: they help farmers understand which programs fit their operations, support them through the application, and provide the technical assistance needed to implement and manage contracts. Fewer staff means longer waits, fewer applications processed, and more farmers left without the conservation support they need.

Staff Losses Mean Less Support for Farmers

The loss of nearly a quarter of NRCS staff in a single year, including over 700 Soil Conservationists and Technicians, is not an abstraction. These are the people farmers call when they want to plant a cover crop, design a nutrient management plan, or try to navigate a conservation program contract. Their absence means longer wait times, fewer site visits, and reduced access to the technical assistance that makes conservation programs work. With 141 counties now entirely without local NRCS staff, the support net for America’s farmland has real and growing holes. 

Congress must act to restore NRCS staffing capacity before these losses become permanent. Farmers and ranchers across the country are navigating an era of unprecedented natural disasters, from severe drought to catastrophic flooding, and they need the support of local conservation experts who know their land, their operations, and their communities. NSAC urges Congress to prioritize restoring NRCS field staff, with particular attention to rebuilding the positions that form the backbone of conservation delivery. Every county that loses its last NRCS employee loses irreplaceable local knowledge, and the farmers in that county lose a critical partner in building the resilience their operations depend on.

The post USDA Staffing Crisis: Widespread Loss of Conservation Staff appeared first on National Sustainable Agriculture Coalition.

Editor’s Note: This series draws on analysis the National Sustainable Agriculture Coalition (NSAC) conducted in partnership with Bernie Kluger, Managing Partner at Prospect Partners, LLC. 

Bernie has led strategic realignments, crisis recoveries, and major capacity-building initiatives in government, higher education, and the private sector. Prior to joining Prospect Partners, Bernie served as enterprise lead for organizational effectiveness and workforce development at the US Department of Agriculture (USDA). At USDA, Bernie tackled complex multi-stakeholder negotiations that delivered results for the public, including a nationwide hiring surge that powered a $40 billion expansion in operational capacity.  Bernie holds a B.S. in Political Economy from Williams College and an M.B.A. from Columbia University.  He lives in Washington, DC.

The past sixteen months have seen an unprecedented staffing crisis unfurl across the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA). This blog post offers a fresh look at the depth and breadth of the ongoing staffing crisis, as well as updates on previously reported nationwide staff cuts across other USDA agencies. A second post examines the deep losses sustained by the farmer-serving staff of the Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS), and a third uses previously unpublished data on Farm Service Agency (FSA) County employees to examine the devastating losses of local county staff. 

Analysis of federal personnel data from the US Office of Personnel Management confirms widespread headcount reductions across all USDA agencies, with the exception of staffing increases in the immediate office of the Agriculture Secretary, which grew by 18% in 2025. NSAC urges Congress to use every available tool to address the USDA staffing crisis and pass a bipartisan farm bill that restores the department’s capacity to serve farmers and rural communities. 

USDA Impact: Staffing Declines Across All Agencies, Staffing Increase in the Immediate Office of the Secretary

Between January 2025 and January 2026, USDA lost approximately 20,000 employees, according to staffing data published by the US Office of Personnel Management. Every USDA agency was affected, and staff losses were spread across the entire nation. Our analysis attributes the majority of staff losses (~15,000) to the so-called Deferred Resignation Program, a program run by the Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE) to encourage federal employees to voluntarily leave their positions.

On July 24, 2025 US Secretary of Agriculture Brooke Rollins released a memo (SM-1078-015) announcing a planned reorganization of the department, drafted without consultation with farmers, Congress, or other stakeholders. After stakeholders responded with widespread concern, the Secretary announced an ad hoc, informal opportunity to comment on the reorganization, which generated 46,845 responses. According to USDA’s own analysis, 82% of comments were negative, expressing serious concerns with the reorganization. Major themes of concern included the loss of local oversight and expertise, reduction in personnel and resources, and a desire for adequate staffing in every county. 

Despite these overwhelmingly negative responses and continued concern from stakeholders about local presence, the Secretary has continued to move forward with the reorganization plan that would relocate agency headquarters and leadership. Thus far, reorganization plans have been announced for the Food, Nutrition, and Consumer Services agency; Food Safety and Inspection Service; Research, Education, and Economics mission area; and the Forest Service. Reporting on employee reactions to the reorganization plan suggests that relocation will lead to further staff losses, exacerbating the existing USDA staffing crisis with negative consequences for farmer and rancher-facing services. A recent survey by the American Federation of Government Employees, for example, found that 76% of its members do not plan to relocate when required by the reorganization plan and would instead leave their positions. 

Staff Losses Are Nationwide

While Secretary Rollins and other headquarters leadership have attempted to frame the USDA reorganization as moving staff out of DC and closer to farmers, the reality is the vast majority of USDA staff already work outside of DC. In January 2025, just 3.24% of all USDA employees worked in Washington, DC. By January 2026, after massive staff losses, still just 3.56% of all USDA employees worked in DC. In reality, 98% of the USDA staff lost between January 2025 and January 2026 were outside of Washington, DC (19,259 employees). 

The map below shows the percentage and number of USDA staff lost in each state between January 2025 and January 2026. 

Figure 1: USDA Staff Losses January 2025-January 2026

Every state and territory lost USDA staff during this time period. The states that lost the highest number of staff were: Maryland (1,411), California (1,080), Texas (925), Virginia (896), Colorado (850), Oregon (682), New Mexico (640), Kansas (559), Georgia (546), and Missouri (514). 

The relative impact of staffing losses was unevenly spread, with multiple states losing over 20% of staff. The 10 states experiencing the largest percentage staff losses include: Maryland (41%), Rhode Island (41%), Virginia (37%), Maine (29%), Alaska (29%), Kansas (28%), Massachusetts (27%), Vermont (27%), New York (25%), and Florida (24%). 

Figure 2: Top 10 States with USDA Staff Losses (Jan 2025-Jan 2026)

Loss of Experienced Staff

USDA also experienced a dramatic loss of highly experienced and skilled staff. Between January 2025 and January 2026, the number of staff with more than ten years of service declined by nearly 7,000 (from 45,247 in 2025 to just 38,291 in 2026). These experienced mid and late-career staff carry irreplaceable institutional knowledge that supports the functioning of the department.

Every USDA Agency Lost Staff

While the overall loss of 1 in 5 USDA employees is already staggering, some departmental agencies had even more significant staffing losses. The Office of Partnerships and Public Engagement (OPPE) lost more than half of its staff (55%), the Office of Budget and Program Analysis (OBPA) lost 41%, National Institute of Food and Agriculture (NIFA) 40%, Rural Development (RD) 36%, and National Agricultural Statistics Service (NASS) 36%. Staff losses at NIFA are particularly troubling, with the Government Accountability Office reporting lingering negative impacts on productivity following a previous relocation in 2019 of the agency to Kansas City, MO.

Table 1: USDA Staff Losses by Agency (Jan 2025-Jan 2026)

The current Administration’s impact on the “People’s Agency” is clear: USDA has lost one in five of its employees in just twelve months, with the overwhelming majority of cuts to staff capacity and expertise happening at the state and county level. The reorganization plan now underway risks transforming a shortfall into a crisis, as the majority of employees subject to relocation requirements have indicated they would leave the agency rather than uproot their lives and families to move. The posts that follow examine in greater detail the losses sustained by two agencies with the most direct farmer-facing roles: the Natural Resources Conservation Service and the Farm Service Agency.

Congress must treat the collapse of USDA’s workforce as a crisis that can be averted. With one in five USDA employees gone in a single year and reorganization plans poised to drive further departures, lawmakers must use every available lever to reverse course. America’s farmers, ranchers, and rural communities are facing serious challenges, and they need a USDA that is fully staffed and fully functional. 

The post USDA Staffing Crisis: Nationwide Losses appeared first on National Sustainable Agriculture Coalition.

Contact: Laura Zaks

National Sustainable Agriculture Coalition

lzaks@sustainableagriculture.net

Tel. 347.563.6408

Comment: USDA Small Processor Plan Highlights Recent Work, Future Opportunities

Washington, DC, June 5, 2026 – Today, the National Sustainable Agriculture Coalition (NSAC) commends the release of the US Department of Agriculture (USDA) Small Processors Action Plan by Secretary of Agriculture Brooke Rollins. The plan highlights previous and potential future actions by USDA to protect and promote Small and Very Small meat processors. 

In the Action Plan, USDA highlights its work on the USDA Food Safety and Inspection Service (FSIS) Overtime and Holiday Fee Reduction Program for Small and Very Small Establishments. The Plan also highlights a small expansion of the state Meat and Poultry Inspection (MPI) program, an NSAC priority. Continued expansion of the program, and the associated Cooperative Interstate Shipment (CIS) should also be invested in as they increase markets for small and very small processors in a fiscally sound way. 

“The success of Small and Very Small processors is critical to the success of our rural communities and agricultural system. NSAC appreciates USDA’s cross agency attention to Small and Very Small plant issues, and encourages the Department to invest in further stakeholder engagement and input. By expanding and refocusing Small Plant Roundtables exclusively on Small & Very Small plants, and implementing recommendations to improve outreach and reduce barriers for these plants, USDA can take critical next steps for improving Small Processors viability. We look forward to engaging with them as they do so,” commented Connor Kippe, NSAC Policy Specialist. 

Some of the next steps FSIS should pursue from the 2020 Report on Outreach to Small and Very Small Processors include studying inspection decisions and enforcement actions across circuits, districts, and inspectors. Similarly, the National Advisory Committee in 2023 and 2024 offered in the Meat & Poultry Inspection Recommendations support continued investment in technical assistance not included in the Action Plan.  

NSAC looks forward to ensuring these reforms become mandatory and continued in perpetuity by the inclusion of all components of the Strengthening Local Processing Act in a new farm bill. 

###  

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: USDA Small Processor Plan Highlights Recent Work, Future Opportunities appeared first on National Sustainable Agriculture Coalition.