A First Look: What the House Republicans' Farm Bill Draft Has to Offer Regenerative Agriculture

Dr. Success Okafor
Feb 18
11 min read

By Dr. Success Okafor, Policy Fellow, Michael Fields Agricultural Institute

Late last week, House Agriculture Committee Chair Glenn Thompson (R-Pennsylvania), unveiled draft text for a new Farm Bill. Titled the "Farm, Food, and National Security Act of 2026," the proposal was apparently released without consulting Democratic members of the committee and faces significant hurdles. Ranking Ag Committee Member Angie Craig (D-Minnesota) told reporters the package “fails to meet the moment facing farmers and working people.” And so the rocky road to a potential 2026 Farm Bill begins.

Committee markup is scheduled for February 23, with floor action targeted before the Easter recess and unfolding against a backdrop of increased calls by farmers and agricultural leaders to address an impending farm system crisis. (Read our response to the Ag Leaders Letter.) The last Farm Bill was passed in 2018.

As an agricultural economist focused on the economic returns from diversified farming systems, I've spent the weekend analyzing this highly anticipated 802-page proposal to understand what various provisions could mean for farmers pursuing regenerative practices and diversified crop rotations. Here's my initial assessment.

Access the Documents:

Key Takeaways

What’s Positive:

New State/Tribal Soil Health grants authority (Section 2302)
Expanded agroforestry infrastructure and regional centers
Organic Technical Assistance authority added
Enhanced disaster aid framework for specialty crops

What Needs Scrutiny:

IRA conservation funding treatment remains unclear pending Congressional Budget Office (CBO) and United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) guidance
Payment cap structure questions around equity and access
State preemption provisions may limit premium market opportunities
Technical assistance funding adequacy uncertain

Bottom Line: The draft maintains support for soil health and diversified systems but raises economic efficiency questions about resource allocation across farming models.

The Conservation Title: Mixed Signals

What's Encouraging: The draft bill includes several provisions that could support regenerative practices:

State Assistance for Soil Health: The draft creates explicit authority for state and tribal soil health grants (Section 2302), which directly aligns with regenerative agriculture priorities. This could provide states with resources to support on-the-ground soil health initiatives, though effectiveness will depend on appropriation levels and state capacity to administer the grants. (See Title II, Section 2302)
Incorporation of precision agriculture into EQIP and CSP: The bill enhances working lands conservation programs by integrating precision agriculture tools into both the Environmental Quality Incentives Program (EQIP) and Conservation Stewardship Program (CSP). For farmers transitioning to diversified systems, this could mean better technical support for data-driven decision-making around cover crops, nutrient management, and crop rotation timing. (See Title II, Subtitle C in the draft bill)
Treatment of IRA conservation funding unclear: How (or whether) the draft preserves Inflation Reduction Act-derived conservation funding streams isn't explicit in the bill text as released. We'll need committee summaries, CBO scoring, and USDA implementation guidance to confirm whether guardrails and eligibility criteria remain for the approximately $17 billion in supplemental conservation funding that was allocated for climate-smart agriculture practices. This matters significantly for farmers implementing soil health practices—cover crops, extended rotations, reduced tillage—that our research shows can deliver 2-4 times higher economic value per acre than conventional monoculture. (Compare with 2018 Farm Bill conservation provisions)
Streamlined administration: The bill includes provisions to streamline administration for conservation technical assistance and resource programs, which could reduce transaction costs that often discourage small and mid-sized farmers from participating in these programs. (See Title II, Subtitle F)

What's Concerning: Several aspects of the conservation approach warrant scrutiny:

Payment limitation structure and equity: The draft reinstates and extends payment limitation language for the 2027-2031 period. Specifically, Section 1240B modifies the Environmental Quality Incentives Program (EQIP) conservation incentive contract payment cap, raising it from $140,000 (for 2019-2023) to $200,000 (for 2027-2031). The economic equity question isn't whether caps exist, but whether the program design and application requirements still favor large operations with dedicated staff and technical capacity. Our concern, shared by many agricultural economists, is that complex application processes may create de facto advantages for larger farms regardless of statutory payment limits, potentially crowding out the small and diversified farmers who need conservation support most.
Unclear climate-smart guardrails: Early indication suggests the House version may remove or weaken climate-specific guardrails that were included in IRA funding. This matters for soil health advocates because explicit climate goals have helped NRCS prioritize practices like cover cropping and compost application that build long-term soil carbon.
Technical assistance capacity questions: The bill includes language about streamlining technical assistance, but it's unclear whether this comes with adequate funding for the boots-on-the-ground conservation planners who help farmers design and implement regenerative systems. In my conversations with farmers across the region, access to knowledgeable technical assistance is often the limiting factor—not the availability of cost-share dollars.

Specialty Crops and Diversified Systems: Modest Gains

For farmers growing fruits, vegetables, and other specialty crops which is often the backbone of diversified and direct-market operations, the bill offers some targeted support.

Enhanced disaster assistance framework: The bill creates a framework for USDA to provide consistent disaster aid to specialty crop producers across administrations. Given the increasing weather volatility we're seeing (a major driver for adopting climate-resilient practices), this consistency is valuable.
Expanded Tree Assistance Program: The bill expands disaster programs like the Tree Assistance Program and includes plant pests under the definition of "natural disaster," which could help orchard and agroforestry operations recover from losses.
Specialty crop research funding: Earlier reconciliation legislation (the "One Big Beautiful Bill Act") increased funding for the Specialty Crop Research Initiative to $175 million in FY2026—more than doubling current levels. While not part of this draft, this earlier funding increase is relevant to the market context for specialty crop producers.

The Missing Piece:

What I don't see in the preliminary summaries is robust support for the transition challenges faced by farmers moving from conventional to diversified systems. Our research consistently shows that the 2-3 year transition period, when farmers are learning new practices, rebuilding soil biology, and establishing diverse crop rotations, is economically vulnerable. Programs that provide bridge support during this transition are essential but appear absent or underfunded.

Beginning Farmers: Incremental Progress

The bill includes provisions to expand support for beginning farmers and ranchers, including:

Reduced experience requirements for loans: This could help younger farmers access operating capital earlier in their careers—critical for those establishing diversified operations that often require more upfront capital for infrastructure like high tunnels, on-farm processing, or direct marketing.
Pre-approval pilot program: A new expedited approval pilot for USDA ownership and operating loans (Section 5111) could reduce uncertainty for beginning farmers planning their operations.

These are positive steps, but they fall short of what's needed to address the generational transition crisis in agriculture. The average farmer age remains close to 60, and without more aggressive support for land access, mentorship, and transition-period risk management, we're not creating a viable pathway for the next generation, especially for those pursuing regenerative models.

Policy Provisions That Warrant Economic Scrutiny

Several provisions in this draft bill raise questions from an economic efficiency and market functioning perspective:

1. Preemption of State Agricultural Regulations

The bill prohibits states and counties from imposing requirements related to pesticide sale, distribution, labeling, or use beyond EPA regulations. It also bars states from enforcing regulations on livestock production conditions for animals not raised in their jurisdiction (addressing laws like California's Proposition 12).

Economic implications: State-level regulations often emerge in response to consumer demand for differentiated products whether that's reduced-pesticide produce, higher animal welfare standards, or other attributes. When states create these standards, they effectively create new market segments where farmers can capture premium prices.

From an economic perspective, preemption clauses eliminate the ability of states to facilitate market differentiation. This has two potential effects: (1) it may reduce farmer income opportunities from premium markets, and (2) it may reduce consumer welfare by limiting access to products that match their preferences. Whether one views state regulations as "market-creating" or "market-distorting" depends on one's economic framework, but the income implications for farmers pursuing differentiated production are clear.

2. Pesticide Uniformity and Preemption Provisions

The bill includes provisions establishing uniformity requirements for pesticide labeling and limiting state and local authority to regulate pesticide use beyond EPA standards.

Economic Implications: The draft's pesticide preemption and uniformity provisions could have downstream implications for enforcement, litigation, and liability frameworks, though the specific effects will depend on how courts interpret the uniformity language. From a market perspective, these provisions affect the ability of states to create regulatory differentiation that enables premium markets.

It's important to note that the preemption provisions distinguish between state authority and local (county/municipal) authority—the scope and specific limitations matter for understanding the full market impact. These provisions influence the incentive structures for developing and adopting alternative pest management approaches, including reduced-risk pesticides and non-chemical integrated pest management strategies that many diversified farmers employ.

3. Nutrition Assistance Program Changes (from Earlier Legislation Context)

Note: This section discusses earlier SNAP changes that affect agricultural markets, not new provisions in this farm bill draft.

The "One Big Beautiful Bill Act" (H.R. 1, P.L. 119-21) enacted in 2025 included significant modifications to the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP), including stricter work requirements and benefit calculation changes. While these changes are not in the current farm bill draft being discussed here, they affect the broader agricultural market context.

Economic Implications: SNAP functions as both a nutrition safety net and an agricultural demand support program. USDA Economic Research Service analysis has consistently found that SNAP generates approximately $1.50-$1.80 in economic activity for every dollar spent, partly through increased food purchases. For diversified farmers who sell through farmers markets, institutions, and direct-to-consumer channels, often serving SNAP participants, the earlier program modifications directly affect potential revenue from these marketing channels. Understanding how the current farm bill draft interacts with these earlier SNAP changes is important for assessing total impact on diversified farm economics.

What's Notably Absent or Underdeveloped

After reviewing the draft text, here's what needs closer examination:

Organic transition support: The draft adds new Organic Technical Assistance authority (Section 2122B), which is a positive step. However, the practical question is whether this will be funded at levels that materially reduce the economic risk farmers face during the 2-3 year transition period when they're implementing organic practices but not yet receiving organic price premiums. The authorization alone doesn't guarantee adequate appropriations or sufficient technical service provider capacity. (Review Title X - Horticulture and Title II, Section 2122B in the draft bill)
Agroforestry development: The draft actually expands agroforestry infrastructure by establishing a National Agroforestry Research, Development, and Demonstration Center framework and authorizing regional agroforestry centers. This is encouraging for farmers interested in integrating trees into their operations. However, the real-world impact will depend on appropriations levels and whether USDA can staff these centers with adequate technical expertise. (See Title VIII - Forestry)
Outcome-based conservation payments: The bill doesn't appear to move toward outcome-based conservation payments that would reward farmers for measurable improvements in soil health, water quality, or biodiversity—a potentially more economically efficient approach than the current practice-based payment system. This remains a missed opportunity for improving conservation program effectiveness.
Meaningful incentives for crop diversification: There's little to encourage farmers to move beyond simplified rotations, despite economic and agronomic research showing the benefits of extended rotations. (Examine Title I - Commodities to see which crops receive support)

The Economic Bottom Line

From an economic perspective, this bill largely maintains the existing policy framework that subsidizes input-intensive commodity production while providing modest, often difficult-to-access support for diversified and regenerative systems.

Our research at Michael Fields Agricultural Institute has documented that diversified farming systems can generate 2-4 times higher total economic value per acre than conventional monocultures when accounting for ecosystem services, reduced input costs, and premium market access. Yet this farm bill continues to allocate the vast majority of taxpayer support to commodity programs that encourage the very monocultures that generate lower total economic returns.

The policy question is straightforward from an economic efficiency perspective: Why does federal agricultural policy allocate the majority of support to production systems that generate lower total economic returns per acre? Our research documents a 2-4x difference in total economic value between diversified and conventional monoculture systems, yet the subsidy structure continues to favor the latter.

This creates efficiency tradeoffs that agricultural economists and policymakers should examine. Whether this pattern persists due to path dependence in policy, differences in political economy across farming systems, or other factors is an important empirical question that deserves rigorous analysis.

Legislative Context and Probability of Passage

It's important to understand the legislative constraints surrounding this bill: Passage faces several structural challenges including narrow partisan margins in both chambers, ongoing disagreements over provisions enacted in earlier reconciliation legislation, and the approaching midterm election cycle which historically reduces legislative productivity.

However, the provisions in this draft are economically significant regardless of passage probability. They reveal:

Policy priorities that shape the negotiating parameters for eventual legislation
Baseline assumptions about the role of federal policy in agricultural markets
Signals to agricultural markets about the direction of future support programs

From an economic planning perspective, farmers and agricultural businesses should pay attention to these provisions even if this specific bill doesn't become law, as they indicate the likely parameters of eventual farm policy.

What Comes Next

Michael Fields Agricultural Institute will continue analyzing this legislation as it evolves. What we'll be watching:

Detailed bill text analysis, particularly the conservation title provisions and their implications for soil health practices, with specific attention to how payment structures and technical assistance programs are designed
Economic impact assessment of various provisions to provide policymakers with evidence-based analysis of how different policy choices affect farm profitability and rural economic development
Monitoring implementation guidance from CBO scoring, committee reports, and USDA to understand how unclear provisions (particularly around IRA conservation funding) will actually function
Tracking what remains uncertain as the legislative process unfolds, including appropriations levels for newly authorized programs and technical details that will emerge during markup

How You Can Engage

If you're interested in how these provisions might affect agriculture in your region:

Read the bill yourself: The full text is publicly available. Focus on Title II (Conservation), Title X (Horticulture), and Title V (Credit) if you're interested in programs affecting diversified and beginning farmers.
Compare to current law: Review how provisions differ from the 2018 Farm Bill to understand what's changing.
Stay informed by signing up by signing up for agricultural policy updates from research institutions and organizations (including from us) tracking farm bill developments.

The farm bill debate will continue for months. As an agricultural economist, my focus is on understanding how different policy choices affect agricultural productivity, farm profitability, rural economic development, and the efficient allocation of public resources. I'll continue providing analysis as the legislation evolves.

This is the beginning of a months-long process that will shape American agriculture policy for the next five years. The key economic question is whether the final legislation will support the farming systems that research shows are most economically and ecologically resilient—or continue directing resources toward production models that may not maximize returns on public investment.

Additional Resources for Your Own Analysis

2026 Farm Bill Draft:

Current Law (for comparison):

Key Programs Referenced:

Michael Fields Agricultural Institute is a non-profit organization that has been cultivating resiliency through research, education, and policy work since 1984. With a broad coalition of public and private partners, the Institute supports farmers, food systems and communities in the Upper Midwest and beyond through a range of programs and initiatives. Find more information at michaelfields.org. Follow along on Instagram and Facebook for the latest news and events.

MFAI Policy Fellow Dr. Success Okafor is an agricultural economist who received his PhD from North Carolina A&T State University. His work focuses on innovative and controlled-environment agriculture, using GIS, econometrics, and policy analysis to explore opportunities for strengthening soil health, improving market access, and supporting resilient and diversified agricultural systems. Reach him at sokafor@michaelfields.org.

If you like this sort of economic and policy analysis, be sure to sign up for our e-newsletter and action alerts.