The House Agriculture Committee has approved a new five-year farm bill — legislation that would extend many of the major U.S. Department of Agriculture programs through 2031.
The committee voted late into the night to pass the Farm, Food and National Security Act of 2026 (H.R. 7567) by a margin of 34 to 17, with all Republicans and seven Democrats voting in favor of the bill. The bill, which is often being referred to as Farm Bill 2.0, would replace the 2018 farm bill that expired in 2023 but has been temporarily extended many times since then.
The legislation now moves to the full House for consideration before the Senate begins work on its own farm bill proposal.
The bill aims to plug the gaps in earlier legislation and offer policy certainty to farmers and rural communities at a time when they are dealing with falling farm income, increasing costs, and market volatility.
Committee Chairman Glenn “GT” Thompson (R-Pa.) made a case for the bill during the markup process.
“Take the politics, take the Trump derangement syndrome out of it, plain and simple this is a great bill,” Thompson said, referencing a pejorative term used to describe negative reactions to President Donald Trump.
The bill was criticized by Ranking Member Rep. Angie Craig (D-Minn.) who said that the bill “includes some bipartisan amendments but doesn’t meet the moment.”
One of the most debated provisions in the bill concerns pesticide regulations.
The bill would protect pesticide manufacturers from certain lawsuits over health concerns if the products are used in compliance with federal label instructions. The bill would also prevent states and local governments from requiring pesticide label requirements or usage restrictions beyond what the federal government allows.
Democrats argued that the provision could limit the ability of states to respond to emerging health concerns.
“We know there are health risks out there,” said Rep. Chellie Pingree (D-Maine). Broad protections for pesticides that may pose such risks, she said, “is extremely dangerous to human health.”
Republicans countered that crop protection products are essential for maintaining agricultural productivity.
Rep. John Rose (R-Tenn.) said agriculture in his state cannot be sustained without these tools and pointed to the Environmental Protection Agency’s evaluation process.
“The science is there. We should trust it,” Rose said.
The debate comes amid ongoing legal and political battles over the herbicide glyphosate, which has been the subject of thousands of lawsuits despite findings from the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency and most every international body that it does not cause cancer. Glyphosate had long been the target of Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. and his Make America Healthy Again alliance, though there has been a rift recently in that movement after Trump signed an executive order to boost production of glyphosate, calling it a national security priority. Kennedy, to the ire of his fan base, said he supported Trump’s order.
Another flashpoint during the markup involved federal support for solar installations on farmland.
The bill would limit U.S. Department of Agriculture funding for solar arrays larger than five acres, though projects up to 50 acres could still qualify if most of the electricity generated is used on the farm. Rooftop and building-mounted panels would not be affected.
Supporters of the restrictions argued that large-scale solar projects are removing productive farmland from agriculture for decades.
Rep. Dave Taylor (R-Ohio) said solar arrays are taking “vast swaths” of farmland into long-term leases.
Similarly, Rep. Austin Scott (R-Ga.) said he has seen forests cleared to make way for large solar installations.
“I’ve seen forests as big as 1,000 acres cleared in Georgia to make way for solar farms,” Scott said. “It’s horrible for the environment.”
Democrats attempted to remove the restrictions, calling them a potential barrier to renewable energy development in rural communities. Rep. Nikki Budzinski (D-Ill.) ultimately withdrew her amendment after a lengthy debate.
Reactions from farm and agriculture groups
Meanwhile, industry groups praised the committee’s action, saying the bill offers regulatory relief and stronger support for livestock producers.
The National Farmers Union said the markup represented progress but warned the legislation still needs significant improvements to address structural issues facing producers.
“We appreciate the effort of House Agriculture Committee members on both sides of the aisle to advance a farm bill, and we recognize the hard work that went into this markup,” it said in a statement. “Bipartisan progress in today’s Congress is not insignificant, and we are grateful to the members who engaged seriously with the challenges facing family agriculture.
“That said, we remain concerned that this proposal does not yet meet the scale of the crisis facing family farmers and ranchers. The fundamental changes needed to fix what’s broken in American agriculture — reining in corporate consolidation, building true safety nets, and investing in local communities — still need to be made.
“The path from committee to a final, signed farm bill is long. NFU will continue working with lawmakers on both sides of the aisle to strengthen this legislation. The challenges facing family farmers and ranchers are urgent, and the final farm bill must reflect that reality. They deserve one that delivers real fairness, resilience, and opportunity for their operations and their communities.”
Senate Agriculture Committee Chairman John Boozman (R-Ark.) also praised the committee’s work and signaled the Senate will now continue the process.
“I appreciate Chairman Thompson’s leadership in advancing the remaining components of the traditional farm bill. This builds off the historic investments we made in the Working Families Tax Cuts to strengthen the farm safety net and provide producers with greater certainty while demonstrating unwavering support for strengthening rural communities and safeguarding our food supply. I look forward to continuing the process in the Senate and working with my colleagues to get these vital policies across the finish line.”
NPPC noted the legislation includes relief related to a patchwork of state animal housing laws, including California’s Proposition 12, along with provisions expanding agricultural trade programs, animal health protections, and disease response efforts.
Agricultural cooperatives also emphasized the importance of the bill’s energy provisions.
“Completion of the House Agriculture Committee’s farm bill markup is an important step toward delivering the certainty and stability America’s farmers and their co-ops need. With producers facing a challenging farm economy and continued market volatility, a new farm bill is long overdue.
“We appreciate the work of Chairman Thompson and members of the committee in advancing this legislation. We urge House leadership to bring up the farm bill without delay and look forward to the Senate Agriculture Committee beginning its process in the coming weeks.
“We also would like to extend a special thanks to Rep. Dusty Johnson (R-S.D.) for his leadership in including a provision that would enhance the ability of farmer cooperatives to access the Rural Energy for America Program. If enacted, it would help cooperatives pursue projects that would provide significant impacts toward lowering energy consumption and cutting costs.”
The bill must still be passed by the House, and a Senate Agriculture Committee version will be crafted before attempts are made to iron out differences between the two houses. As major policy debates on pesticides, renewable energy, and nutrition programs remain unresolved, it’s likely that the form of the next farm bill will change substantially before it’s made law.
Source: AgDaily.com
