The Good, The Bad And The Ugly: Inside Swamp’s New Farm Bill

House lawmakers introduced a farm bill in March that would spend more than $1 trillion over a decade without stopping America’s massive spending deluge.

The legislation aims to keep in place SNAP policy changes first implemented in the One Big Beautiful Bill (OBBB) in July 2025, while expanding federal control over pesticide labeling and directing additional funds to broadband, climate and conservation initiatives. The bill also includes a provision affecting ranchers, forecasting a possible showdown between rival factions of GOP lawmakers.

“The glass is half full”

Compared to the previous Farm Bill passed in 2018, which was expected to cost about $867 billion over a decade, spending has remained relatively flat, shifting funds rather than making notable cuts.

“Not a big increase, but no real cuts,” Bryan Riley, director of the free trade initiative at the National Taxpayers Union, told the Daily Caller News Foundation, describing the bill as a “glass half full” approach that avoids major spending increases but falls short of significant reductions.

The bill would have no effect on direct spending over the 2026-2036 period, according to at the Congressional Budget Office (CBO), meaning it reallocates funds from the farm bill that is expected to exceed $1 trillion over the next decade. The United States faces a growing debt burden expected to reach $40 trillion by November.

The CBO findings come as lawmakers continue to deal with the massive national debt, with mandatory spending programs like Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid driving much of federal spending. Despite warnings, Congress failed to pass meaningful deficit reduction, with public approval for Congress reaching 16% in March, according to Gallup. (RELATED: House budget chief calls on lawmakers to cut ‘bloated bureaucracy’ and skyrocketing national debt)

A federal overrun?

The farm bill could also face additional resistance from lawmakers because of a provision related to the Food Safety and Farm Protection Act (S. 1326), which would limit states’ ability to propose agricultural standards on products from out-of-state producers. Supporters of the provision, including lawmakers such as Iowa Republican Sen. Joni Ernst, argued that the measure would protect farmers and ranchers from burdensome and conflicting state regulations. Ernst was a co-sponsor of the bill in 2023, formerly known as the Ending Agricultural Trade Suppression (EATS) Act.

According to sources with knowledge of the bill, Florida Republican Rep. Anna Paulina Luna, South Carolina Republican Rep. Nancy Mace and New York Republican Rep. Andrew Garbarino are expected to push for the language to be removed as the bill moves forward.

“As liberal activists who have never set foot on a farm attempt to ban our bacon through excessive and dangerous and arbitrary regulation, I am fighting to ensure that the voices of the best-informed farmers and experts are heard,” Ernst said in a statement to DCNF. “After the U.S. Supreme Court called on Congress to reject Proposition 12, it’s time we come together to end California’s war on breakfast and other absurd standards that threaten our national security, jeopardize the livelihoods of our farmers, and raise prices at the grocery store. Ernst added.

The measure received support from industry players, including the largest pork manufacturer in the United States, Smithfield Foods, a Chinese company.

However, the provision also drew opposition from ranchers and advocacy groups who argued the measure could override state standards, negatively affecting local producers who rely on those distinctions and potentially leading to the closure of local farms and ranches.

“This would override state-level standards and make it more difficult for producers who have invested to meet these requirements to compete,” Marty Irby, president and CEO of Capitol South, a firm that represents ranchers opposed to the provision, told DCNF.

“It would be a universal policy,” Irby said.

Irby pointed out that this provision could have a major impact on the pork market, adding “you’ll see a ton of pork producers go out of business.”

Agriculture and MAHA

The U.S. agricultural sector is facing pressure from the war with Iran, which has disrupted fertilizer supplies and contributed to rising consumer prices at supermarkets. Food costs are expected to increase by 3.6% according to the Department of Agriculture (USDA).

“Many of the issues farmers face are trade-related,” Riley told DCNF, citing tariff and export issues as well as broader tensions in the Middle East.

The bill also includes a provision requiring national uniformity in pesticide labeling, thereby limiting a state’s ability to impose additional warning requirements beyond those approved by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

Federal law currently limits a state’s ability to impose its own labeling on products, but this provision would go even further, limiting potential liability suits against pesticide manufacturers.

“If consumers are not aware of the potential dangers associated with their use of pesticide products, they lack the ability to make an intelligent decision about product selection,” Jay Feldman, executive director of the nonprofit group Beyond Pesticides, told DCNF.
This provision is part of a broader debate on the regulation of the use of pesticides. Groups such as the nonprofit Beyond Pesticides say the language could protect companies from “failure to warn” litigation by reducing the ability to require additional warnings beyond federally approved labels.

The issue has attracted the attention of the Make America Healthy Again (MAHA) movement, as Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy has argued that manufacturers should be held accountable for failing to warn consumers of potential health problems.

COUNCIL BLUFFS, IOWA – JULY 7: Former U.S. President Donald Trump speaks to supporters during a Farmers for Trump campaign event at the MidAmerica Center on July 7, 2023, in Council Bluffs, Iowa. (Photo by Scott Olson/Getty Images)

The legislation also redirects funding to new projects, including an additional $350 million for the Reconnect Broadband program, which received $2 billion as part of former President Joe Biden’s Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act, sparking questions about potential overlap as several programs have been tasked with expanding broadband access in rural areas.

All content created by the Daily Caller News Foundation, an independent, nonpartisan news service, is available free to any legitimate news publisher capable of delivering a large audience. All republished articles must include our logo, our reporter’s byline and DCNF affiliation. For questions about our guidelines or our partnership, please contact licenses@dailycallernewsfoundation.org.