Agriculture, Rural Development, Food and Drug Administration, and Related Agencies Appropriations Act, 2026
- Sponsor
- Rep. Harris, Andy [R-MD-1]
- Committees
- Appropriations Committee
- Last action
- Jun 25, 2025
Bottom line
H.R. 4121 is a comprehensive appropriations bill funding critical federal programs related to agriculture, food, and rural communities, alongside significant policy directives and restrictions.
What it actually does
This bill appropriates funds for the Department of Agriculture, Rural Development, the Food and Drug Administration, and related agencies for fiscal year 2026. It details spending for agricultural research, food safety, farm support, rural development, domestic food assistance programs, and international food aid, while also including numerous policy riders and administrative provisions across various federal operations.
Proponents argue
Supporters argue the bill provides essential funding for farmers, ensures food safety, supports rural economies, and maintains vital nutrition programs. They would highlight targeted investments in research, infrastructure, and disaster preparedness as crucial for national well-being and economic stability, while also asserting that the policy riders address important issues.
Opponents contend
Opponents might criticize specific policy riders as extraneous or controversial, argue that certain funding levels are insufficient or excessive, or raise concerns about the overall spending levels and potential impact on the national debt. Some may also object to restrictions on agency actions or specific program changes as overreach or detrimental to public welfare.
The bill is extensive and highly detailed, requiring significant time for thorough review. Given its omnibus nature, the time typically allotted for public and legislative review before a vote may be insufficient for a comprehensive understanding of all its provisions and their implications.
Title I, Office of the Secretary
Department of Agriculture Executive Operations Funding
This provision allocates $43,856,000 for the Office of the Secretary, including specific amounts for various sub-offices like Homeland Security, Tribal Relations, Administration, Congressional Relations, and Communications. It allows the Secretary to transfer up to 5 percent of funds between these offices and sets limits on official reception expenses.
Supporters argue
Proponents argue that this funding is essential for the efficient management and coordination of the Department of Agriculture's vast operations, ensuring effective leadership and administrative support for critical programs.
Critics contend
Critics may argue that specific allocations within the Office of the Secretary could be streamlined or reduced to achieve greater efficiency or reallocate funds to direct program services.
Tradeoffs
The provision balances the need for robust administrative support with calls for fiscal restraint and direct program funding. The transfer authority provides flexibility but could be seen as reducing congressional oversight.
Title I, Agricultural Research Service
Agricultural Research Service (ARS) Funding
The bill appropriates $1,790,550,000 for ARS salaries and expenses, and an additional $21,000,000 for buildings and facilities. It specifies limits on construction and alteration costs for individual buildings and allows for land acquisitions and lease agreements for research facilities.
Title I, Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service
Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS) Funding
This section provides $1,146,000,000 for APHIS salaries and expenses, including specific allocations for pest control, animal health services, agricultural quarantine, avian health, and emergency preparedness. It also includes a contingency fund for outbreaks and allows for transfers in emergencies.
Title I, Food Safety and Inspection Service
Food Safety and Inspection Service (FSIS) Funding
The bill appropriates $1,216,009,000 for FSIS to carry out services authorized by the Federal Meat Inspection Act, Poultry Products Inspection Act, and Egg Products Inspection Act. It mandates no fewer than 148 full-time equivalent positions for Humane Methods of Slaughter Act inspections.
Title II, Farm Service Agency
Farm Service Agency (FSA) Funding and County Office Protections
This section appropriates $1,100,000,000 for FSA salaries and expenses, with at least $15,000,000 for hiring new employees in county offices and for farm loan officers. It also includes provisos prohibiting the closure of FSA county offices and permanent relocation of county-based employees that would result in offices with two or fewer employees without congressional approval.
Title II, Natural Resources Conservation Service
Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) Conservation Operations Funding
The bill provides $850,000,000 for NRCS conservation operations, including preparation of conservation plans, soil and water conservation measures, and operation of plant materials centers. It also allocates $4,000,000 for the Urban Agriculture and Innovative Production Program.
Title III, Rural Housing Service
Rural Housing Insurance Fund Program Account
This section authorizes significant loan obligations and provides cost appropriations for various rural housing programs, including $880,000,000 for section 502 direct loans, $25,000,000,000 for section 502 unsubsidized guaranteed loans, and $1,715,000,000 for rental assistance agreements. It also includes a $30,000,000 demonstration program for preserving multi-family rental housing.
Title III, Rural Utilities Service
Rural Water and Waste Disposal Program Account
This section authorizes $860,000,000 for direct loans and $50,000,000 for guaranteed loans for rural water, wastewater, and waste disposal programs. It appropriates $346,040,000 for the cost of these loans and grants, including specific amounts for technical assistance and tribal communities.
Title III, Rural Utilities Service
Distance Learning, Telemedicine, and Broadband Program
The bill appropriates $30,157,000 for telemedicine and distance learning grants, $90,750,000 for a broadband loan and grant pilot program (requiring 90% of households served to be in rural areas without sufficient access, defined as 25/3 Mbps), and $15,000,000 for the Community Connect Grant Program.
Title IV, Food and Nutrition Service
Child Nutrition Programs Funding
This section appropriates $35,784,402,000 for child nutrition programs, including the National School Lunch Act and Child Nutrition Act. It allocates funds for studies, farm-to-school grants, food safety education, and amends existing acts to extend funding authorizations.
Title IV, Food and Nutrition Service
Special Supplemental Nutrition Program for Women, Infants, and Children (WIC) Funding
The bill appropriates $7,697,000,000 for WIC, mandating at least $90,000,000 for breastfeeding peer counselors and setting cash-value voucher amounts for women and children. It also requires State agencies to authorize fresh, frozen, canned, and dried fruits and vegetables for specific food packages.
Title IV, Food and Nutrition Service
Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) Funding
This section appropriates $118,141,341,000 for SNAP, with $3,000,000,000 placed in reserve for program operations. It includes funds for nutrition education, demonstration projects for tribal organizations, and extends the availability of funds for employment and training.
Title V, Foreign Agricultural Service
Foreign Agricultural Service (FAS) Funding and International Food Aid
The bill appropriates $227,330,000 for FAS salaries and expenses, and $900,000,000 for Food for Peace Title II Grants. It also provides $220,306,000 for McGovern-Dole International Food for Education and Child Nutrition Program Grants, with a portion for commodity purchases.
Title VI, Food and Drug Administration
Food and Drug Administration (FDA) Salaries and Expenses
This section appropriates $6,682,889,000 for FDA salaries and expenses, with a significant portion derived from various user fees (prescription drug, medical device, generic drug, biosimilar, animal drug, tobacco product). It specifies allocations for human foods, drug evaluation, biologics, veterinary medicine, devices, toxicology, and tobacco products.
Title VII, Sec. 729
Prohibition on Implementing Packers and Stockyards Act Rules
This section prohibits the use of funds to implement or enforce several specific final and proposed rules related to the Packers and Stockyards Act, including those on poultry grower contracting, inclusive competition, poultry grower payment systems, and fair and competitive livestock and poultry markets. It further mandates the Secretary of Agriculture to withdraw or rescind these rules and discontinue related investigations.
Title VII, Sec. 733
FDA Enforcement on E-cigarettes and Vapes
This section mandates that not less than $200,000,000 of FDA funds be used for enforcement activities related to e-cigarettes, vapes, and other electronic nicotine delivery systems (ENDS). It requires updating enforcement priorities to include flavored disposable ENDS, publishing a list of marketing status for ENDS products, continuing a multi-agency task force against illegal products, and submitting semi-annual reports to Congress.
Title VII, Sec. 755
Prohibition on Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion (DEI) Initiatives
This section prohibits the use of any funds appropriated by this Act for diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) initiatives, trainings, programs, offices, officers, policies, or any program, project, or activity that promotes or advances Critical Race Theory or any concept associated with Critical Race Theory.
Title VII, Sec. 759
Redefinition of 'Hemp' and 'Hemp-Derived Cannabinoid Product'
This section significantly amends the Agricultural Marketing Act of 1946 by redefining 'hemp' and introducing a new definition for 'industrial hemp' and 'hemp-derived cannabinoid product'. The new definition of 'hemp' explicitly excludes viable seeds from plants exceeding 0.3% total THC and any hemp-derived cannabinoid products containing non-naturally produced cannabinoids, synthesized cannabinoids, or quantifiable amounts of THC or other similar-effect cannabinoids (as determined by HHS in consultation with USDA).
Title VII, Sec. 764
Secretary of Agriculture as CFIUS Member for Agricultural Transactions
This section includes the Secretary of Agriculture as a member of the Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States (CFIUS) on a case-by-case basis for covered transactions involving agricultural land, biotechnology, or the agriculture industry. It also requires the Secretary to notify CFIUS of agricultural land transactions that may pose a national security risk, especially by foreign governments or entities of concern.
Title VII, Sec. 766
Delay and Conditions for FDA Food Traceability Rule
This section prohibits the use of funds to implement or enforce the FDA's food traceability rule (published November 21, 2022) or any similar rule until August 1, 2028. It also sets conditions for implementation, requiring the FDA to complete at least four evaluations/beta tests with industry stakeholders and establish an expert panel to assess traceback investigations.
Title VII, Sec. 772
Animal Food Ingredients Deemed GRAS and 'Natural' Claims
This section deems certain animal food ingredients as Generally Recognized As Safe (GRAS) if included in the 2025 AAFCO Official Publication and not found unsafe by FDA. It also establishes criteria for using 'natural' claims on animal food labels, requiring truthfulness, non-misleading content, and derivation from plant, animal, or mined sources without synthetic processing, and preempts state laws on this matter. It mandates FDA guidance and regulations on various animal food topics.
Title VII, Sec. 774
Prohibition on Classifying Communications as Mis/Dis/Mal-information or Funding Censorious Organizations
This section prohibits the use of funds to classify or facilitate the classification of any communications by a United States person as mis-, dis-, or mal-information. It also prohibits partnering with or funding nonprofit or other organizations that instruct, influence, direct, or recommend private companies to censor, prohibit, or obstruct lawful and constitutionally protected speech of United States persons, including on social media platforms.
Title VII, Sec. 776
SNAP Authority to Restrict Non-Nutritious Food Purchases
This section amends the Food and Nutrition Act of 2008 to allow the Secretary to improve the health of participating households by restricting their purchase of non-nutritious food and beverage items, as determined by the Secretary.
Title VII, Sec. 780
Protection for Religious Beliefs Regarding Marriage
This section prohibits federal funds from being used to take any discriminatory action against a person based on their sincerely held religious belief or moral conviction that marriage is, or should be recognized as, a union of one man and one woman. Discriminatory actions include altering tax treatment, denying grants, contracts, employment, or federal benefits, or denying access to federal property or facilities.
Limits negotiated indirect cost rates on cooperative agreements between USDA and nonprofit institutions to 10 percent of the total direct cost when the purpose is mutual interest programs. This does not apply to grants and contracts.
Sec. 704
Why it matters:This is a standard administrative cost-saving measure often included in appropriations bills, rather than a deliberate attempt to obscure. However, its impact on specific nonprofit partners can be significant.
Case for: Proponents argue this limits overhead costs for federal funds, ensuring more money goes directly to program activities and maximizing the impact of taxpayer dollars.
Case against: Critics (often nonprofit organizations) contend that a 10% cap on indirect costs is insufficient to cover actual administrative overhead, forcing them to subsidize federal programs and potentially limiting their ability to participate.
Estimated impact: Potentially millions of dollars in reduced overhead payments to nonprofit partners across various USDA programs.
Prohibits funds from being used to implement, administer, or enforce the 'variety' requirements of the 2016 SNAP retailer final rule until the Secretary amends the definition of 'variety' to increase the number of acceptable items. Until then, pre-2014 Agricultural Act requirements apply.
Sec. 726
Why it matters:This is a policy rider that effectively freezes a specific regulatory change, often included in appropriations bills to bypass the normal legislative process for policy debates.
Case for: Proponents (often convenience store and small retailer associations) argue that the 2016 rule's 'variety' requirements were overly burdensome and impractical for many retailers, particularly in rural or underserved areas, limiting food access.
Case against: Opponents (often public health advocates) contend that the 2016 rule was designed to improve the nutritional quality of food available to SNAP participants by ensuring a broader range of healthy options at authorized retailers, and this freeze undermines that goal.
Estimated impact: Maintains the status quo for SNAP retailer stocking requirements, potentially affecting the availability of certain food varieties in stores accepting SNAP.
Allows the Secretary to charge establishments subject to meat, poultry, and egg inspection acts for the cost of inspection services provided outside of an establishment's approved inspection shifts and on Federal holidays. These sums are deemed overtime/holiday pay and remain available until expended for FSIS inspections.
Sec. 730
Why it matters:This is a policy rider that shifts costs, often included in appropriations bills to address specific budgetary or operational challenges without undergoing a separate legislative process.
Case for: Proponents (often FSIS and budget hawks) argue this ensures that the costs of providing inspection services outside of regular hours are borne by the establishments requesting them, rather than taxpayers, and provides flexibility for FSIS staffing.
Case against: Critics (often meat and poultry processors) contend that this increases operational costs for businesses, particularly smaller ones, potentially leading to reduced operating hours, higher consumer prices, or competitive disadvantages.
Estimated impact: Potentially millions of dollars in shifted costs from FSIS to regulated establishments, impacting their operating budgets.
Prohibits the use of funds to impose updated minimum efficiency standards for new housing financed by the Department of Agriculture as part of carrying out the notice entitled 'Final Determination: Energy Efficiency Standards for New Construction of HUD and USDA Financed Housing' (89 Fed. Reg. 33112).
Sec. 743
Why it matters:This is a policy rider designed to block a specific regulatory action, often included in appropriations bills to exert legislative control over executive branch rulemaking.
Case for: Proponents (often homebuilders and some rural housing advocates) argue that updated energy efficiency standards increase construction costs, making affordable housing less accessible in rural areas and potentially slowing development.
Case against: Opponents (often environmental groups and energy efficiency advocates) contend that these standards are crucial for reducing energy consumption, lowering utility costs for residents over the long term, and mitigating climate change impacts.
Estimated impact: Maintains current energy efficiency standards for USDA-financed new housing, potentially resulting in higher long-term energy costs for residents and continued environmental impact compared to updated standards.
Prohibits any funds available to USDA from being used to move any staff office or agency from the mission area in which it was located on August 1, 2018, to any other mission area or office within the Department in the absence of specific legislation affirming such move.
Sec. 750
Why it matters:This is a policy rider aimed at preventing executive branch reorganization without explicit congressional approval, often included in appropriations bills to assert legislative authority over administrative actions.
Case for: Proponents (often members of Congress concerned about oversight) argue this ensures congressional intent is followed regarding agency structure and prevents administrative reorganizations that could undermine program effectiveness or accountability.
Case against: Critics (often executive branch officials) contend that this limits the Secretary's flexibility to adapt USDA's organizational structure to evolving needs, improve efficiency, or respond to new challenges, hindering effective management.
Estimated impact: Maintains the USDA's organizational structure as it existed on August 1, 2018, preventing internal agency shifts without specific legislative action.