A complete substitute amendment, v3 fundamentally restructures the bill by adding several new programs and initiatives across various titles, including a comprehensive 'Save Our Sequoias' subtitle and new provisions for precision agriculture, food supply chain resilience, and animal welfare. It also significantly modifies existing programs, such as hemp production regulations and crop insurance policies, making v3 effectively a different bill from v2.
Farm, Food, and National Security Act of 2026
- Sponsor
- Rep. Thompson, Glenn [R-PA-15]
- Committees
- Agriculture Committee (primary)
- Last action
- May 19, 2026
Bottom line
This comprehensive legislation reauthorizes and modifies federal agricultural and rural development programs for five years, introducing significant policy shifts in areas like food aid administration, foreign ownership of agricultural land, and environmental regulations.
What it actually does
This bill, titled the "Farm, Food, and National Security Act of 2026," provides for the reform and continuation of numerous agricultural and other programs administered by the Department of Agriculture through fiscal year 2031. It addresses a wide range of policy areas including commodities, conservation, trade, nutrition, credit, rural development, research, forestry, energy, horticulture, marketing, regulatory reform, crop insurance, and various miscellaneous provisions, with a particular emphasis on national security aspects of agriculture.
Proponents argue
Supporters argue that the bill provides essential stability and modernization for the nation's agricultural sector, ensuring food security, supporting rural economies, and promoting sustainable practices. They highlight provisions that enhance farmer assistance, streamline program delivery, invest in rural broadband and healthcare, and address emerging threats like foreign influence in agriculture and climate resilience. The bill's focus on national security and domestic supply chains is also cited as a key benefit.
Opponents contend
Critics may contend that the bill's spending levels are excessive or that certain provisions do not adequately address the needs of all farmers or rural communities. Concerns could be raised about specific regulatory changes, such as those related to environmental policy or trade, which might be seen as either too lenient or too burdensome. Some may also argue that the bill includes unrelated policy riders that should be debated as standalone legislation.
This is a very lengthy and complex bill, requiring several hours for a thorough reading. The sheer volume of provisions across diverse titles makes it challenging to grasp fully in a short timeframe, necessitating significant dedicated review.
Title I, Sec. 1003
Specialty Crop Emergency Assistance Framework
This section establishes a framework for the Secretary of Agriculture to provide direct assistance to specialty crop producers impacted by adverse events like economic crises or market disruptions. Payments are calculated based on a producer's sales from a preceding calendar year, multiplied by a payment factor. It also sets special rules for considering the higher value and input costs of specialty crops and diverse legal entities, with payment limitations.
Supporters argue
Supporters argue this provision provides a crucial safety net for specialty crop producers, who often face unique risks and market volatility not fully covered by traditional commodity programs. It ensures that these vital agricultural sectors can recover from unforeseen disasters and maintain production.
Critics contend
Critics might argue that creating new direct assistance frameworks could lead to increased federal spending and potential market distortions. Concerns could also be raised about the fairness and transparency of payment factor determinations and the potential for administrative complexity.
Tradeoffs
The provision balances the need to support vulnerable specialty crop producers during emergencies with concerns about federal spending, market intervention, and administrative efficiency. It aims to provide targeted relief while managing the scope of government involvement.
Title II, Subtitle H, Sec. 2701-2702
Forest Conservation Easement Program
This subtitle establishes a new Forest Conservation Easement Program, replacing the Healthy Forests Reserve Program. It aims to conserve and restore eligible forest land and natural resources through easements, protecting working forests, enhancing ecosystem functions, and promoting species recovery. It outlines two types of easements: forest land easements (conveyed to eligible entities) and forest reserve easements (conveyed to the Secretary), with specific cost-share and compensation rules.
Title III, Subtitle A, Sec. 3101
Transfer of Food for Peace Act Authorities to the Secretary of Agriculture
This section transfers all authorities and responsibilities under the Food for Peace Act from the Administrator of the United States Agency for International Development (USAID) to the Secretary of Agriculture. It includes conforming amendments throughout the Act, replacing "Administrator" with "Secretary," and establishes new transfer provisions and a requirement for the Secretary of Agriculture to consult with the Secretary of State.
Title IV, Sec. 4111
Permanent Authority for Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program Online Purchasing
This section grants permanent authority for the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) online purchasing initiative, transitioning it from pilot status to a nationwide program. The Secretary is required to issue regulations within two years to implement this, focusing on program integrity, consumer protections, and equitable access in rural areas. It also mandates stakeholder consultation and a report to Congress.
Title V, Sec. 5105
Limitations on Amount of Farm Ownership Loans
This section significantly increases the maximum loan amounts for direct and guaranteed farm ownership loans. The direct loan limit is raised from $600,000 to $850,000, and the guaranteed loan limit is increased from $1,750,000 to $3,500,000, with both adjusted for inflation starting in fiscal year 2026.
Title VI, Sec. 6201
ReConnect Rural Broadband Program Loans and Grants
This section renames and significantly reforms the rural broadband program, now called the 'ReConnect Rural Broadband Program.' It provides grants, loans, and loan guarantees for broadband deployment in rural areas, prioritizing unserved communities and those with populations under 10,000. It introduces new eligibility criteria, fee structures, and broadband buildout standards, while also streamlining application processes and increasing authorized appropriations.
Title VII, Sec. 7117
Binational Agricultural Research and Development (BARD)
This section amends the Binational Agricultural Research and Development (BARD) program to include other signatories of the Abraham Accords Declaration, in addition to the United States and Israel. It also establishes a 'BARD Fund Accelerator' program to support mid-stage research, fast-track cooperative research, and provide management guidance and technical assistance to scientists.
Title VIII, Subtitle G, Sec. 8701-8711
Save Our Sequoias Act
This subtitle establishes a comprehensive framework to protect giant sequoias from wildfires, insects, and drought. It codifies the Giant Sequoia Lands Coalition, mandates a Health and Resiliency Assessment, declares an emergency for sequoia protection projects (allowing categorical exclusions for environmental reviews), creates Giant Sequoia Strike Teams, and establishes a Reforestation and Rehabilitation Strategy. It also authorizes grants for collaborative restoration and a joint emergency protection fund.
Title IX, Sec. 9012
Limitation on USDA Funding for Ground-Mounted Solar Energy Systems
This section prohibits the Secretary of Agriculture from providing financial assistance for projects that would convert 'covered farmland' (farmland or nonindustrial private forest land) for solar energy production. Exceptions are made for projects converting less than 5 acres, or less than 50 acres if the majority of energy is for on-farm use and local approval is obtained. It also requires a farmland conservation plan for larger exempted projects and prohibits funding for solar components from foreign adversaries.
Title X, Subtitle A, Sec. 10005
Hemp Production Reforms
This section amends the Agricultural Marketing Act of 1946 to revise hemp production regulations. It introduces a procedure for hemp producers to designate their crop as 'industrial hemp' (for fiber/grain) or 'other hemp'. For industrial hemp, it allows for reduced sampling/testing requirements (visual inspections, certified seed) and eliminates the 10-year felony ban for controlled substance convictions. It also clarifies that total tetrahydrocannabinol (THC) concentration (including THCA) must not exceed 0.3% for all hemp.
Title XII, Subtitle A, Part I, Sec. 12005
Importation of Live Dogs
This section establishes new requirements for importing live dogs into the United States. Importers must provide electronic documentation proving the dog is in good health, fully vaccinated, parasite-treated, and officially identified. Dogs intended for transfer must be at least 6 months old and have an import permit. Exceptions are made for personal pets returning, military dogs, research, veterinary treatment, and specific Hawaiian imports. The Secretary must promulgate regulations for implementation, including electronic submission, post-arrival verification, denial of entry, data sharing, and fees.
Title XII, Subtitle A, Part I, Sec. 12006
Ensuring the Free Movement of Livestock-Derived Products in Interstate Commerce
This section establishes a federal right for producers of 'covered livestock' (domestic animals for slaughter or milk products, excluding egg production) to raise and market their products in interstate commerce. It prohibits states or subdivisions from enacting or enforcing production conditions or standards on covered livestock not physically raised in that state, if those conditions are in addition to or different from the production standards in the state where the production occurred. This aims to prevent states from restricting the sale of out-of-state products based on production methods.
Title XII, Subtitle C, Sec. 12306
Prohibition on Purchase of Agricultural Land by Foreign Adversaries and State Sponsors of Terrorism
This section mandates that the President direct federal agencies to promulgate rules prohibiting the purchase of agricultural land in the United States by foreign adversaries, state sponsors of terrorism, or entities owned/controlled by or affiliated with them. It defines 'agricultural land,' 'foreign adversary,' and 'state sponsor of terrorism' for this purpose.
Title XII, Subtitle D, Sec. 12422
Exemption of Farm Equipment from Clean Air Act Emission Standards
This section amends the Clean Air Act to exempt new or in-use agricultural tractors and self-propelled agricultural equipment (used to spray, fertilize, or harvest covered commodities) from emission standards under the Act. This means these types of farm equipment will not be subject to federal air pollution regulations.
Allows initial payments for the Tree Assistance Program (TAP) before costs are incurred and extends the deadline for notice regarding application status to 120 days. It also allows replanting with alternative varieties, stand densities, or locations, with cost-share limitations.
Sec. 1002(d)(6) and (e)(9), Title I
Why it matters:This is standard legislative practice for modifying existing program mechanics, but the advance payment option is a significant change for producers.
Case for: Proponents argue that allowing initial payments and flexibility in replanting helps producers recover more quickly from natural disasters by providing upfront capital and adapting to changing conditions, improving the program's responsiveness and effectiveness.
Case against: Critics might raise concerns about the potential for misuse of advance payments or increased administrative complexity in tracking alternative replanting methods and ensuring compliance.
Estimated impact: Potentially millions in accelerated payments and increased flexibility for tree and nursery growers affected by disasters.
Amends Section 1241(j) of the Food Security Act of 1985 to mandate that composting is a conservation practice and activity for the purposes of Title XII, and defines composting to include activities that produce compost from organic waste generated on-farm or brought from a nearby community, and the use of compost to improve water retention and soil health.
Sec. 2501(e)(2), Title II
Why it matters:Definitional changes are often placed in technical sections, but this particular change has broad implications for conservation funding eligibility.
Case for: Proponents argue that explicitly recognizing composting as a conservation practice will unlock federal funding and technical assistance for farmers to improve soil health, reduce waste, and sequester carbon, contributing to environmental sustainability and farm profitability.
Case against: No specific opposition is typically raised against expanding the definition of conservation practices to include composting, though some might question the criteria for 'nearby community' waste to ensure it genuinely reduces greenhouse gas emissions.
Estimated impact: Potentially millions in new conservation funding for composting projects, impacting waste management and soil health nationwide.
Adds a new Title VII, 'Transfer Provisions,' to the Food for Peace Act, explicitly transferring all assets, liabilities, orders, determinations, permits, grants, loans, contracts, agreements, certificates, and licenses related to the Food for Peace Act from USAID to the Secretary of Agriculture. It also mandates the Secretary of Agriculture to promulgate new rules and consult with the Secretary of State.
Sec. 3101(c), Title III
Why it matters:This is a structural reorganization, and placing the detailed transfer mechanics in a new title is a standard way to implement such a change, though it has significant implications.
Case for: Proponents argue this streamlines food aid administration by consolidating it under USDA, leveraging agricultural expertise and potentially improving efficiency and coordination with U.S. agricultural policy. It ensures a clear chain of command for food aid operations.
Case against: Critics argue that this move could diminish the humanitarian and foreign policy aspects of food aid by removing it from USAID's development and diplomatic mission. It might lead to less integrated development programming and potentially complicate international relations.
Estimated impact: A fundamental restructuring of U.S. international food aid, affecting billions of dollars in programs and thousands of personnel.
Amends the Richard B. Russell National School Lunch Act to require school food authorities to purchase at least 95% domestic products and commodities for each food purchase category designated by the Agricultural Marketing Service. It also prohibits the purchase of raw or processed poultry or seafood from China or Russia for school meals.
Sec. 4302(a), Title IV
Why it matters:This is a policy directive embedded within an existing program's requirements, a common way to implement specific procurement mandates.
Case for: Proponents argue this strengthens domestic agriculture, supports American farmers, and enhances food security by ensuring school meals are sourced almost entirely from U.S. producers. The ban on products from China and Russia is a national security measure.
Case against: Critics might argue that a 95% domestic purchase requirement could increase costs for school food authorities, limit food choices, or be difficult to meet for certain specialty items. The ban on specific countries could also be seen as trade protectionism.
Estimated impact: Potentially millions in increased procurement costs for schools, but significant support for domestic agricultural producers.
Amends Section 363 of the Consolidated Farm and Rural Development Act to prohibit USDA loans or grants for activities that drain, dredge, fill, level, or otherwise manipulate a wetland, or impair water flow, circulation, or reach. Exceptions are made for maintenance of previously converted wetlands and activities that commenced before November 29, 1990. It also adds exclusions for utility lines and permitted activities under the Clean Water Act or Rivers and Harbors Act.
Sec. 6418, Title VI
Why it matters:This is a technical clarification of existing environmental protections within USDA loan programs, often placed in such a manner to ensure consistency with other environmental laws.
Case for: Proponents argue this strengthens wetland protections by clarifying and reinforcing the prohibition on federal funding for activities that harm wetlands, ensuring USDA programs do not inadvertently contribute to environmental degradation. The exclusions provide necessary flexibility for essential infrastructure.
Case against: Critics might argue that the prohibition, even with exceptions, could hinder certain rural development projects or agricultural expansion that might involve minor wetland impacts, potentially increasing costs or limiting land use options for some rural entities.
Estimated impact: Reinforces existing wetland protections, potentially affecting the scope of future rural development projects involving federal funding.
Amends Section 2 of the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA) to revise definitions for 'plant regulator' and 'pesticide,' and adds new definitions for 'plant biostimulant,' 'nutritional chemical,' 'vitamin hormone product,' and 'plant-incorporated protectant.' It exempts certain plant-incorporated protectants from FIFRA requirements if they result from endogenous genetic material and are low-risk, with the EPA Administrator issuing guidance and having the authority to make exceptions.
Sec. 10201, Title X
Why it matters:Definitional and exemption changes in regulatory statutes are inherently technical. The complexity is due to the nature of the subject matter (biotechnology and chemical regulation) rather than an intent to obscure.
Case for: Proponents argue that these changes modernize FIFRA to reflect advancements in agricultural biotechnology, particularly for plant biostimulants and certain plant-incorporated protectants. They contend that exempting low-risk, naturally derived substances from pesticide regulation will reduce regulatory burdens, accelerate innovation, and provide farmers with more tools for sustainable production.
Case against: Critics might express concerns that these exemptions could create regulatory gaps, potentially allowing substances with unforeseen environmental or health impacts to enter the market without adequate oversight. They may argue that a more cautious approach is needed for novel agricultural technologies.
Estimated impact: Potentially billions in new market opportunities for biostimulants and biotech products, while reducing regulatory costs for manufacturers.