Agriculture, Rural Development, Food and Drug Administration, and Related Agencies Appropriations Act, 2026
- Sponsor
- Sen. Hoeven, John [R-ND]
- Committees
- Appropriations Committee
- Last action
- Jul 10, 2025
Bottom line
This omnibus appropriations bill funds critical agricultural and food-related federal operations for FY2026, while also enacting several significant policy changes and rescissions.
What it actually does
This bill appropriates funds for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2026, for the Department of Agriculture, Rural Development programs, the Food and Drug Administration, and related agencies. It allocates significant funding across various agricultural programs, rural development initiatives, domestic food assistance, and foreign agricultural aid. Additionally, it includes numerous general provisions that enact or amend policy across these areas, ranging from food safety regulations and rural broadband access to definitions of agricultural products and restrictions on agency actions.
Proponents argue
Supporters argue that this bill provides essential funding for America's farmers, ranchers, and rural communities, ensuring food security, promoting agricultural research, and supporting vital rural infrastructure. They contend that the appropriations are necessary to maintain critical services, protect public health through food safety and drug regulation, and advance U.S. agricultural interests abroad. The policy riders are presented as necessary updates or clarifications to existing law, addressing emerging challenges or improving program efficiency.
Opponents contend
Critics might argue that the bill contains excessive spending in certain areas or includes policy riders that are unrelated to the core appropriations function and should be debated as standalone legislation. Concerns could be raised about specific funding allocations, potential impacts on certain industries or consumer groups, or the administrative burden of new regulations. Some might also criticize the use of an omnibus bill to advance policy changes without sufficient individual scrutiny.
The bill is lengthy and contains complex legislative language, requiring a significant time investment for a thorough understanding. Given its omnibus nature, the time typically allotted for public and congressional review before a vote may be insufficient for detailed scrutiny of all provisions.
Title I, Office of the Secretary
Office of the Secretary Appropriations and Specific Initiatives
This provision appropriates $51,792,000 for the Office of the Secretary, including specific allocations for a new Seafood Industry Liaison ($650,000), a Tribal Public Health Resource Center ($1,000,000) at a land-grant university, and funds for the Office of Partnerships and Public Engagement. It also grants the Secretary authority to transfer up to 5% of funds between offices within the Office of the Secretary and sets limits on official reception expenses.
Supporters argue
Proponents argue that these allocations directly address critical needs, such as supporting the seafood industry, enhancing tribal public health, and providing necessary administrative flexibility for the Secretary's office to respond to evolving priorities effectively.
Critics contend
No specific opposition is typically raised against these administrative and liaison provisions, as they are generally seen as necessary for the functioning of the department. However, some might question the specific allocation amounts or the creation of new liaison roles if they perceive existing structures as sufficient.
Tradeoffs
The primary tension is balancing specific programmatic needs with overall budgetary constraints. Allocating funds to new initiatives like the Seafood Industry Liaison means those funds are not available for other departmental priorities, though the amounts are relatively small within the overall budget.
Title I, National Agricultural Statistics Service
National Agricultural Statistics Service Funding and Census of Agriculture
This provision appropriates $187,513,000 for the National Agricultural Statistics Service (NASS), with up to $46,000,000 specifically designated for the Census of Agriculture, available until expended. It also allows funds for the Census of Agriculture to be used for Current Industrial Report surveys and requires a 30-day notification to Congress before discontinuing data collection programs.
Title I, Agricultural Research Service
Agricultural Research Service Funding and Infrastructure
This provision allocates $1,826,778,000 for the Agricultural Research Service (ARS) for salaries and expenses, including specific limits on construction and alteration costs for buildings. It allows for land acquisition and exchanges, and for lease agreements with non-Federal entities for research facilities. An additional $42,650,000 is provided for buildings and facilities, specifically for congressionally directed spending, to remain available until expended. A report on staffing levels and hiring plans for FY2026 is also required.
Title I, National Institute of Food and Agriculture
National Institute of Food and Agriculture Research and Education Activities
This provision appropriates $1,089,510,000 for NIFA's research and education activities, including payments to agricultural experiment stations and cooperative forestry research. Specific amounts are allocated for congressionally directed spending ($13,560,000) and ensure minimum funding levels for Evans-Allen and 1890 institutions. It also limits administrative costs for the Agriculture and Food Research Initiative to 5%.
Title II, Farm Service Agency
Farm Service Agency Operations and Staffing
This provision appropriates $1,209,307,000 for the Farm Service Agency (FSA), with at least $15,000,000 designated for hiring new employees for county offices and farm loan officers, available until September 30, 2027. It mandates a report on project performance and spending, authorizes the use of Commodity Credit Corporation (CCC) services for program payments, and prohibits the closure of FSA county offices or permanent relocation of employees that would result in offices with two or fewer staff without prior congressional approval.
Title II, Natural Resources Conservation Service
Watershed and Flood Prevention Operations Funding
This provision appropriates $52,360,000 for watershed and flood prevention operations, with $32,360,000 specifically for congressionally directed spending, to remain available until expended. It clarifies that the 250,000-acre watershed size limitation only applies to activities primarily for flood prevention. Additionally, $10,000,000 is allocated for multi-benefit irrigation modernization projects that enhance fish/wildlife habitat, reduce drought impact, improve water quality, or provide off-channel renewable energy.
Title III, Rural Housing Service
Rural Housing Insurance Fund Program Account
This provision outlines gross obligations for direct and guaranteed loans under Title V of the Housing Act of 1949, totaling over $26 billion for various housing programs, including section 502 direct and guaranteed loans, section 504 repair loans, section 515 rental housing, and section 538 multi-family housing loans. It also appropriates over $150 million for the cost of these loans and grants, with specific allocations for Native American Tribes and incentives for nonprofit organizations to preserve rural housing.
Title III, Rural Utilities Service
Rural Water and Waste Disposal Program Account
This provision authorizes over $1 billion in direct and guaranteed loans and appropriates $443,776,000 for grants for rural water, wastewater, waste disposal, and solid waste management programs. It includes specific allocations for distressed communities, rural utilities programs, grants for Federally Recognized Native American Tribes and the Department of Hawaiian Home Lands, and technical assistance grants. It also includes a 'Buy American' provision for iron and steel products used in these projects.
Title III, Rural Utilities Service
Rural Electrification and Telecommunications Loans Program Account
This provision authorizes significant loan and loan guarantee amounts for rural electrification and telecommunications, including $2,667,000,000 for guaranteed rural electric loans and $4,333,000,000 for cost-of-money direct loans. Notably, up to $2,000,000,000 is specifically designated for fossil-fueled electric generating plants that utilize carbon subsurface utilization and storage systems. It also includes funding for energy efficiency measures that reduce greenhouse gases and administrative expenses.
Title IV, Food and Nutrition Service
Child Nutrition Programs Appropriations
This provision appropriates $36,285,902,000 for child nutrition programs, including the National School Lunch Act and Child Nutrition Act programs, to remain available through September 30, 2027. It allocates specific amounts for studies and evaluations, farm to school grants (with a $500,000 per recipient limit), and competitive grants for school kitchen equipment. It also extends certain provisions related to school lunch and breakfast programs through FY2027 and FY2026 respectively.
Title IV, Food and Nutrition Service
Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) Funding
This provision appropriates $118,139,341,000 for the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP), with $3,000,000,000 placed in reserve for program operations. It includes funds for nutrition education services for State agencies and Federally Recognized Tribes, demonstration projects for tribal organizations, and other specific initiatives. The appropriation is subject to work registration or workfare requirements and extends the availability of funds for Employment and Training and other sections of the Food and Nutrition Act of 2008.
Title VI, Food and Drug Administration
Food and Drug Administration Salaries and Expenses
This provision appropriates $7,015,038,000 for the FDA, with a significant portion derived from various user fees (prescription drug, medical device, generic drug, biosimilar, animal drug, tobacco product). It allocates funds across major FDA centers (Human Foods, Drug Evaluation, Biologics, Veterinary Medicine, Devices, Toxicological Research, Tobacco Products) and for rent/other activities. Notably, it includes $15,000,000 for foreign seafood inspections and $10,000,000 for pilots to increase unannounced foreign drug inspections. It also transfers $1,500,000 to the HHS Office of Inspector General for FDA oversight.
Sec. 731
Buy American for Rural Water and Waste Projects
This general provision mandates that all iron and steel products used in federally funded rural water, wastewater, waste disposal, and solid waste management projects must be produced in the United States. It defines 'iron and steel products' broadly to include pipes, fittings, manhole covers, hydrants, tanks, structural steel, and construction materials. Waivers are allowed if applying the rule is inconsistent with public interest, if domestic products are unavailable or of unsatisfactory quality, or if it increases project costs by more than 25 percent. Public input is required for waiver requests.
Sec. 734
Prohibition on Funding for Human Embryo Genetic Modification Research
This provision prohibits the use of funds made available by this Act to notify a sponsor or acknowledge receipt of a submission for an exemption for investigational use of a drug or biological product in research where a human embryo is intentionally created or modified to include a heritable genetic modification. Any such submission is deemed not received, and the exemption cannot go into effect.
Sec. 739
USDA Inclusion in CFIUS for Agricultural Transactions
This provision mandates the Secretary of Agriculture's inclusion 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, agriculture biotechnology, or the agriculture industry. The Secretary of Agriculture is also required to notify CFIUS of any agricultural land transaction that may pose a national security risk, especially those by foreign governments or entities of concern like China, North Korea, Russia, and Iran.
Sec. 751
Tribal School Lunch Pilot Program
This provision appropriates $2,000,000 for a pilot program allowing the Secretary of Agriculture to award grants to Indian tribes, tribal organizations, or partnerships to operate and implement federal child nutrition programs (school lunch, summer food service, child and adult care food, school breakfast) in Bureau-funded schools or schools on/near Indian reservations. Grants will be between $10,000 and $100,000 per school year and will reimburse recipients as if they were a State or State educational agency. A report on outcomes is required after the program concludes.
Sec. 753
Bison Production and Marketing Grant Program
This provision appropriates $2,000,000, to remain available until expended, for the Agricultural Marketing Service to develop and maintain a Bison Production and Marketing Grant Program. The program is to be similar to the existing Sheep Production and Marketing Grant Program and will prioritize grants to national non-profits and federally chartered Tribal organizations with expertise in bison production or marketing.
Sec. 761
Labeling Requirement for Engineered Animals
This provision mandates that the acceptable market name of any engineered animal approved prior to February 19, 2019 (the effective date of the National Bioengineered Food Disclosure Standard) must include the words 'genetically engineered' prior to its existing acceptable market name.
Sec. 773
FDA Enforcement on E-cigarettes and ENDS
This provision allocates not less than $200,000,000 from tobacco product user fees to the FDA for enforcement activities related to e-cigarettes, vapes, and other electronic nicotine delivery systems (ENDS). It includes $2,000,000 for a multi-agency task force targeting illegal manufacture, importation, distribution, and sale of ENDS products, especially from China. The FDA Commissioner is required to update enforcement priorities to include flavored disposable ENDS products and define 'disposable ENDS product' within 365 days. Semi-annual reports on progress in removing illegal nicotine products are also mandated.
Sec. 781
Revised Definitions of 'Hemp' and 'Hemp-Derived Cannabinoid Product'
This provision, effective one year after enactment, significantly amends the definitions of 'hemp' and introduces 'industrial hemp' and 'hemp-derived cannabinoid product' under the Agricultural Marketing Act of 1946. It redefines 'hemp' to exclude viable seeds from plants exceeding 0.3% total THC and, crucially, excludes hemp-derived cannabinoid products containing cannabinoids not naturally produced by Cannabis sativa L., or those synthesized/manufactured outside the plant, or containing quantifiable amounts of THC or other cannabinoids with similar effects. 'Industrial hemp' is defined for stalk, fiber, seed, and immature plant uses, or for research.
This section significantly redefines 'hemp' and introduces new categories like 'industrial hemp' and 'hemp-derived cannabinoid product.' Crucially, it excludes from the definition of hemp any viable seeds from plants exceeding 0.3% total THC and, more broadly, hemp-derived cannabinoid products containing cannabinoids not naturally produced by Cannabis sativa L., or those synthesized/manufactured outside the plant, or containing *any quantifiable amounts* of THC or other cannabinoids with similar effects. This effectively targets and reclassifies many products currently sold as legal hemp-derived cannabinoids (e.g., Delta-8 THC, and potentially many CBD products if 'quantifiable amounts' is interpreted broadly).
Sec. 781
Why it matters:The technical and detailed nature of these definitions is standard for legislative changes to complex regulatory frameworks. However, placing such a significant redefinition of a major agricultural commodity and industry within an appropriations bill's general provisions, rather than a standalone agriculture or drug policy bill, could be seen as a tactical maneuver to limit debate and scrutiny. The delayed effective date might be intended to allow industry adjustment or to push the political fallout into a future legislative session.
Case for: Proponents argue that these redefinitions are necessary to clarify the intent of the 2018 Farm Bill, which they contend was to legalize non-intoxicating industrial hemp, not a wide array of psychoactive cannabinoid products. They assert that the current market for 'hemp-derived' products, particularly those with intoxicating effects, poses public health risks due to lack of consistent regulation and that this provision closes loopholes, protects consumers, and distinguishes legitimate industrial hemp from illicit cannabis.
Case against: Opponents argue that this provision would effectively criminalize a significant portion of the existing, multi-billion dollar hemp-derived cannabinoid industry, including many CBD products and all intoxicating cannabinoids derived from hemp. They contend it would lead to massive job losses, destroy businesses, and push consumers towards an unregulated black market, undermining the progress made since the 2018 Farm Bill. They also argue that 'quantifiable amounts' is an overly strict standard that could even capture trace, non-intoxicating levels of THC.
Estimated impact: Potentially billions of dollars in lost revenue for the hemp-derived cannabinoid industry, significant job losses, and a major shift in the legal status and availability of cannabinoid products for consumers. It would also create a substantial new enforcement burden for federal and state agencies.
This section requires the Secretary of Agriculture to be included as a member of the Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States (CFIUS) for transactions involving agricultural land, agriculture biotechnology, or the agriculture industry. It also mandates the Secretary to notify CFIUS of any agricultural land transaction that may pose a national security risk, particularly from foreign governments or entities of concern (e.g., China, Russia, Iran, North Korea).
Sec. 739
Why it matters:Integrating USDA into CFIUS reviews for agricultural transactions is a significant policy change that could have been introduced as standalone legislation. Its inclusion in an appropriations bill suggests a desire to ensure its passage by attaching it to a must-pass vehicle, potentially avoiding a more extensive legislative process that might involve multiple committees or broader debate on foreign investment policy.
Case for: Proponents argue that agricultural assets, including land and biotechnology, are critical components of national security and that USDA's expertise is essential for a comprehensive review of foreign investments in these sectors. They contend that this closes a critical gap in CFIUS oversight, especially given growing concerns about foreign adversaries acquiring strategic U.S. assets.
Case against: Opponents might argue that adding another agency to CFIUS reviews could further complicate and slow down an already lengthy process, potentially deterring beneficial foreign investment in the U.S. agricultural sector. They may also contend that existing CFIUS members can already consult with USDA as needed, making a permanent membership unnecessary.
Estimated impact: Increased scrutiny and potentially longer review times for foreign investments in U.S. agriculture, with a focus on transactions involving adversarial nations. This could impact the flow of foreign capital into the agricultural sector.
This section prohibits the FDA from using funds to develop, issue, promote, or advance any new guidelines or regulations applicable to food manufacturers for population-wide sodium reduction actions until the publication of the 2025-26 National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (NHANES) What We Eat In America survey, which will begin to reflect the impact on population intake of Phase 1 reduction.
Sec. 776
Why it matters:This provision effectively delays a public health initiative by tying it to a specific data release. Such a delay could be politically motivated to provide industry more time or to avoid regulatory action that might be unpopular with certain food manufacturers. Placing it in an appropriations bill allows it to bypass the regular committee process for health policy, where it might face more scrutiny from public health advocates.
Case for: Proponents (likely food manufacturers and some industry groups) argue that delaying further sodium reduction guidelines is necessary to allow sufficient time to assess the impact of previous reduction efforts (Phase 1). They contend that new guidelines should be based on the most up-to-date population intake data to ensure they are effective, feasible, and do not have unintended consequences for food taste or consumer acceptance.
Case against: Opponents (likely public health organizations and medical professionals) argue that delaying sodium reduction guidelines unnecessarily postpones critical public health interventions. They contend that high sodium intake is a major contributor to hypertension and cardiovascular disease, and that further delays will result in preventable illness and death. They might argue that sufficient data already exists to justify continued action.
Estimated impact: A delay of at least several years in the FDA's ability to issue new population-wide sodium reduction guidelines, potentially impacting public health outcomes related to cardiovascular disease and hypertension. It provides a reprieve for food manufacturers from new regulatory requirements.