This week, the Senate moved one step closer to passing its budget bill. This is the “big, beautiful bill” that President Donald Trump is pushing lawmakers to pass before Independence Day. Included in the Senate’s initial proposal are a number of provisions to help farmers. But will farmers benefit from this latest plan? That depends on who you ask.
What’s in the bill?
Similar to the House version, the Senate bill attempts to increase farm safety net spending through cuts to nutrition programs. Those changes are part of a broader effort by Republicans to pass a budget bill through the reconciliation process, which allows them to enact their priorities over Democrats’ objections.
Those priorities include tax cuts and increased spending for border security and defense. Lawmakers from farming regions are also attempting to use this opportunity to increase funding for farm safety net programs since legislators remain far apart on a full five-year farm bill.
To achieve those objectives, lawmakers are proposing spending cuts in other areas, notably nutrition spending and Medicaid. The Senate Agriculture Committee is proposing major cuts to the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, as well as stricter qualifications for recipients. Some legal immigrants would also no longer be eligible for nutrition assistance.
In line with the House, the Senate committee’s proposal includes shifting some SNAP costs to the states. However, the specifics of that plan had to be changed after the Senate parliamentarian ruled the initial proposal would not be allowed. That’s because those directives fell outside the authority that Congress has to pass legislation through the reconciliation process.
The Senate Ag Committee subsequently revised its plan to have the amount states pay tied to the error rates in SNAP functions they oversee. In a June 25 statement, Chairman John Boozman, R-Ark., said he is proud of the legislation because it reflects Senate Republican policy priorities. He said it also represents a “strong commitment” to rural America.
That commitment includes increases to all statutory reference prices beginning with the 2025 crop year. Regarding the choice between Agriculture Risk Coverage and Price Loss Coverage, landowners will need to decide each year through 2031. However, for the 2025 crop years, they will receive the higher of ARC or PLC.
Payment limits for those two programs would also increase from $125,000 to $155,000. Going forward, this limit would be adjusted annually based on inflation.
“This is a practical approach to improve SNAP by reducing waste, enhancing accountability and encouraging recipients to move toward self-reliance through work and training,” Boozman said. “We also invest in America’s farm families by providing essential risk management tools and modernizing the farm bill’s safety net to help producers continue to farm.”
The Senate proposal, as it currently stands, would reduce staffing at the USDA Natural Resources Conservation Service, slash conservation funding and virtually eliminate funding to the Conservation Technical Assistance program.
This does not sit well with Angie Craig, D-Minn., the ranking member of the House Ag Committee. According to her, taking resources away from the Farm Service Agency, USDA Rural Development and NRCS does nothing to help farmers and rural communities. She said rural America is already facing a crisis.
“Slashing value-added producer grants and Food for Peace [program funding] takes money out of farmers’ pockets,” Craig said in a June 24 statement. “Underfunding agriculture research programs puts American farmers at a disadvantage. Undermining efforts to level the playing field for small- and medium-sized farms makes markets less fair and harder for family farmers to compete. I strongly oppose this agriculture appropriations bill.”
Farm group reaction
American Soybean Association officials are concerned that the Senate proposal does not prohibit foreign biofuel feedstocks from being eligible for U.S tax credits, a key difference from the House bill. ASA President Caleb Ragland said providing tax dollars for foreign feedstock competitors will come at the expense of American soybean farmers.
“The Senate 45Z proposal turns its back on the Trump administration’s farmer-first American energy dominance agenda, which was highlighted through EPA’s strong renewable volume obligations proposal that U.S. agriculture applauded,” he said in a June 18 statement.
The National Cattlemen’s Beef Association endorsed the Senate bill because of tax provisions it believes will benefit cattle producers. NCBA signed on to letters from the Family Business Estate Tax Coalition and the Tax Aggies Coalition urging lawmakers to pass the bill. Ethan Lane, NCBA senior vice president of government affairs, said his organization’s message is simple: Pass the “big, beautiful bill.”
“Across the nation, farming and ranching families are thinking about how their cattle operation stays in business for future generations,” he said. “Legislation that reduces the death tax, cuts taxes across the board, and helps farmers and ranchers keep more of their hard-earned money is how we keep America’s agricultural legacy going strong for future generations.”
What’s next?
Before a final budget bill makes it to Trump for his signature, the House and Senate need to reconcile differences between their respective plans. Before that can happen, Senate Republicans will need to finalize a version that that has the support of all but three of their colleagues. That’s because all Senate Democrats are expected to oppose the bill after being excluded from most of the negotiations.
Senate Republicans are also hoping their final draft will be acceptable to the House to prevent protracted negotiations between the two chambers. Still, with lawmakers in both chambers prioritizing different provisions, which could be easier said than done.