Other Ag News: Inside the House’s FY27 Agriculture Spending Bill

On April 29, the House Appropriations Committee approved, by a 35-25 vote, the fiscal year (FY) 2027 Agriculture, Rural Development, Food and Drug Administration, and Related Agencies Appropriations bill. The markup lasted nearly 6 hours, covering a wide range of issues – from staffing shortages at the US Department of Agriculture (USDA), to cuts to conservation programs, to the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) and the Special Supplemental Nutrition Program for Women, Infants, and Children (WIC).

The House bill sets FY27 USDA spending at $22.5 billion, which is $675 million below FY26 levels. These funding reductions come at the expense of many programs popular among farmers, which are detailed below. In addition, the bill includes harmful policy riders that would prevent implementation of rules designed to promote fair competition for livestock farmers under the Packers and Stockyards Act, as well as any similar rulemaking effort (Section 758). However, the bill includes report language on staffing levels at Farm Service Agency (FSA), Rural Development (RD), and Agriculture Research Service (ARS), noting the need for significant and rapid onboarding of employees to these agencies.

The remainder of this blog post provides a deeper analysis of the FY27 House Agriculture Appropriations bill. 

One of the most staggering funding cuts in the bill comes for Conservation Operations (Con Ops). The House funds Conservation Operations at $800 million, roughly $50 million below its current funding level. Included in the $800 million is $636.243 million for Conservation Technical Assistance (CTA), a $61.38 million cut, and zero dollars for the Grazing Lands Conservation Initiative (GLCI), an $8 million cut. This is the largest cut to CTA proposed by the House in recent years, and shows cuts above and beyond reductions in Conservation Operations directed at CTA. As in past years, the House continues to attempt to zero out funding for GLCI, despite the growing popularity of grass-based systems among new farmers and ranchers. This all comes after FY26 appropriations levels cemented one of the largest cuts to Con Ops and CTA in the last decade.

Producers across the country depend heavily on the availability of on-the-ground technical assistance to implement effective conservation practices. CTA facilitates the administration of USDA conservation programs by supporting local staff, conservation planning, and the extension of specialized technical assistance to producers. Conservation Operations funding also protects agricultural land and wetlands, supports NRCS soil surveys, snow surveys, water supply forecasting, and plant materials centers. These provide important information and tools to help producers monitor and manage their land more effectively.

Cuts to CTA are especially notable this year, as the Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS), the primary agency within USDA that delivers on-the-ground conservation assistance to farmers, ranchers, and landowners, is facing record-low staffing levels. CTA funds are flexible in that they allow NRCS to support both its own staff and TA providers at third-party organizations. This is perhaps one of the most important accounts fully funded in order to ensure producers can access conservation programs going forward.

The FY27 House bill also failed to adequately fund sustainable and organic research. The Sustainable Agriculture Research and Education Program (SARE) received $40 million in the House proposal, $8 million below its current funding level, and well below the $60 million that NSAC and over 100 farmers, food, and farm organizations requested. SARE provides farmers and researchers with vital opportunities to better understand agricultural systems, increase profitability, and build on farm resilience. According to SARE’s 2025-2026 Biannual Report From the Field, less than half of eligible Farmer Rancher Grant proposals were able to receive funding from 2024-2025, highlighting the significant lack of funding for farmer-led research. The proposed cut will exacerbate this problem, boxing even more farmers out of the most successful farmer-led USDA research program.

Meanwhile, within organic-focused research, the Organic Agriculture Research and Extension Initiative (OREI) did not receive any discretionary funding on top of its mandatory authorization level of $50 million, continuing a trend seen in recent years. The Organic Transitions Program (ORG) received level funding of $7.5 million, a disappointment in light of repeated calls for increased funding to keep pace with organic market demand. The Agriculture and Food Research Initiative (AFRI) also received level funding of $435 million.

However, the Committee report – which offers guidance to USDA but does not constitute a requirement that the Department has to follow – includes language highlighting the need for more organic research across USDA’s Research, Education, and Economics (REE) Mission Area. Specifically, it addresses:

• “Organic Agriculture Impact Study.—The Committee recognizes that organic producers would greatly benefit from an economic impact study on the effect of organic agriculture on local economies. The Committee directs the Economic Research Service (ERS), in coordination with the Organic Production and Market Data Initiative (ODI), to analyze how organic agriculture affects the labor market, environmental quality, land ownership, social dynamics, and vitality of local economies.”
• Organic Agriculture Research.—The Committee provides no less than the fiscal year 2026 level for organic agriculture research, particularly across the Northern Plains, to address critical producer-identified constraints such as weed management and soil fertility, and to support coordinated research on crops, livestock integration, soil health, and nutrient efficiency to meet demand for organic foods.

Organic groups have long highlighted the need for more resources at USDA directed at Organic, and NSAC is pleased to see the inclusion of this report language in the bill.

Elsewhere within the purview of the USDA-REE Mission Area, the bill does not provide any additional discretionary funding for the Farming Opportunities Training and Outreach Grant Program (FOTO), which includes both the Beginning Farmer and Rancher Development Program (BFRDP) and Outreach and Assistance for Socially Disadvantaged Farmers and Ranchers (2501). While FOTO receives $50 million in mandatory funding that is unaffected by annual appropriations, the program received additional discretionary appropriations each year between FY20 and FY23, which National Sustainable Agriculture Coalition (NSAC) members strongly supported to meet the high demand for the program. BFRDP is the only federal program seeking to explicitly train the next generation of farmers, and 2501 has served as the only farm bill program dedicated to addressing the needs of minority farmers.  

Finally, the bill includes some important report language on Regional Cultivar Development Research, the Long Term Agroecosystem Research Network (LTAR), and ARS staffing that NSAC is pleased to see included.

• “The Committee recognizes that matching crop varieties with weather zones increases production and reduces costs and recognizes that farmers need access to seeds and animal breeds adapted to their farming systems, soils and weather.”
• “Long-Term Agroecosystem Research (LTAR) Network.—The Committee is aware of the LTAR network’s work to support sustainable intensification of agricultural production but is concerned about the lack of geographic diversity and the absence of specialty crop work in the program. The Committee provides an increase of $500,000 to include more geographic and crop diversification in the selection of LTAR sites.”
• “The Committee directs USDA to work expeditiously to fill vacancies for ARS scientists and support staff and to brief the Committee on these efforts within 90 days of enactment of this Act.”

NSAC is pleased to see the House recognize the importance of regional breeding programs and the LTAR Network, as well as highlighting the need for better staffing at ARS.

While the number of farms in the US has steadily declined since 2012, according to the 2022 Census of Agriculture, an inverse effect is being seen with the proportion of farms reporting local and regional sales and the revenue generated from these sales. Unfortunately, despite the clear economic opportunity local and regional markets offer farmers and rural communities, the House bill underdelivers on investments in programs that support local and regional farm economies. 

The Local Agriculture Market Program (LAMP) includes the Value-Added Producer Grant Program (VAPG) and the Farmers Market and Local Food Promotion Program (FMLFPP). Combined, these programs support farmers tapping into new markets or diversifying farm revenue, support updates and expansion of farmers markets, and support the establishment of new or scaled local supply chains.

The House bill provides level discretionary funding for FMLFPP at $7.4 million, which brings its total program investment close to $31 million, coupled with its annual mandatory funding. However, the bill makes another cut in direct funding for farmers by only funding VAPG at $6.5 million. This cut is significant considering the dramatic cuts already made to VAPG in previous fiscal years. Since FY24, VAPG has seen consistent cuts, with FY27 representing a record low from its formerly funded level of $13 million. The House bill proposes discretionary program funding that would be half of what it was just 4 years ago. 

The bill makes further cuts to programs that support new local market opportunities by reducing funding for the Office of Urban Agriculture and Innovative Production (OUAIP). While OUAIP is relatively new, it has demonstrated the capacity to manage multiple grant programs, a national advisory committee, and coordinate resources across USDA. Since it first received funding in FY2020, it has invested over $78 million in 349 grants and cooperative agreements to support the unique needs of agricultural production and community food security in urban, suburban, and rural communities. 

Currently funded at $5 million, the bill proposes only $2 million for OUAIP in FY27, taken out of the aforementioned Conservation Operations account, meaning the bill not only cuts overall funding for OUAIP and Conservation Operations, but further cuts Conservation Operations by using their already limited funding to fund OUAIP. OUAIP has seen significant funding cuts in recent years, dropping from $8.5 million to $7 million in FY24 and from $7.5 million to $5 million in FY26. Despite these cuts, the program remains incredibly popular, resulting in many eligible projects going unfunded. In fact, since its origination, the Office has considered over 2,500 eligible applicants and funded roughly 345 projects, or ~14% of requests.

In addition, for the second year, the House bill proposes a 50% matching requirement for OUAIP grantees. This steep matching requirement would considerably limit even further the types of organizations able to apply for grants, therefore limiting the efforts of farmers, gardeners, citizens, schools, cities, tribes, and other stakeholders trying to address food access, increase food production, provide training and education, and support beginning farmer infrastructure needs. 

The final cut to local and regional food economies impacts not only farmers, but also low-income mothers and their children to readily access fresh, nutritious foods from their local farmers markets. Prior to FY2024, the Farmers Market Nutrition Program for participants in the Special Supplemental Nutrition Program for Women, Infants, and Children (WIC) was well funded at $26 million annually. Unfortunately, since then, the program has not received more than $10 million annually. These cuts have led states, including Colorado and Alabama, to opt out of the program due to insufficient funding.

NSAC recommends that the Senate address these significant cuts by returning these impactful and popular local food program funding to its historical levels, and to do so without new matching requirements and without diverting funding from other accounts.

Given that the House Appropriations Committee was able to pass the FY27 Agriculture Appropriations bill nearly two months earlier than they did last year, all eyes now turn toward the Senate. As of posting, the Senate Agriculture Appropriations Subcommittee has yet to release a FY27 USDA funding proposal, though one is expected in the coming weeks. In the past several years, the Senate has skipped a subcommittee markup, moving instead straight to a full Committee markup. 

Once the Senate Appropriations Committee passes its FY27 Agriculture bill, the next step will be floor consideration of both bills in each respective chamber. Congress has not passed an Appropriations Bill by the end of the fiscal year, September 30, in recent memory. A continuing resolution – which would continue government funding at FY26 levels and prevent another government shutdown– seems likely, though not certain, before the September 30, 2026, deadline.

For detailed information about appropriations, visit NSAC’s Agriculture Appropriations Chart. 

The post Inside the House’s FY27 Agriculture Spending Bill appeared first on National Sustainable Agriculture Coalition.