The U.S. House has passed its version of the Farm, Food, and National Security Act of 2026, marking an important step in a process that has already extended well beyond its original timeline. Attention now shifts to the Senate, where Agriculture Committee leadership, including John Boozman, has indicated that draft legislative text will be released in the coming weeks, though that timeline runs up against a scheduled recess beginning May 22. This creates a narrow and somewhat uncertain window for Senate action, and raises the possibility that negotiations could extend further into the year.
At the same time, the president’s proposed budget introduces a competing set of priorities, including the elimination of several programs that local and regional food systems rely on. Taken together, these developments illustrate both forward movement and continued instability in federal policy affecting Kentucky farmers. CFA is just about halfway done reading the legislation, but this is a glance at where we are right now.
What the House Farm Bill Does
The House-passed bill largely maintains the existing framework for local and regional food systems, while making targeted adjustments that could have meaningful implications depending on how they are ultimately implemented.
- Section 2302, State assistance for soil health, expands support and appropriates funding for soil health through state level programming, which has clear relevance for Kentucky given the interest our members have in soil health initiatives across the state. This provision creates additional opportunity to align federal conservation resources with locally driven priorities, though the extent of its impact will depend on final funding levels, state participation, and administrative design.
- Section 4110, Animal protein an eligible incentive food, makes a notable change within nutrition incentive structures (which appears to affect GusNIP and Farmers Market Nutrition Program, at first glance) by expanding eligibility to include animal proteins. While this adjustment reflects an effort to broaden participation and consumer choice, it also raises important questions about how incentives will be structured in practice and whether support for locally produced fruits and vegetables will remain a central focus within these programs.
- Section 4306, Local Farmers Feeding Our Communities, is a revamp of the Local Food Purchasing Program and Local Food for Schools Programs, which were very successful in KY. Based on quick calculations, this program may deliver between $2 and $3 million annually to Kentucky farmers, helping to stabilize markets and strengthen local procurement. At the same time, it also allocates funding to administer the program. Its inclusion in the House bill represents a clear recognition of the role that local purchasing programs play in both farm viability and food access.
- Section 5109, Heirs Property Resolution through Direct Public Interest Legal Services, addresses heirs property, an issue that continues to affect land access and retention for many producers. By providing funding for attorney and other fees to resolve heirs property issues, this legislation increases pathways for resolving heirs property challenges and has the potential to support long term farmland stability, particularly for multi generational operations.
In addition to these sections, amendments adopted during markup further signal an effort to improve access and usability of federal programs.
- The Farmer to Farmer Education Act of 2025 provides funding for programs that specifically support peer learning, reinforcing the value of farmer led knowledge exchange. The link above goes to the Senate bill referenced in the amendment.
- Amendment 45, (scroll down to amendment on this link) The Promoting Access to Local Agriculture, amendment focuses specifically on reducing administrative barriers by making it easier for farmers and farmers markets to register for and participate in federal nutrition incentive programs, a change that could meaningfully expand participation if implemented effectively.
- Amendment 54 (scroll down to amendment on this link) requires USDA to provide online enrollment options for disaster assistance programs, addressing a long standing barrier for many smaller operations.
While these policy changes are, on their face, promising, they represent only one stage in a much longer process. The House bill must still be reconciled with a Senate version, assuming the Senate advances its own bill, and ultimately any final provisions will need to be implemented in ways that are accessible, adequately funded, and responsive to on the ground realities.
The Budget Proposal: A Different Direction
In contrast to the House bill, the president’s proposed budget would eliminate funding for several programs that are central to local and regional food systems, particularly those that rely on discretionary funding rather than mandatory baseline support.
Among the programs proposed for elimination are the following:
- GusNIP Produce Prescription Program, which connects healthcare and food access while creating reliable markets for farmers, including starting CFA’s FreshRx for MOMS, which has resulted in over $500,000 of fresh produce going to mothers on WIC or Medicaid;
- the Rural Cooperative Development Grant program, which supports organizations such as the Kentucky Center for Agriculture and Rural Development in providing business development assistance, which builds the backbone to $39 million in economic impact on farms last year;
- Dairy Business Innovation Centers, which help small and mid sized dairy producers diversify and remain competitive, including at least 2 in KY;
- the Acer Access and Development Program, which supports value added forest products, and has helped support KY’s efforts to harvest and market maple;
- and the Expanded Food and Nutrition Education Program, which provides nutrition education that often complements local food purchasing efforts through cooperative extension.
Individually, these programs may appear relatively small within the broader federal budget, but collectively they form a critical layer of infrastructure for local food systems. Their elimination would not only reduce direct support to farmers, but also weaken the networks and institutions that make regional markets function.
Where This Leaves Us
At this stage, federal policy is sending mixed signals. The House farm bill maintains and, in some cases, strengthens key local food programs, while the proposed budget suggests a significant pullback in funding for many of those same efforts.
This disconnect underscores a fundamental challenge for local food systems, which are often authorized through legislation but remain dependent on annual appropriations to function. For Kentucky farmers, the outcome will depend not just on what is included in the final farm bill, but on whether those programs are ultimately funded and implemented in a way that allows them to be used effectively.
With the Senate expected to release draft language soon, and appropriations decisions still ahead, the coming weeks will be critical in determining whether recent progress translates into sustained support or continued uncertainty.
This isn’t the last word on Farm Bill and Appropriations
These decisions are not final. Contact your Senators about how the farm bill and budget appropriations about those zeroed out programs if they have supported your farm or community. Make clear that local food programs must be both protected and funded if they are going to work for farmers and communities.