What the Senate Farm Bill Markup Means for Farmers, Businesses and Resilient Food Systems

On Aug. 6, the Senate Agriculture Committee held a markup of its most recent draft of the 2026 Farm Bill, but did not advance the legislation for a full Senate vote. 11-10 against reporting the bill to the Senate floor after Chairman John Boozman, R-Ark., released revised text July 31. That draft included a one-year delay in requiring states to share in Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) benefit costs, an increase in the maximum share of SNAP costs that states with high payment error rates could eventually be responsible for, and authorization for permanent, year-round sales of ethanol-gasoline blends (E15).

Every vote in the markup fell along party lines. Senators filed more than 200 amendments, and most never got a hearing. Two Republicans were effectively absent for the final vote: Sen. Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., voted by proxy while recovering from a fall, and Sen. Tommy Tuberville, R-Ala., left the room before the tally. Even with Tuberville present, the vote would have been 11-11, and the bill still would have failed.

For businesses deciding whether to weigh in this fall, the important takeaway is that the Farm Bill is still being negotiated. The Senate Agriculture Committee did not have the votes to advance the bill on Aug. 6, but negotiations will continue behind the scenes before lawmakers try again. The next markup could be a further negotiation on the same text from July 31st, or new text including changes could be shared in the weeks ahead. Either way, senators should go into those discussions prepared to understand and advocate for the priorities of the constituents and businesses they represent.

The markup showed where the bill still falls short

ASBN and our allies remain concerned that the current draft does not meet the moment for farmers and communities. Producers are absorbing high input costs, market uncertainty, climate and weather risks, and continued economic pressure. At the same time, businesses that depend on a strong agricultural economy need reliable supply chains, functioning public programs, and a policy environment that fosters investment and resilience.

The markup made clear that many of these concerns are being raised by members of the Senate Agriculture Committee. Several amendments addressed issues ASBN has tracked throughout the Farm Bill process, although many were not adopted. As a result, the underlying bill lacked sufficient support to advance. This gives lawmakers an opportunity to return to the negotiating table and address the remaining concerns before moving the legislation forward.

SNAP and state costs

SNAP remained the central barrier to advancing the Farm Bill.

The committee rejected an amendment from Sen. Ben Ray Luján, D-N.M., and other amendments that would have further delayed changes requiring states to take on a greater share of SNAP costs. It also adopted a change giving states and counties additional flexibility in determining which payment-error data is used to calculate future SNAP cost-sharing obligations, allowing them to use either their fiscal 2026 or fiscal 2027 rate, whichever is lower. Republicans offered a one-year delay. Democrats wanted two. That gap is what stopped the bill.

The SNAP changes represent a modification of the proposed cost-sharing approach, but they do not eliminate the underlying shift of SNAP costs to states. Under the proposal, states with higher payment error rates could eventually face greater financial responsibility for the program.

ASBN remains concerned that shifting additional SNAP costs to states and counties without sufficient time to prepare could put pressure on already constrained local budgets and weaken the economic infrastructure that helps communities remain resilient.

What this means for business: SNAP is more than a federal benefit program. SNAP dollars circulate through local economies, supporting grocers, farmers, food manufacturers and distributors. USDA estimates that SNAP spending generated an additional $49 billion in annual rural economic output and supported 279,000 rural jobs each year between 2009 and 2014. When states and counties are asked to absorb new costs, the impact can extend beyond government budgets to the businesses and communities that depend on this economic activity.

A strong Farm Bill should recognize that healthy communities are part of a resilient economy. Food security, farmer livelihoods, and local business activity are interconnected, and federal policy should strengthen rather than undermine those connections.

Pesticide accountability

Senators considered an amendment from Sen. Cory Booker, D-N.J., to ensure the Farm Bill would not provide liability protections to pesticide manufacturers following the recent Supreme Court decision in Monsanto v. Durnell. Decided June 25, that ruling held that the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act preempts state-law failure-to-warn claims where EPA has determined a warning is not required. The amendment was not adopted.

This leaves an important issue unresolved. Businesses and farmers benefit from clear, predictable rules and a level playing field. Providing special protections to pesticide manufacturers would shift costs and risks away from companies that make them and onto farmers, businesses, communities, and taxpayers.

What this means for business: the ruling did not remove liability from the system. It relocated it. Farmers and applicators still bear exposure to how a product is used, while the manufacturer that wrote the label bears less. Businesses that buy agricultural inputs, insure farm operations or lend against them should expect that risk to sit further down the supply chain than it did a year ago.

ASBN believes a strong Farm Bill should preserve accountability and maintain the ability of states and federal agencies to protect public health, farmers, and the environment.

Conservation and farmer support

Conservation programs are another area where the Farm Bill should be doing more, not less.

Sens. Amy Klobuchar, D-Minn., and Michael Bennet, D-Colo., each introduced amendments to address proposed reductions of approximately $1.9 billion to the Environmental Quality Incentives Program (EQIP). This conservation program helps farmers improve soil health, conserve water, manage risk and build resilience. Both failed on party-line votes. Klobuchar’s amendment would also have created a 30% EQIP set-aside for small farms and authorized soil health testing. Separately, the bill would permanently cut $500 million from the Conservation Stewardship Program baseline.

EQIP is oversubscribed every year, and USDA funds only a portion of the applications it receives. In 2025, it hit an all-time high with just 24% of applicants receiving funding. Cutting an oversubscribed program does not reduce the demand. It moves the cost of meeting that demand onto farmers.

These programs are not simply environmental investments. They are tools that help farmers manage risk, improve operational productivity, protect natural resources, and prepare for increasingly challenging growing conditions. Strong conservation investments also support the long-term health of the agricultural economy on which businesses and communities depend.

ASBN supports preserving and strengthening conservation investments and ensuring that farmers have access to the technical assistance and resources needed to implement them.

USDA capacity and program delivery

The markup also raised concerns about USDA’s ongoing reorganization and its ability to deliver the programs Congress funds. Sen. Peter Welch’s amendment would have required USDA to publish a cost-benefit analysis before relocating employees, make public the comments received on that analysis, and respond to those comments. It also would have preserved the Senate-confirmed Under Secretary positions at USDA, including the Under Secretary for Food, Nutrition and Consumer Services position eliminated in USDA’s recent reorganization. While the amendment was not adopted, the discussion highlighted an issue inseparable from the Farm Bill itself: programs only work when farmers can actually access them.

Farmers and rural businesses rely on USDA staff for technical assistance, planning, lending, conservation, disaster assistance, nutrition programs, and other services. Reducing the capacity of the agency responsible for delivering those programs risks undermining the very investments Congress is making.

What this means for business: USDA capacity is part of the value of the programs Congress funds. A conservation practice a farmer cannot get technical assistance to implement does not change a single acre, and a loan program without enough staff to process applications does not move capital. Businesses evaluating what this Farm Bill will actually do in the field should look beyond authorization and funding levels to whether USDA has the capacity to deliver them.

ASBN supports a USDA with the staffing, technical expertise, and on-the-ground capacity necessary to effectively serve farmers and rural businesses.

Market transparency

One positive development from the markup was the adoption of an amendment restoring mandatory country-of-origin labeling for beef.

Greater transparency can give consumers more information about where their food comes from while providing producers with greater visibility in the marketplace. For ASBN, this fits within a broader goal of building agricultural markets where independent farmers and businesses can compete and where value is not unnecessarily concentrated within the supply chain.

What this means for business: labeling gives food companies a sourcing claim they can substantiate and gives ranchers a way to compete on how and where they raise cattle rather than on volume alone. If your business already makes origin claims, this amendment would put a federal floor under them.

What happens next?

The Farm Bill did not advance on Aug. 6, but the process is not over. The committee recessed and is expected to return to the legislation in September, giving lawmakers another opportunity to negotiate and address the issues that prevented the bill from moving forward.

The markup also gave us a clearer picture of where lawmakers stand. The failure to advance the bill demonstrates that significant disagreements remain, particularly around SNAP cost sharing. At the same time, the amendments considered during the markup show interest in addressing issues ranging from conservation and market transparency to USDA capacity and accountability.

What businesses can do now

The Farm Bill did not advance out of the Senate Agriculture Committee on Aug. 6, but the process is not over. The committee will now go back to behind-the-scenes negotiations before attempting another markup. Lawmakers could release a new version of the bill, or continue working from the Aug. 6 text to resolve the issues that prevented it from advancing.

That makes this a critical window for businesses to weigh in. The next version of the bill is still being shaped, and senators need to hear from the businesses and communities that will be affected by the choices they make.

Contact your senators, especially if you live in a state with a member of the Agriculture Committee (you can look up your legislators here). Tell them what your business actually depends on: a reliable SNAP customer base, access to conservation programs, USDA technical assistance, resilient agricultural supply chains, or predictable rules for agricultural inputs and markets.

Specific examples from businesses carry more weight than general statements of support. A grocer describing what SNAP sales mean for its business, a farmer explaining what conservation assistance means for managing risk, or a food company describing how USDA programs affect its sourcing can help lawmakers understand the real-world consequences of the choices before them. 

Tell ASBN if this bill would directly affect your operations. We can help connect member business voices with reporters and policymakers, and specific examples from businesses will be especially useful in September as senators work toward the next version of the bill. 

If the Senate Agriculture Committee reaches an agreement and advances the bill, the next step will be a vote by the full Senate. From there, the House and Senate will need to reconcile their respective Farm Bill proposals before a final bill can reach the President’s desk.

Watch for the reconvened markup. We will notify members when the committee schedules its return so there is time to act before the vote.

For ASBN, the path forward should be clear. 

The next Farm Bill should: 

• Strengthen the economic resilience of farmers and rural communities.
• Protect conservation investments that help farmers manage risk and build productive, resilient operations.
• Ensure USDA has the capacity to deliver the programs farmers depend on.
• Preserve state and federal authority to protect public health and the environment and maintain accountability for companies whose products affect farmers and communities. 
• Support competitive, transparent agricultural markets and resilient regional food systems.

A resilient agricultural economy is essential to a resilient business and food system. Farmers need the tools and resources to remain viable. Businesses need reliable agricultural supply chains. Communities need access to healthy food, clean water, and functioning public programs. These priorities are not separate from economic growth; they are part of the foundation that makes a resilient economy possible.

As negotiations continue, businesses have an important role to play. Senators need to hear from the businesses that depend on a strong agricultural economy. Send an email to your senator today using ASBN’s template here and tell your story with our tool here.