Keeping Kansans On the Keeping Kansans On the Farm
On December 8, 2025, the U.S. Department of Agriculture announced a $12 billion round of “one-time” emergency payments in the Farmer Bridge Assistance (FBA) program intended to help farmers cope with low crop prices, high input costs, and trade-related disruptions. This follows other rounds of emergency payments this year including the Emergency Commodity Assistance Program (ECAP) for cropping losses in 2024, as well as a variety of emergency disaster assistance payments to farmers. These payments, short-term patches to cover losses underscore a deeper problem: federal farm policy has become reactive rather than strategic. Rather than addressing the structural challenges facing American agriculture, Congress and USDA repeatedly rely on emergency aid to “keep farmers afloat,” with profound long-term consequences for rural communities and the viability of farming itself.
The recent emergency payments are part of a broader pattern in U.S. farm policy. Since the 2018 Farm Bill expired in 2023, it has been extended multiple times without comprehensive reform. Meanwhile, major policy changes have occurred through a budget reconciliation process in July 2025 and the so-called One Big Beautiful Bill Act (OBBBA), that reallocated funds by cutting nutrition programs by $187 billion and diverting $50 billion of that “savings” into commodity payments. This move disrupted the fundamental structure of the Farm Bill for the last several decades, where the food safety net was balanced with farm policy. Some have called this the end of the modern Farm Bill era (bit.ly/4aOmjlP).
While the system of farm subsidies has never been a level playing field for smaller, diversified farmers, the OBBA further undermines the equity of our food and farming systems, as long-standing payment limitations for conservation programs were lifted ensuring that the largest farms can disproportionately benefit even more from federal conservation programs.
Our colleagues at the National Sustainable Agriculture Coalition (NSAC) note the result is a policy environment that prioritizes short-term political wins over long-term agricultural resilience (bit.ly/3OyKD3F).
At the heart of the problem is the structure of U.S. farm support programs. Billions flow annually to farmers through subsidies, crop insurance, and disaster assistance, but these payments disproportionately benefit large-scale commodity producers and equipment and input providers, while many small and mid-sized farms operate on razor-thin margins and struggle to survive. Payments tend to be tied to production scale rather than need, reinforcing a system that rewards overproduction of a handful of major commodities like corn and soybeans, which depresses market prices and burdens producers with excess supply. The truism that you get what you pay for applies here, current farm policy supports commodity production, and we get mountains of corn, soy, and other commodities that keep prices low, while input costs continue to rise. This model of federal support also has significant gaps. The current safety net does not adequately cover the full diversity of farm enterprises, particularly specialty crop producers, beginning farmers, and diversified operations. As a diversified vegetable producer, the farm safety net that exists for farms rarely benefited my own operation or those of my peers. Emergency subsidies, including the recent bridge payments, may offer temporary relief for some, but they do not build the financial stability farmers need to withstand ongoing cost pressures or invest in sustainable practices.
The broader consequences of these policy choices are alarming. In recent years, the number of U.S. farms has steadily declined, with mid-sized farms disappearing at an especially concerning rate. The economic strain contributes not only to business closures but also to serious social and community impacts, including rural depopulation and higher rates of mental health challenges among farmers. Organizations like KRC and others are left trying to support farmers and rural communities in crisis, while the systemic pressures remain either unaddressed or even worsened by the current political environment.
Rather than relying on ad-hoc emergency measures, U.S. farm policy needs a long-term vision that supports sustainable agriculture, diversified markets, and community-based food systems. Years ago, Wes Jackson issued a call for a 50 year farm bill. That kind of long term vision is still sorely needed. This means restructuring support, so it rewards ecological stewardship, and broader participation across farm types and scales—rather than merely subsidizing commodity output. This means really digging into the consolidation that has been happening in agriculture and enforcing anti-trust laws that are already on the books. It also means reorienting federal programs toward strengthening rural economies, improving access to land and capital for beginning farmers, and ensuring that food and farm policies work in tandem to promote both farmer viability and consumer access to nutritious food. NSAC has done a great job of outlining some aspects of such a vision with their blog “Keeping Farmers on the Land” (bit.ly/3OyKD3F).
There is currently a draft Farm Bill up for discussion in the U.S. House. In general, it is more of the same with some new, troubling provisions mixed in with a few slight improvements over the currently extended Farm Bill. KRC does not support the draft as it stands. Even if Congress passes some version of this bill, a deeper re-visioning of American agriculture is needed. An election year does offer us the opportunity to support elected officials whose priorities and values match our own and hold those to account who refuse to work on systemic solutions. If U.S. farm policy hopes to truly “keep farmers on the land,” policymakers must move beyond emergency patches and embrace holistic, proactive reforms that address the root causes of rural economic instability and build a more equitable, sustainable food and farming system.