Senate Ag Funding Bill Safeguarding USDA Field Offices Clears Appropriations

Senate appropriators unanimously advanced a more moderate, bipartisan plan for 2026 funding levels at USDA and FDA than their House counterparts, with boosts to WIC and measures to prevent field office closures. 

The overall bill allocates $27.1 billion in discretionary funding, an increase from the House-appropriated $25.5 billion. 

The biggest increase in funding levels went to the Special Supplemental Nutrition Program for Women, Infants and Children. The program’s funding would increase by $500 million, which is expected to cover projected increases in participation. The bill also maintains the full Cash Value Benefit for fruits and vegetables, which saw slight cuts in the House bill that advanced out of full committee.

Anti-hunger groups and the International Fresh Produce Association raised alarm over the House-proposed cuts to the fruit and vegetable benefits. 

Under the Senate bill, USDA would need to get approval from House and Senate appropriators before closing or significantly cutting staff at various field offices. This would apply to the Natural Resources Conservation Service, Rural Development, Agricultural Research Service and the Farm Service Agency. 

The agency would also need approval before cutting or relocating staff that would leave offices with fewer than three employees.

Agriculture Secretary Brooke Rollins previously promised the House and Senate Appropriations committees that the agency would not close FSA county offices. 

Hoeven said the Senate will be able to point to this testimony when they take the bill into House negotiations. 

Under the Senate version, Food for Peace is funded at $1.5 billion, which is higher than the House’s $900 million proposal. It also designates $1 million for USDA to consult with the State Department and other relevant departments to conduct a review that outlines the process and agency needs to transfer the program to USDA. 

The House bill initially shifted the program into the Agriculture Department but later stripped this provision during the full committee markup.

This article was originally published by Agri-Pulse. Agri-Pulse is a trusted source in Washington, D.C., with the largest editorial team focused on food and farm policy coverage.