House Passes Farm Bill 2.0 After Fractious Floor Fight
Republicans carry final passage with limited Democratic support as amendment battles — including pesticide liability amendment — dominate debate
The U.S. House on Thursday passed the $390 billion Farm, Food, and National Security Act of 2026 (HR 7567) — commonly referred to as “Farm Bill 2.0” — following a turbulent floor process marked by internal Republican divisions, near-unanimous Democratic opposition, and a lengthy amendment series. The bill cleared the chamber by a narrow margin of 224–200, reflecting the GOP’s slim majority and the highly partisan nature of the vote.
The party breakdown underscored that divide. Democrats largely opposed the bill because it maintained significant cuts to food stamp programs that President Trump and Republicans locked in last year through their sweeping domestic policy law. Meanwhile, internal Republican divisions — centered on disputes over pesticide policy, ethanol provisions, and regulations affecting pork producers — threatened to derail the measure’s progress in the House this week. House GOP leaders had to step in and while it took hours of talks, revise a farm bill strategy that would work.
Republicans overwhelmingly supported the bill, with only three defections: Brian Fitzpatrick (Pa), Andrew Garbarino (N.Y.) and Harriet Hageman (Wyo.).
Democrats largely opposed it as a bloc, particularly over nutrition cuts and regulatory provisions embedded in the package. But 14 Democrats and one Independent supported the final bill. This stood in contrast to earlier committee action, where seven Democrats had supported advancing the bill, but bipartisan support eroded by the time it reached the floor. However, this is the highest number of votes from the minority party on a House farm bill since 2008.
Democrats voting yes on the farm bill:
Sanford Bishop (Ga.)
Jim Costa (Calif.)
Henry Cuellar (Texas)
Sharice Davids (Kan.)
Donald Davis (N.C.)
Vicente Gonzales (Texas)
Adam Gray (Calif.)
Marcy Kaptur (Ohio)
Kristen McDonald Rivet (Mich.)
Marie Gluesenkamp Perez (Wash.)
Josh Riley (N.Y.)
Kim Schrier (Wash.)
Darren Soto (Fla.)
Gabe Vasquez (N.M.)
Kevin Kiley (I-Calif.) voted yes
Not voting on the farm bill:
Andy Biggs (R-Ariz.)
Eric Burlison (R-Mo.)
Thomas Kean (R-N.J.)
Barry Loudermilk (R-Ga.)
Jason Smith (R-Mo.)
Frederica Wilson (D-Fla.)
Amendment process shapes final package
Dozens adopted or rejected amid overnight debate and floor maneuvering
The House considered an unusually large amendment slate, with around 360 filed and 57 made for debate, highlighting the breadth of policy fights wrapped into the legislation.
During overnight and early-morning debate, lawmakers adopted a series of changes while deferring or rejecting others tied to the most contentious issues. Among the notable developments:
- Amendments targeting controversial provisions — including pesticide language, SNAP restrictions, and livestock rules — were central to floor negotiations.
- Some non-agriculture provisions, such as language affecting hunting and conservation programs, were removed prior to final passage, reflecting pressure from outside groups and bipartisan coalitions.
- Amendment sponsored by Rep. Rick Crawford (R-Ark.) was approved. It makes hot rotisserie chicken eligible for purchase with Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) benefits. Efforts to prohibit SNAP recipients from purchasing soda with their benefits failed.
The bill contains other provisions, including a transfer of Food for Peace authority to USDA, conservation program funding, the Plant Biostimulant Act, increased access to credit programs, funding for precision agriculture, reauthorization of the Biobased Markets (BioPreferred) Program and Biorefinery Assistance Program, and it addresses federal issues caused by state-level animal welfare initiatives.
The approved measure includes an amendment that would reauthorize the U.S. Grain Standards Act, which ensures continuity for the federal grain inspection and weighing system that underpins domestic and international confidence in U.S. grain.
The bill maintains the current Conservation Reserve Program (CRP) cap and increased funding for the Market Access Program (MAP) and other important trade programs.
Another source of conflict emerged over the “Save Our Bacon Act,” a provision that barred states from regulating livestock production in other states, pushed by the pork industry after the Supreme Court upheld a California law (Proposition 12) creating minimum space requirements for livestock. A bipartisan coalition of lawmakers had proposed stripping the provision from the bill, but Republican leaders rejected their efforts. At least two Republican representatives who were part of that coalition, Brian Fitzpatrick of Pennsylvania and Andrew Garbarino of New York, voted against the legislation. However, sources say this language may have to be dropped by a final House/Senate conference farm bill as it faces opposition in the Senate.
Meanwhile, divisions over ethanol (E15) policy and refinery treatment complicated the process and contributed to delays earlier in the week, though those issues were separated from the final passage vote.
Of note: As for the timing of a coming House vote on year-round E15, I messaged a key contact as follows: “Thanks for giving me good advice on the farm bill yesterday (April 29). You are why I did not follow many other ag writers in saying the farm bill would not be voted on. Now you are only as good as your latest forecast… so when do you think the House will vote on E15?” The contact’s answer: “Reportedly in a couple weeks but that hinges on cobbling together an agreement that has the votes.” GOP leaders agreed to hold a standalone vote on E15, reportedly on May 13 — though that means the House’s farm bill can’t be sent to the Senate until they pass or break off E15. History shows one should not listen to forecasts of this issue by biofuel lobbyists or certain farm-state lawmakers, whose track record on year-round E15 has been abysmal.
Pesticide amendment and Bayer liability flashpoint
Central policy fight focused on federal pre-emption of labeling and litigation exposure
One of the most contentious elements of the House bill — and the amendment debate — centered on pesticide regulation and liability, particularly provisions viewed as benefiting Bayer and other agrochemical manufacturers.
The base bill included language establishing federal primacy over pesticide labeling, effectively making the Environmental Protection Agency the primary authority and limiting the ability of states to impose additional warning requirements.
Critics — spanning Democrats and some Republicans — argued the provision would function as a liability shield, preventing lawsuits tied to failure-to-warn claims and insulating companies like Bayer from litigation over products such as glyphosate. “Stripping pesticide liability language out of the farm bill proves that grass-roots pressure can break through even the most entrenched corporate influence,” Vani Hari, who writes the Food Babe blog, said in a statement.
Supporters, led by House Ag Committee Chairman GT Thompson (R-Pa.), countered that the intent was to avoid a patchwork of state labeling laws and maintain a uniform national regulatory framework, arguing that “bad actors” could still be sued under existing law.
The controversy triggered a bipartisan amendment push — including efforts led by Rep. Anna Paulina Luna (R-Fla.) — to strip the pesticide provisions entirely from the bill. That amendment became one of the key votes during floor consideration, reflecting broader tensions between agricultural groups, environmental advocates, and segments of the Republican conference aligned with the “Make America Healthy Again” movement. The Luna amendment was approved, 280-142, and it stripped from the bill a provision to establish federal supremacy of federal pesticide-labeling laws over state rules.
Rep. Austin Scott (R-Ga.), a member of the Ag Committee, disputed Luna’s description of the provision. “I just want the people to know, especially the MAHA people that have been texting and calling, about the misrepresentation in this amendment,” Scott said. “It has absolutely nothing to do with the pesticide in the jug. It is uniformity of pesticide labeling that they are trying to take away with this amendment.” MAHA activists celebrated the passage of Luna’s amendment as a victory for their movement.
In a statement, Bayer criticized the removal of the pesticide preemption language: “The removal of labeling uniformity language from the farm bill, supported by hundreds of ag and farm groups, is a missed opportunity for Congress. By taking this vote, Congress has turned their backs on U.S. farmers in an increasingly competitive global landscape by allowing blatant misinformation to undermine support for this critical provision. The removal of this language could result in a patchwork of regulations creating ambiguity – at a time where clarity is needed most. This action puts current and future agricultural innovations for farmers at risk.”
Political implications and next steps
Bill advances to Senate amid unresolved partisan and policy divides
Passage of Farm Bill 2.0 represents a significant legislative milestone after years of delays since the expiration of the 2018 Farm Bill, but the narrow vote margin and partisan breakdown highlight the challenges ahead. The Senate is expected to pursue its own version of the legislation, setting up a potentially contentious conference process. In the Senate, Republicans cannot pass the bill without the support of Democrats. Senate Ag Chairman John Boozman (R-Ark.) today said “I look forward to releasing legislative text in the coming weeks.” Boozman expects to remove some of the more controversial pieces of the House farm bill to meet the Senate’s 60-vote threshold. House Democrats are watching the Senate in hopes that the higher chamber will pass a more bipartisan bill without the pesticide and livestock provisions that House Ag Committee ranking member Angie Craig (D-Minn.) called “poison pills.”
Meanwhile, the House vote exposed deep fault lines — not only between parties, but within the Republican conference itself — over energy policy, pesticide regulation, and the broader scope of federal agricultural intervention. As a result, key provisions such as the deleted pesticide liability framework and Bayer-related protections are likely to remain central battleground issues in the next phase of negotiations.
Of note: Potential for ping-pong policies on food and nutrition programs. Rep, Gabe Vasquez (D-N.M.) told Politico before the vote that while he voted for the bill, he warned that even though he thought the measure was a good bill, he made clear that Democrats plan on reversing the nutrition program changes if they come back into power. “Clearly, we need to revisit some very serious concerns that many of us have, including myself, as it pertains to cutting some food assistance that we’ll be able to revise once we’re in the majority here in the House.” That means more policy changes are coming on the food and nutrition program front provided that Democrats are able to capture both chambers. Otherwise, efforts to re-expand program like SNAP will be little more than political messaging. But President Trump would very likely veto such a development and there would not likely be the votes to override any presidential veto.
Comments: Watch the Senate farm bill approach because Boozman knows it must be more bipartisan than the House approach and must not contain any “poison pill” topics, and that includes language dealing with California’s Prop 12. That will not likely be in the Senate bill, nor make it through a coming House/Senate conference. As for other issues in the House, Chair Thompson continues to support the dropped pesticide language, but he is battling the MAHA contingency in the Republican party and other opponents who will likely be victorious. Thompson should have just let this issue be decided by a forthcoming Supreme Court ruling. As for year-round E15, when will House leaders and farm-state lawmakers learn that this is not as easy to get as they think, and that the final language must be more accommodative to smaller refiners than some in the biofuels industry support. One veteran farm bill watcher says: “First, the lion’s share of the House farm bill would have been simply extended on a broad bipartisan basis because they are longstanding authorizations in any farm bill. Most of the new additions were based on bipartisan bills. Precious few were partisan or contentious. The decision to oppose it was political, not based on policy. Passing a bipartisan farm bill through regular order is ideal. But that’s not always in the cards, especially in these days when everything is hyper-politicized.”
