House Bill Would Rewrite H-2A for Year-Round Farm Economy
Measure targets labor shortages, wage volatility and processing delays
The Securing Agriculture’s Workforce Act (SAWA) of 2026 would mark one of the most consequential rewrites of the H-2A agricultural guestworker program since the visa category was created under the 1986 Immigration Reform and Control Act. The attached bill text and supporting materials frame the measure as a response to a farm labor system that has outgrown a statute built around seasonal field work, not today’s broader year-round agriculture, specialty crop, livestock, dairy, processing, forestry, aquaculture and controlled-environment sectors. The central premise is that agriculture’s labor problem is no longer a temporary squeeze around harvest, but a structural constraint on food production, costs and supply-chain reliability.
Link: Section by Section
Link: Bill text
Link: Summary
The measure, introduced by Rep. GT Thompson (R-Pa.), would amend Section 218 of the Immigration and Nationality Act to modernize H-2A administration, expand eligibility, alter wage-setting rules, create new flexibilities for employers and workers, and require a unified online platform for the multiple agencies involved in certification, petitions, visas and admissions. The bill’s practical effect would be to move H-2A from a narrowly seasonal program toward a broader agricultural labor framework, while stopping short of creating a pathway to citizenship for unauthorized workers already in the farm workforce.
The most important policy shift is the change from work that is “temporary or seasonal” to work that is “temporary.” That distinction is central. Under current practice, sectors with continuous labor needs, especially dairy and some livestock operations, have been largely shut out of H-2A because the job itself is not seasonal. SAWA would define “temporary” by contract length, not by the underlying nature of the employer’s labor need. Work performed under a contract of less than 350 days would qualify, opening the door to farms and related businesses that need workers for most of the year but not necessarily on a permanent basis.
That change would be a major win for producers who argue the current system does not match modern agriculture. It would also likely be the provision that draws some of the sharpest debate. Worker advocates and some Democrats may view the shift as a backdoor expansion of temporary labor into jobs that look functionally year-round, raising concerns about whether employers will rely more heavily on guestworkers rather than improving wages, conditions or recruitment for U.S. workers. Supporters will counter that the current domestic labor pool has not been sufficient and that excluding dairy, livestock and other nonseasonal sectors has made the program less rational, not more protective.
The bill also substantially broadens what counts as “agricultural labor or services.” The definition would include traditional agricultural labor and farm work, but also handling, packing, processing, freezing, grading, transportation to storage or first processing, pine straw gathering, reforestation, aquaculture, equine activities, apple pressing, logging, horticultural installation, and the harvest and processing of meat and poultry, limited to slaughter and carcass breakdown. This is not merely a technical definitional update. It would extend the H-2A labor model deeper into the food supply chain, particularly into first-stage processing and livestock-related work.
Politically, that expansion could build support from a wider range of agricultural employers, but it also broadens the battlefield. Meat and poultry processing are already politically sensitive because of immigration enforcement, workplace safety, union concerns and rural labor shortages. Including slaughter and carcass breakdown in the H-2A definition would be framed by supporters as a food-security measure, especially after years of tight labor availability in processing. Opponents may argue it risks shifting H-2A into sectors where jobs are less tied to seasonal agricultural production and more akin to permanent industrial employment.
A second major pillar is cost control. The supporting document argues that H-2A use has increased from just under 100,000 certified positions in 2013 to almost 400,000 in 2025, even though the program remains costly and burdensome for employers. It also argues that flaws in the adverse effect wage rate, or AEWR, methodology caused H-2A wages to outpace general inflation by more than 70% since 2010. SAWA would codify a new wage structure that relies on federal survey data, excludes additional forms of compensation such as bonuses and overtime from the base calculation, and caps year-to-year wage movement.
Under the bill, an employer would have to offer the highest of the collective bargaining wage, the applicable federal, state or local minimum wage, or the AEWR if one is determined to apply. The bill would require Labor to make an annual determination on whether H-2A employment adversely affected similarly employed U.S. workers. If an adverse effect is found, the AEWR would be calculated using Occupational Employment and Wage Statistics data, with entry-level jobs tied to the 17th percentile and experience-level jobs tied to the 50th percentile. The bill text caps annual wage declines at 1.5% and increases at 3.25%, while the section-by-section summary describes an increase cap of 3.5%, a discrepancy that would need to be clarified as the measure advances.
For growers, the wage provisions are designed to provide predictability and reduce sudden cost shocks. For workers, the analysis is more complicated. A cap on wage increases would help employers budget and could prevent rapid spikes in labor costs, but it could also limit wage gains in years when local farm labor markets tighten sharply. The bill’s reliance on BLS wage data, rather than broader compensation measures, may be defended as a cleaner measure of base wages, but critics may argue it understates the full market value of hard-to-fill agricultural jobs. This wage section is likely to become one of the central flashpoints because it goes directly to the competing goals of stabilizing farm costs and preventing downward pressure on U.S. worker wages.
Housing is another major element. Current H-2A rules require employers to provide housing, a major cost and compliance burden. SAWA would allow housing certifications to last up to three years and permit state agencies to conduct inspections. It would also direct the Labor Department to set a maximum daily housing charge that employers could deduct from H-2A workers’ wages, based on statewide fair-market rent data for a four-bedroom unit divided by 240. The charge would have to be disclosed in the job offer.
This housing provision attempts to address a long-running employer complaint: H-2A employers provide housing that domestic workers generally do not receive, while wage rules do not always reflect that cost. The supporting document says SAWA would establish the housing adjustment as a daily charge rather than an hourly rate, which it presents as fairer to workers who put in more than 40 hours per week. Still, allowing deductions for housing would be controversial. The policy may reduce employer costs and encourage more program participation, but it could lower workers’ take-home pay and invite scrutiny over housing quality, rent calculations and enforcement. The required GAO review of H-2A housing availability, affordability, employer challenges, Labor enforcement and federal assistance programs appears designed to give Congress a factual basis for future adjustments.
The bill also targets administrative delays that producers say can cause them to miss narrow planting, pruning, harvesting and livestock-care windows. SAWA would require DHS, in consultation with Labor, USDA, State and the Department of Government Efficiency, to establish a single online H-2A platform within one year. Employers would be able to submit labor certification materials, petition documents, inspection requests, deficiency responses, appeals, fee payments and related documents through one point of access, while agencies would conduct concurrent reviews.
That platform is potentially one of the bill’s most practical reforms. The H-2A process now involves several federal and state entities that do not always move in sync. A single portal could reduce duplicative filings, improve transparency, reduce common errors and give employers better visibility into case status. But the implementation risk is significant. The bill gives agencies one year to build a system that would connect DHS, DOL, USDA, State, Customs and Border Protection and state workforce agencies. If the platform is underfunded, poorly integrated or delayed, the promise of streamlining could fall short.
SAWA would also create several operational flexibilities. Employers could receive labor certifications valid for up to three consecutive years. DHS would have 15 days after receiving an H-2A petition to approve, deny or request more information. The State Department could waive interviews for returning H-2A workers who appear eligible. Employers could stagger worker entry and exit dates when labor needs vary within a job offer, and they could seek subsequent employment periods beginning 90 days before the current period ends. H-2A workers could begin work for a new certified employer once that employer files a non-frivolous petition, rather than waiting for final approval.
Those changes would make H-2A nimbler. Agriculture often needs workers to move as weather, crop maturity, disease pressure or market conditions change. The worker-transfer provision could be especially important, because it would let workers shift to another eligible employer instead of being stranded when work ends early or another farm has immediate demand. However, the policy would still tie mobility to certified agricultural employers, not create a fully open labor market. That may satisfy employers seeking flexibility while limiting broader worker-mobility concerns, though advocates may still argue that guestworkers need more bargaining power and easier portability.
The bill includes a force majeure provision allowing early termination of H-2A contracts when services are no longer needed because of natural disasters, including flood, hurricane, freeze, earthquake, fire, drought, plant or animal disease, pest infestation or another Labor- and USDA-recognized cause beyond the employer’s control. Employers would have to try to transfer workers to comparable employment acceptable to the worker and notify Labor and USDA within 72 hours.
That is a timely addition given the growing role of weather volatility, animal disease and pest threats in farm planning. It would give employers a clearer exit ramp when a crop fails or livestock operations are disrupted, while attempting to preserve worker protections through transfer obligations and notice requirements. The challenge will be enforcement: regulators would have to distinguish legitimate disasters from business decisions that shift risk onto workers.
SAWA also would require H-2A employers to maintain heat illness prevention plans. These plans would have to include measures at least as protective as applicable federal and state requirements, worker training, water and shade access, breaks and emergency response protocols. Plans would have to be posted in English and, where needed, in a language workers understand.
That provision gives the bill a worker-safety component at a time when heat stress is increasingly central to farm labor policy. It may help sponsors argue the measure is not simply deregulatory. Still, much depends on how plans are inspected and enforced. A written heat plan is useful only if workers can safely invoke breaks, water access and emergency protections without fear of retaliation or lost income.
The most politically delicate portion of the bill is its limited waiver for certain unauthorized agricultural workers. SAWA would allow some workers who were unlawfully present in the U.S. on May 31, 2026, and who performed agricultural labor or services for at least 5.75 hours on at least 180 days during the two-year period ending on enactment, to seek H-2A status if otherwise eligible. The waiver applies to certain grounds of inadmissibility and deportability related to unlawful presence and employment-related conduct before first receiving H-2A status. The supporting document stresses that the bill does not include a pathway to citizenship.
This provision reflects a hard reality for agriculture: a portion of the existing workforce lacks permanent legal status, and abrupt loss of those workers would disrupt production. The bill tries to convert some of that labor into the regulated H-2A channel while limiting the political exposure associated with legalization. It also includes employer protections, barring certain employment records from being used in civil or criminal investigations related to prior unlawful employment, unless the records are fraudulent. For growers, that is intended to encourage documentation and participation. For immigration hawks, it may still look like an amnesty-adjacent provision, even without citizenship. For worker advocates, it may be seen as too limited because it channels workers into temporary status rather than stable permanent residency.
The bill would also deem H-2A processing, certification and admission functions essential during a lapse in government appropriations, allowing them to continue during shutdowns. That reflects agriculture’s sensitivity to timing: a missed visa window can mean lost crops, lost revenue or animal-care disruptions.
Overall, SAWA is best understood as an employer-focused modernization package with selected worker protections and limited workforce-stabilization measures. It attempts to solve three problems at once: the mismatch between H-2A’s seasonal design and today’s agricultural labor needs, the volatility and cost of wage and housing rules, and the delays caused by fragmented agency administration. It would likely be welcomed by many farm groups, especially those in labor-intensive sectors, dairy, livestock, specialty crops, custom harvesting and processing-adjacent operations.
The bill’s path will be difficult. Its supporters will argue that H-2A demand has nearly quadrupled since 2013 because producers cannot find enough domestic workers and because food production now depends on a more reliable legal labor pipeline. Critics will focus on whether the bill expands temporary foreign labor too broadly, weakens wage protections, allows housing deductions that reduce take-home pay, and fails to give experienced farmworkers a durable legal future. The inclusion of meat and poultry processing, housing wage deductions and the limited waiver for unauthorized workers could all become pressure points in committee negotiations.
The political question is whether Congress can separate agricultural workforce policy from the broader immigration fight. SAWA tries to do that by avoiding a citizenship pathway and framing the bill around food security, labor scarcity, cost control and administrative efficiency. But immigration legislation rarely stays narrow. The more the bill is seen as essential to food affordability and supply-chain stability, the better its odds. The more it is viewed as an expansion of guestworker dependence at the expense of wages and permanent status, the harder it will be to move.
For agriculture, the measure signals that the debate has shifted. The question is no longer whether H-2A needs updating. The attached documents make clear that sponsors believe the current statute is no longer capable of serving a farm economy that runs year-round, uses more sophisticated supply chains and faces chronic labor shortages. The fight will be over how much flexibility employers should receive, how much protection workers must retain, and whether Congress can build a farm labor system that is both operationally workable and politically durable.
