House budget bill’s top farm subsidy loopholes and giveaways

Geoff Horsfield is policy director and Anne Schechinger is Midwest director at the Environmental Working Group. This post first appeared on the EWG’s website.

Farm subsidies already favor the largest farms. But the budget reconciliation bill the U.S. House approved on May 22 is packed with farm subsidy loopholes that would make the problem worse. 

These provisions could add tens of billions to the federal deficit and further tilt the playing field against small family farmers. 

Here are some of the worst farm subsidy loopholes and giveaways in the bill: 

Increasing price guarantees. Only 40 percent of farms grow crops eligible for payments linked to reference prices, and the top 10 percent of those farms collected almost nearly three-quarter of all payments in 2023. But the budget bill would increase those price guarantees by 10 percent to 20 percent for all covered crops, in turn boosting subsidy payments, especially to the largest farms.

Payments every year. Many people might think farm subsidies are designed to be paid only in time of need. But the bill would increase cotton, rice, and peanut price guarantees so high that many farmers of these crops would receive a payment every year.

Rice payments could triple. The bill would likely increase the average payment rice farmers get from $61 per acre to $175 per acre – an increase of 187 percent – even though rice growing profits remain high. Subsidies for cotton and peanuts would also increase dramatically.

New corporate loopholes. The bill would increase payment limits from $125,000 to $155,000 per person, and would allow every member of a farm organized as a pass-through entity, including joint ventures, S corporations or limited liability corporations, to collect up to $155,000 a year each. This would eviscerate a long-standing income limit designed to prohibit millionaires from receiving disaster and conservation payments.

More acres eligible for payments.The bill would also allow farmers who grow “covered commodities” like peanuts, rice and cotton to make 30 million additional acres of farmland eligible for subsidy payments – a 12 percent increase in the number of acres eligible for such payments.

More subsidies for insurance companies. One out of every three dollars used to fund federal crop insurance already flows to crop insurance companies and insurance agents. And the bill would increase these subsidies by linking payments to inflation and charging taxpayers for additional company operating costs.

More bailouts for factory farms. The bill would also increase disaster payments and insurance subsidies sent to farmers of livestock, dairy, poultry and even fish farms – even though disaster assistance and insurance payments have reached record levels. 

Relatively few farmers would benefit significantly from higher reference prices, and only around 20 percent of farms are even able to participate in the federal crop insurance program. More subsidies linked to reference prices and more subsidies to insurance companies and agents won’t help most farmers. 

In 2023, fewer than 200 farms received more than $10,000 each from one of the two main federal programs that use reference prices. The bottom 80 percent of program recipients received just $513 each, on average. 

The budget bill creates these loopholes and giveaways, even though net farm income is expected to increase in 2025 – thanks in part to lower production costs. 

About the Author(s)

Geoff Horsfield

  • Meanwhile, in rural Iowa...

    …the annual farm-herbicide drift damage that I’m seeing is as bad as ever. There is a lot of very-deformed foliage on various plant species. It’s impossible to say how much damage there may be later this year from drifting insecticides, fungicides, etc., because that kind of drift impact is not obvious. I don’t know if anyone in Iowa is even doing research.

    A dairy farm in Northeast Iowa that discharged an unknown amount of manure into a creek for an unknown amount of time (a caller who reported the pollution said the discharge “had been occurring for some time but was getting worse lately”), and also had a “stockpile of manure-laden debris” just forty feet from a creek (the distance was supposed to be at least 400 feet), recently paid a laughably-low fine of $1,260, even though the nearby creek was “foamy and smelled strongly of manure” and had elevated levels of ammonia. Just one of the wrist-tapping Iowa farm-pollution fines that get (barely) paid every year.

    A new study indicates that between 1987 and 2017, rill and sheet erosion decreased 22.8 percent in Nebraska, 27.5 percent in Minnesota, 31.5 percent in South Dakota, and only 14.3 percent in Iowa. The average Iowa rowcropped acre is losing topsoil at least ten times as fast as it is being replaced. Etc.

    Yes, there are Iowa farmers and landowners who care very deeply about conservation and act accordingly. But they are far outnumbered by the Iowa farmers and landowners who are trying, politically, to hide behind them.

    It’s clear now that I won’t live to see Iowa voters and taxpayers finally get fed up with what Iowa agriculture gets away with (and gets subsidized for). I really hope younger BH readers will be more fortunate.

  • It’s clear now that I won’t live to see Iowa voters and taxpayers finally get fed up

    I hope you do live long enough. I’m hoping the turn begins in 2026 with Iowa’s congressional districts and governor.

    What I’m reading in the original essay and the comment are above my head, but still concerning. I guess the authors are from an environmentally concerned nonprofit, and I accept their analysis as gospel—which points to the problem across government. The issues are complex and moreso each year. Thank you Geoff Horsfield and Anne Schechingers for your essay and PrairieFan for follow-up.

    The loss of topsoil iss very concerning.s There’s a display at Neal Smith Reserve of topsoil loss since the sod was first plowed and it is immense. And the effects are that the soil carries nutrients down the Mississippi and forms toxic zone at ht mouth.

  • I too hope that later generations will have better choices then we are facing

    but fear we will have stripped the land of what’s left of what we inherited. Iowa is one of few truly productive “breadbasket” farmlands on the planet (along with poor Ukraine) and it is a world-historical crime that is being committed all around us in the name of “Feed & Fuel the world”
    as Rob Sand puts it. Iowa has been turned into a sacrifice zone and I hope future generations will at least be given the dignity of elected officials who can call things what they truly are and not the likes of corporate shills like Vilsack.
    https://riverraccoon.substack.com/p/environmentaling

  • Re: deformed foliage...

    I’m getting deformed foliage big time from aster-yellows-carrying leafhoppers. Primarily among the purple coneflowers. It permanently uglifies them, but does not kill. If you don’t pull up the plant, it remains alive ready to infect the next leafhopper (if not already infected) which will then munch on another coneflower and infect it with the bacteria that does its damage.

    The deformation is similar to the effects of lawn or agricultural chemical drift. But over time I think it becomes even worse than the chem damage that I know I’ve had some years, back when I was still inviting the Mom killers to “treat” my lawn years ago.

    It’s disheartening, as there is no good solution. I’ve read that this has been a real problem lately in wheat production as well, all the way up into Canada.

    Not disputing anything about chemical drift damage. That’s real.

    So is this, for some plant species.

Comments