The House on Thursday passed a $390 billion farm bill, after infighting among Republicans threatened to sink the measure and exposed tensions between the Make America Healthy Again movement and traditional farm interests.
The measure, which reauthorizes major food and agriculture programs for five years, would boost subsidies for farmers and enact the Trump administration’s large cuts to food assistance programs for lower-income families. It was approved on a near-party-line vote of 224 to 200, with three Republicans opposed and 14 Democrats crossing party lines to back it.
“The 2026 Farm Bill is a win for our farmers, ranchers, foresters, rural communities, and all Americans across our country,” Representative Glenn Thompson, Republican of Pennsylvania and the chairman of the Agriculture Committee, said on social media after the bill’s passage.
Democrats opposed the bill in large part because it preserved deep cuts to food stamps that President Trump and Republicans enshrined last year in their major domestic policy bill. But it was Republican infighting that snarled the measure’s path through the House this week, as disputes over pesticides, ethanol and regulating pork producers left it at risk of collapsing.
Once renewed every five years and a traditionally bipartisan piece of legislation, the farm bill has in recent years succumbed to political polarization. The last farm bill passed in 2018 and expired in 2023, but a divided Congress was unable to compromise even as the agricultural sector and Mr. Trump urged for an updated policy.
Even with unified control of government, Republicans have found it difficult to pass a new farm bill and deliver relief for a core constituency of rural voters and farmers battered by tariffs and inflation. It remains to be seen whether the Senate — where Republicans cannot pass the bill without the support of Democrats — will adopt the House measure or produce its own version, which would have to be reconciled with the bill passed on Thursday.
The House farm bill retained major changes made to agricultural and food programs enacted under Mr. Trump’s tax cut and domestic policy law, which he signed last summer. That includes a $187 billion cut to the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, or food stamps, and a $60 billion boost to farm subsidies. Additionally, the farm bill largely extended authorization for conservation programs, agricultural research and rural development grants.
Lawmakers aligned with the Make America Healthy Again movement notched several victories in removing language that essentially barred states from requiring labeling that warns consumers about the dangers of pesticides and allowing SNAP recipients to purchase hot rotisserie chicken. They failed, however, in efforts to prohibit SNAP recipients from purchasing soda with their benefits.
But major conflicts over the pesticide language, animal welfare and ethanol laid bare new tensions between MAHA Republicans and those aligned with more traditional agricultural interests and long-simmering divisions between those representing corn-producing states versus oil-producing ones.
An extended fight over a provision allowing for the year-round sale of an ethanol blend known as E15 nearly derailed the bill. The Trump administration and lawmakers representing districts that produce corn and other crops, which are used to make ethanol, have cast the move as a way to ease pain at the pump. But small oil refineries and their allies in Congress, as well as deficit hawks, opposed the move. After hours of delay and disagreement, lawmakers agreed to extract that provision from the farm bill and vote on the issue later this spring.
Representative Anna Paulina Luna, Republican of Florida, led the charge to allow states to require labels warning consumers about the dangers of pesticides and threatened to “blow up” the farm bill if her amendment did not pass.
“This should not be partisan, this is about the American people and protecting them,” Ms. Luna said on the House floor early Thursday morning, adding that she had been called a “damn liar” for her position.
Representative Austin Scott, Republican of Georgia and a member of the Agriculture Committee, disputed Ms. 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,” Mr. 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 Ms. Luna’s amendment as a victory for their movement.
“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.
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 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.
Sheryl Gay Stolberg contributed reporting.
