On September 11, 2025, more than 260 national and state farm organizations and Farm Credit institutions urged congressional leaders to prioritize developing and passing a full farm bill. Their phrase “Farm Bill 2.0” described that appeal—not proof Congress passed a new bill or that every signatory supported every later proposal.
What did the farm groups ask Congress to do?
In a letter dated September 11, 2025, the coalition addressed House Speaker Mike Johnson, House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries, Senate Majority Leader John Thune, and Senate Minority Leader Charles E. Schumer. It asked them to prioritize developing and passing a full farm bill during the remainder of the 119th Congress, and offered the organizations’ expertise in shaping the legislation. Read the coalition’s letter.
The signatories included national groups such as the American Farm Bureau Federation, Farm Credit Council, National Farmers Union, National Corn Growers Association, National Pork Producers Council, and National Association of State Departments of Agriculture, along with state and regional organizations and Farm Credit institutions. Successful Farming reported the coalition comprised more than 260 organizations and institutions. That is a count of signatories, not a measure of the appeal’s effects. Successful Farming’s September 12, 2025 report.
Why did they say a full farm bill was still needed?
The coalition acknowledged that the July 2025 budget reconciliation law included provisions important to agriculture, but argued those provisions could not replace a full farm bill. Its letter said: “While vital provisions to ensure long-term stability and competitiveness for U.S. agriculture were included in the budget reconciliation bill, it cannot and should not be a substitute for a full Farm Bill.”
#1 Best Overall
The signatories also wrote: “The full suite of programs across all Farm Bill titles are essential to the viability of our agricultural system and rural communities.” This was their rationale for asking Congress to address the broader set of farm bill programs, rather than relying on the reconciliation law alone.
Which policy areas did the groups want addressed?
Successful Farming’s contemporaneous account identified several issues the groups wanted Congress to take up, including programs not included in the July 2025 reconciliation law. The report described these priorities:
- Conservation: Reauthorization of the Conservation Reserve Program.
- Farm credit: Limits for USDA direct and guaranteed loans.
- Rural broadband: Assistance for broadband access in rural communities.
- Commodity-program continuity: A proposed trigger for permanent price-support laws if existing commodity programs lapsed after 2031. This was a policy proposal, not a prediction that a lapse would occur.
How did Chair Glenn Thompson’s reported priorities differ?
The report separately described priorities of House Agriculture Committee Chair Glenn “GT” Thompson: industrial hemp, lawsuits against pesticide manufacturers, and California Proposition 12 regulations on sow housing. These were Thompson’s reported interests at the time, not positions shown to have been agreed to by the coalition or included in final legislation.
Farm Credit Council President and CEO Christy Seyfert also commented on the need for further legislation. Successful Farming attributed this statement to her: “While Farm Credit is extremely grateful for the vital provisions included in the budget reconciliation bill that strengthen long-term stability and competitiveness, further legislation is needed to meet the evolving needs of U.S. agriculture.”
Do these 3 things before closing this tab:
1Fix the driver behind crashes, sound loss and screen glitches2Repair Windows errors before they cause bigger problems3Scan for outdated or missing drivers - takes under a minuteWhat political and funding constraints were reported in September 2025?
Successful Farming reported that Democratic cooperation was uncertain because of anger over cuts to the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) in the reconciliation law. Thompson said he would need as much as $8 billion unless nutrition-assistance provisions were dropped. That was his conditional estimate at the time, not a final bill cost.
The report also said Thompson believed Congress would need to extend programs expiring September 30 and that he saw no urgency to act before January. These were his views as reported in September 2025; they do not establish what Congress subsequently did.
Rank #4
What happened after the appeal?
On February 13, 2026, Representative Glenn Thompson introduced H.R. 7567, titled the Farm, Food, and National Security Act of 2026. The introduced text records that the bill was referred to the House Committee on Agriculture. See the official introduced bill text.
That record establishes introduction and referral, but not later committee or floor action. It also does not establish that the 2025 signatories endorsed every provision of H.R. 7567. “Farm Bill 2.0” was wording used for the 2025 appeal; it was not the formal title of the 2026 bill.
Quick Recap
Best Value
Product prices and availability are accurate as of the date/time indicated and are subject to change. Any price and availability information displayed on Amazon at the time of purchase will apply.
