By Seth Millstein for Sentient.
Broadcast version by Eric Galatas for Colorado News Connection reporting for the Sentient-Public News Service Collaboration
Republicans won control of Congress and the White House in the last election, and their victories will have major ramifications for the future of climate and agriculture policy in the United States. It's too soon to say with certainty what exactly these ramifications will be, but we can nevertheless make some educated guesses about what to expect from the new Congress on agriculture and climate.
There's no doubt that Republican lawmakers will seek to scale down, roll back or repeal certain climate and agriculture-related policies that the Biden administration implemented, such as the Inflation Reduction Act's support for climate-smart agricultural programs.
But this doesn't mean everything will be on the chopping block, says Laurie Beyranevand, Director of the Center for Agriculture and Food Systems and law professor at Vermont Law and Graduate School.
"There's been a lot of money that got pumped into ag research under the Biden administration, and I think generally, Republicans are really supportive of that," Beyranevand tells Sentient. "The Trump administration is definitely going to want to try to figure out which of those things farmers in the ag community are supportive of, and I don't think, wholesale, they're unsupportive of what Biden was trying to accomplish."
It's also important to note that, while Republicans do have majorities in the House of Representatives and the Senate, their House majority is very small: just five seats. This means that any piece of legislation can't afford to lose more than five Republican votes if Democrats remain unified, and this is a wrinkle that could potentially have significant consequences on agriculture policy.
Nevertheless, let's take a look at what sorts of policies the new Republican Congress might pursue in the upcoming session.
Immigration, Tariffs and Crop Subsidies Colliding
Opposition to immigration is President-elect Trump's flagship political issue - he's pledged to carry out "mass deportations" of immigrants in his second term - and Congressional Republicans are already pursuing legislation that would help implement this agenda.
But as Beyranevand notes, America's farming sector is highly dependent on immigrants, documented and undocumented alike, for its labor force. Deporting these folks, or sharply reducing the amount of immigrants in the country through other means, would create a shortage of agricultural workers, thus driving up the price of agricultural goods and reducing America's production capacity.
Normally, this would result in Americans purchasing more imported agricultural goods. But Trump has also pledged to enact tariffs on agricultural imports, and as we saw during Trump's first term, tariffs also cause prices to increase.
"If we have an ag labor shortage, and we're not able to produce as much domestically, then we're going to rely on imports, necessarily," Beyranevand says. "But Trump has also said that he wants to increase tariffs and reduce imports."
During Trump's first term, he sharply increased crop subsidies to farmers in order to stem the economic damage caused by his tariffs on agriculture, and he may well do the same during his second term if the GOP's anti-immigration policies end up hurting American agricultural producers.
Passing a New Farm Bill
The first order of business for the 119th Congress - and the likely vehicle through which Congress will pass new food and agriculture-related policies - will be the new Farm Bill. At least, it should be the first order of business, as Congress has failed repeatedly over the last two years to authorize a full Farm Bill, and has had to pass two short-term extensions of the last Farm Bill as a result.
The Farm Bill is an enormous legislative package containing a plethora of food and agriculture-related policies. It's an incredibly important piece of legislation, as America's farming sector is more or less reliant on it to function, and Congress must pass an updated version of it every five years or so.
The last five-year Farm Bill was passed in 2018, and Congress has been unable to agree on a new version ever since. Instead, lawmakers have passed extensions of the 2018 bill, the most recent of which expires in September. However, Republicans now control both chambers of Congress and the White House, which will make it easier to pass a new five-year bill, and barring something extraordinary, that's what lawmakers will do in 2025.
It's far too soon to say with certainty what will and won't be in the next Farm Bill. However, we can glean some things from the Farm Bill proposal House Republicans released in May, as well the Farm Bill "framework" Senate Republicans released a month later.
Removing the 'Guardrails' on Climate-Smart Policies
In 2022, Congress passed the Inflation Reduction Act (IRA), which allocated $19.5 billion to USDA conservation programs that benefit the environment. The law says that a conservation program must "directly improve soil carbon, reduce nitrogen losses, or reduce, capture, avoid, or sequester carbon dioxide, methane, or nitrous oxide emissions, associated with agricultural production" in order to be eligible for the funds.
That's the idea, anyway; in truth, it's not clear that all of these "climate-friendly" programs are actually benefiting the environment. There are a number of reasons for this, including lack of transparency and questionable methodology on the part of the USDA, but at least in theory, this money is legally required to go to programs that benefit the environment.
Republicans want to remove this requirement, which is sometimes referred to as the "guardrails" for climate-smart policies. If this were to happen, the USDA would be free to spend what's left of this money - around $13 billion, as of May - on any of its many conservation programs, not only those with a demonstrated benefit to the climate.
Cutting SNAP Funding
In addition to containing many farm- and agriculture-related policies, the Farm Bill is also how the government funds SNAP, the federal food stamps program.
SNAP funding once enjoyed bipartisan support in Washington, but the GOP changed their tune on food stamps after Barack Obama took office: Despite expanding the program twice during George W. Bush's presidency, Congressional Republicans voted to cut food stamp funding in 2013, then again in 2018, and are now doing so once more in the most recent Farm Bill.
The amount of money food stamp recipients receive is determined by something called the Thrifty Food Plan. This is a diet plan, created by the USDA, that's meant to provide maximum nutrition for a family of four on a frugal budget.
The House GOP's Farm Bill proposal would limit the USDA's authority to adjust the cost of the Thrifty Food Plan over time, which would effectively cut SNAP benefits by $30 billion over the next decade, according to an analysis by the Center for Budget and Policy Priorities.
Congressional Democrats oppose these cuts.
Repealing Proposition 12 - Or Not?
In 2018, California voters passed Proposition 12, which banned the production and sale of eggs, pork and veal produced using "extreme confinement" - that is, the severely cramped living spaces that are par for the course in factory farms. Various elements of the meat industry sued to block the law, but the Supreme Court upheld it in 2023, and it's now in effect.
Because Proposition 12 forbids the in-state sale of these foods even if they were produced in other states, it's had a ripple effect on the entire sector, as California is a major market for eggs, pork and veal. This has made it target number one for the meat industry - even though many individual farmers actually like Proposition 12.
House Republicans' Farm Bill proposal would both repeal Proposition 12 and forbid any other states from enacting similar legislation. Senate Republicans' Farm Bill framework suggests, without explicitly stating, that it would do the same.
But repealing Proposition 12 has proven to be surprisingly controversial among Republicans. A coalition of 16 House Republicans signed a letter urging their leadership not to repeal Proposition 12, as they feel that doing so would be a violation of states' rights. Months later, eight more Republicans came out against repealing the law, on the grounds that doing so would make America less competitive with Chinese meat producers.
The fight over Proposition 12 has aroused very strong feelings on both sides of the debate, and it will no doubt be one of the gnarliest Farm Bill-related disputes.
The Bottom Line
It's worth keeping in mind that many policies regarding food, agriculture and the climate are outside of Congress's hands. Trump has pledged to withdraw the U.S. from the Paris Climate Accords, scrap a proposed rule aimed at increasing electric vehicle usage and roll back environmental regulations - and these are all things that he can do without Congressional approval.
But Congress, and the Republicans who control it, will still play an enormous role in shaping America's climate and food policies over the next two years. Only time will tell exactly what those policies look like.
Seth Millstein wrote this article for Sentient.
get more stories like this via email
CLARIFICATION: In the initial release of this story, the photo caption included a typo that resulted in an unintentional racial slur. In discussions with every staff member involved in the story, it was clearly a typing error, with no intention of including an offensive term. We deeply apologize for the error. (9:35 a.m. CST, June 23, 2025
From poultry to beer, Minnesota has an avid interest in producing food with ingredients and practices mindful of the state's water resources and the latest recipients of specialized grants are taking charge.
The grants were awarded by the "Continuous Living Cover" program under the Minnesota Department of Agriculture. Food manufacturers and others in the supply chain use the funds to develop larger markets for crops that help stabilize the soil in which they are planted.
Sandy Boss Febbo, co-owner of Bang Brewing in St. Paul, said their grant allows them to use more "Kernza," a sustainable alternative to wheat. She called it a "beautiful grain."
"Once we tried it and saw how well it performs in beer and what it lends to beer flavor profiles, we were hooked," Boss Febbo explained.
Boss Febbo pointed out crops like Kernza have root systems that keep nitrates from flowing into waterways, preventing algae blooms and providing other environmental benefits. One catch is Kernza is more expensive than traditional beer ingredients. This legislative session, Minnesota lawmakers approved $450,000 for future grants under the cover crop program.
Boss Febbo noted the state aid is not just for the processing of Kernza at her brewery. Marketing is a key strategy as well. Bang Brewing plans to retrofit a van with a mobile tap setup so they can travel to licensed events around Minnesota and spread the word about this largely unknown crop.
"Agricultural practices have a massive impact on the health of our land and water," Boss Febbo emphasized. "To bring that message, to get more people involved and more people supporting, that is really our goal."
According to program backer Friends of the Mississippi River, other grantees include a hazelnut company, as well as a farm raising chickens on forested pastures. The farm will also use its grant money to help market its product to schools, retailers and restaurants across Minnesota.
Disclosure: Friends of the Mississippi River contributes to our fund for reporting on Climate Change/Air Quality, Environment, and Water. If you would like to help support news in the public interest,
click here.
With more than 95,000 farms, Missouri ranks among the top farming states in the nation. Now, a national agriculture group is warning that bills moving through Congress could hurt rural communities.
According to the National Sustainable Agriculture Coalition, the Senate's reconciliation bill, sometimes called "The Big Beautiful Bill Act," would deepen hunger and hinder small farmers. At the same time, the group contends the House's 2026 spending plan slashes funding for conservation, research and local food programs.
Mike Lavender, the coalition's policy director, said the consequences of these cuts will be felt directly by those working the land.
"These cuts, even to relatively small programs, are going to mean that fewer farmers have access to resources and information that help them have a successful livelihood, help their business work and help them be successful in providing for their family," he said.
Supporters have said the bills promote responsible budgeting by cutting spending and boosting efficiency. The Senate's agriculture bill awaits full debate, while the House's 2026 funding bill has cleared committee.
Nearly 90% of Missouri's farms are family-owned. Lavender said his organization has been working closely with members of the Senate and the Appropriations Committee to make sure they understand the importance of these programs for farmers across the country.
"Don't do what the House did. Don't undercut farmers, don't undercut rural communities by reducing funding for these programs," he said, "but rather they deliver funding for these programs based on demand, and we know there's a high demand and a high need for these programs across the country."
Lavender added that the 2026 spending bill has "one bright spot" in its support for direct purchases from local producers, but he said that's overshadowed by cuts that hurt those very farmers.
get more stories like this via email
By Seth Millstein for Sentient.
Broadcast version by Chrystal Blair for Missouri News Service reporting for the Sentient-Public News Service Collaboration
An estimated 99 percent of farm animals in the U.S. live in what the government calls Concentrated Animal Feeding Operations, or CAFOs. But what exactly makes something a CAFO, and are they the same as factory farms? Generally speaking, CAFOs are large industrial facilities where hundreds, thousands or hundreds of thousands of farmed animals are densely packed in sheds or feed yards. They're an example of what's also called intensive farming, in which the goal is to produce the maximum amount of product using the least amount of physical space.maximum amount of product using the least amount of physical space.
"They work like an industry," John Ikerd, professor emeritus of agricultural economics at the University of Missouri, tells Sentient. "The basic characteristics of an industrial operation is to specialize. You specialize in just doing one thing, so you can do it more effectively. And once you specialize, then you can routinize the process. And once you routinize, you can mechanize, and once you mechanize, then you simplify the whole production process, so that you can consolidate into larger and larger operations."
The argument for farming more like an industrialized factory came from agriculture researchers in the mid-20th century, according to agricultural economist Jayson Lusk, and it wasn't seen as a bad thing. Getting bigger was a way for farms to become more efficient and, therefore, more economically sustainable. Unfortunately, that efficiency comes with a multitude of tradeoffs, for animals, workers and the environment.
What Is a CAFO?
The term "CAFO" was created by the U.S. government in the 1970s as part of a federal effort to reduce water pollution. It began in 1972, when Congress passed the Clean Water Act. This law authorized the EPA to regulate point source pollution, or water pollution that comes from a single identifiable source; while the law didn't include the acronym "CAFO," it did mention "concentrated animal feeding operations" as an example of point source pollution.
Ikerd says the amount of water pollution a farm emits is directly tied to how densely concentrated the animals on the farm are.
"If you have the animals dispersed out across the land, as they were before we had CAFOs, then you're not concentrating the waste in one place," Ikerd says. "When you concentrate the animals, then you concentrate the manure, and the urine and all the waste from the animals."
In 1974, the EPA formalized and expanded upon this designation, issuing a rule that defined CAFOs as a subset of AFOs, or (non-concentrated) animal feeding operations.
The difference between an AFO and a CAFO is important, as CAFOs are subject to more stringent regulations.
AFOs vs. CAFOs
The size designation of any given AFO depends on a number of factors, the primary one being the number of animals in the facility and the species of animal in question. For instance, a dairy AFO is considered large (and therefore a CAFO) if it has over 700 dairy cows; a turkey AFO, meanwhile, needs 55,000 or more turkeys to qualify as a CAFO.
There are a few other factors that determine whether a facility qualifies as a CAFO. With pig farms, the weight of the animal is taken into consideration. On chicken farms, the size designation depends on whether the birds are being farmed for meat or eggs.
Manure Processing
There's another important factor in determining whether or not a farm qualifies as a CAFO, and that's the manner in which it processes and stores manure. This is because manure storage plays a big role in determining how much water pollution a CAFO creates, and managing water pollution was the government's impetus for coining the term "CAFO" in the first place.
Each year, industrial livestock operations create a staggering amount of manure and other farm animal waste; 941 billion pounds, according to a Food and Water Watch report from 2024.
For poultry farms, the threshold to qualify as medium- or large-sized is lower if the facility uses liquid manure handling systems, as these systems are more prone to leakage, and thus polluting nearby waterways, than dry systems.
Finally, the director of the EPA has the authority to designate individual facilities as CAFOs on a case-by-case basis, should they determine that the facility in question is a significant contributor to water pollution.
Are CAFOs the Same as Factory Farms?
Unlike "CAFO," the term "factory farm" isn't a legal term with a statutory definition. It's more of a general concept that's used colloquially to describe CAFO-like facilities.
Merriam-Webster defines a factory farm as one in which "large numbers of livestock are raised indoors in conditions intended to maximize production at minimal cost." That's a simpler, less specific and potentially more expansive definition than the government's definition of a CAFO; depending on how one interprets the word "large," it's easy to imagine a facility that meets the dictionary definition of factory farm but doesn't technically qualify as a CAFO.
Ikerd, however, defines "factory farm" a bit differently. He says that it's a "farming operation that basically functions like a factory."
"You put [the animals] into this factory-like setting, and then you apply certain routine procedures to them that are specified by the people that are contracting with them," Ikerd says. "And then you come out with a finished product on the other end, whether that's meat, or milk or eggs."
CAFOs, by the Numbers
According to the EPA's latest numbers, there are 21,179 CAFOs in the United States.
Most U.S. states have at least one CAFO, but they're not evenly distributed across the country. Iowa is home to the most CAFOs (around 4,025), and another five states have over 1,000 CAFOs in their borders. The majority of states (28) have between 100 and 1,000 CAFOs, while a small handful have under 10.
How CAFOs Pollute the Water
CAFOs generate an estimated 941 billion pounds of manure each year, and dealing with that manure is a major challenge for farm operators. Typically, it's either stored on-site in a lagoon or similar structure until it can be sprayed onto nearby crops for use as untreated fertilizer.
Nutrient Runoff
Manure lagoons can be prone to leaks and malfunctions, especially during storms, and even a light rain can wash the fertilizer on cropland into nearby rivers, lakes and streams. This is what's known as nutrient runoff, and it's especially common when manure is overapplied as fertilizer, which Ikerd says is common on CAFOs.
Algal Blooms
The impacts of CAFO-sourced water pollution has severe consequences for humans, animals and the environment. Along with other pollution, it leads to harmful algal blooms, an overgrowth of algae that can cause mass fish die-offs and extensive damage to aquatic ecosystems. Harmful algal blooms can also contaminate drinking and recreational water, and have been linked to at least one fatal case of paralytic shellfish poisoning in a human.
Disease Risk & Antibiotic Resistance
Livestock manure can also contain infectious bacteria, such as E.coli and salmonella, that can end up in the air and water nearby CAFOs, and even nearby fruit and vegetable farms.
The antibiotics that farmers administer to animals on CAFOs are also fueling the world's antibiotic resistance problem, a public health threat that kills over one million people every year.
How Are CAFOs Regulated?
Facilities that meet the government's definition of a CAFO have to abide by a few modest requirements relating to its manure and waste management.
First, any CAFO that discharges pollutants into waters of the United States - a legal term that we'll discuss in a moment - is required to obtain a National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit. These permits place limits on the amount and type of pollutants that the CAFO in question is allowed to discharge. The EPA defines a pollutant as "any industrial, municipal and agricultural waste."
Second, any CAFOs with a NPDES permit - and all large CAFOs, regardless of whether they have a permit - must present the EPA with a nutrient management plan. This is simply a description of the procedures the CAFO will use to manage the manure, animal parts, wastewater and other potential pollutants it produces, and ensure that they don't contaminate nearby water in excess of the limits imposed by the NPDES.
Environmental Loopholes to CAFO Regulation
There are some loopholes in this system. The first concerns which types of waterways a CAFO isn't allowed to discharge pollutants into without a permit. EPA rules use the phrase "waters of the United States" (WOTUS), a legal designation created by the Clean Water Act that's been subject to significant litigation and modification over the decades, most recently in 2023.
The nuances of WOTUS designations are incredibly complex and technical, but broadly speaking, the term covers most major and permanent waterways while excluding some smaller, unofficial and impermanent ones.
As a result, there are some CAFOs that don't need to obtain an NPDES permit, or abide by any limits that such a permit would impose. CAFOs that discharge their waste into non-WOTUS designated waterways are exempt from permitting, and so are those whose waste indirectly ends up in waterways. This latter category includes farms that store their manure in lagoons or apply it as untreated fertilizer to crops.
This might sound like a small loophole, but it has enormous implications. According to the EPA's own data, less than one-third of all CAFOs in the U.S. have an NPDES permit. In Iowa, the state with the most CAFOs, less than four percent are NPDES-permitted.
If CAFOs violate the terms of their NPDES permit - and they often do - the EPA can fine them. But this brings us to another problem with the regulatory framework around CAFOs: When the water is polluted, it's tough to figure out exactly where that pollution came from.
"It's very difficult to prove a violation, and link a violation to a particular CAFO," Ikerd explains. "If you've got pollution in a stream, it's very hard to bring that back to one particular operation. So you've got to go through the process of saying, 'it came from this particular operation rather than another,' and that's really made it difficult to enforce."
Some states have created their own permitting regimes for CAFOs that go above and beyond the EPA's requirements. Oregon, for instance, allows its state environmental agency to require NPDES permits for all enclosed animal farms, regardless of their size. As a result, the state has issued more than twice as many NPDES permits as there are CAFOs within its borders.
Some Community Groups Are Pushing Back on New CAFOs
The rising number of CAFOs in the United States are driven by a growing global population with a massive appetite for cheap meat. But a relatively new phenomenon is emerging in communities across the United States: small groups of residents who oppose the construction of new CAFOs are working together to block factory farm expansion. And some of them, like one that formed in Linn County, Oregon, are even finding success. Of course, it's highly unlikely that the CAFO industry will be put out of business anytime soon, but still, the nascent anti-factory farm movement is one to watch.
Seth Millstein wrote this article for Sentient.
get more stories like this via email
Contact
