admin
WASHINGTON D.C. – A landmark executive order issued in June by President Donald Trump, intended to champion regenerative agriculture, has been met with a mix of cautious optimism and significant skepticism from experts and farmers alike. While hailed by some as a crucial first step, a deeper examination of the U.S. Department of Agriculture’s (USDA) Regenerative Pilot Program (RPP), central to the administration’s plan, reveals a complex picture of ambitious goals constrained by existing resources and staffing challenges. Critics contend that the program, while promoting valuable practices, does not constitute a new financial commitment to advancing sustainable farming and may be undermined by recent cuts to USDA field staff.
By Lisa Held
September 21, 2026
U.S. Secretary of Agriculture Brooke Rollins testifies before the House Agriculture Committee over the Trump administration’s FY2027 budget request. (Photo credit: Chip Somodevilla/Getty Images)
This is the second of a three-part series examining the current state of regenerative agriculture. Read the first story, here.
The Executive Order and Initial Reception
In June 2026, President Trump issued the first executive order (EO) explicitly dedicated to "advancing regenerative agriculture," sparking considerable discussion within agricultural circles. The EO aimed to "maximize the funding" and "expand the reach" of the USDA’s Regenerative Pilot Program (RPP), which had been announced in late 2025. This move was seen by many advocates as a significant validation of regenerative practices at the highest levels of government.
Jonathan Lundgren, a prominent researcher and advocate for regenerative farming, expressed measured enthusiasm following the EO’s release. "This EO now engages the administration’s resources into supporting regenerative agriculture on an expanded scale," Lundgren wrote on LinkedIn. "We are cautiously optimistic that this first step will support our bottom-up efforts to change the culture of food in the U.S. and globally." His sentiment encapsulated the hope that the executive directive would translate into tangible, widespread support for farming methods focused on soil health, biodiversity, and ecosystem resilience.
The USDA quickly reported progress, with a spokesperson informing Civil Eats that the agency had exceeded its initial goals. As of September 16, 2026, the USDA had distributed $851.7 million through 5,100 RPP farmer contracts, utilizing two long-standing conservation programs: the Environmental Quality Incentives Program (EQIP) and the Conservation Stewardship Program (CSP). These figures suggested rapid uptake and significant engagement from the agricultural community.
A Closer Look at Funding: "One Big Pot of Money"
Despite the impressive numbers and official statements, a closer analysis of the RPP’s financial structure reveals that the program does not represent a net new investment in regenerative agriculture. Instead, it operates by reallocating existing funds within established conservation programs. This distinction has become a central point of contention for many observers.
Keith Kloubec, a state conservationist in Minnesota, articulated the program’s financial reality during an early September meeting with local NRCS officials. "It’s all one big pot of money, we’re just carving it out," Kloubec explained. This "pot" is comprised of funds Congress already allocates annually to EQIP and CSP, which historically incentivize farmers to adopt a broad array of environmentally beneficial practices. For RPP, the USDA carved out $700 million from these existing allocations specifically for contracts with farmers who commit to at least one practice deemed "regenerative" by the agency.
This approach stands in contrast to previous efforts under the Biden administration, which had directed EQIP and CSP funds toward "climate-smart" practices. Crucially, former President Joe Biden, in collaboration with Democrats in Congress, secured a massive infusion of new money into EQIP and CSP through the Inflation Reduction Act (IRA). This additional funding significantly boosted the total amount available for conservation, leading to a historic increase in farmers adopting climate-smart practices. Under the Trump administration, however, no such supplementary funding has been provided for RPP.
Michael Happ, program associate for climate and rural communities at the Institute for Agriculture and Trade Policy, acknowledged the value of the practices promoted by RPP but questioned the program’s overall impact. "This is a set-aside of existing funds for practices that are already really popular," Happ noted. "The first question I had was, ‘Will this actually invest more in these practices?’ I’m not sure if I can answer that question yet."
Indeed, data suggests that the RPP’s direct investment in regenerative practices might not surpass previous years. The USDA spokesperson indicated that $468.9 million of the total RPP funding went to specified regenerative agriculture practices, while $382.9 million supported other, related conservation practices on the same farms. Anne Schechinger, senior director of agriculture and climate research at the Environmental Working Group, analyzed USDA data from 2023-2025, prior to RPP’s inception. She found that EQIP alone allocated $314 million in 2023 and $471 million in 2025 to the same list of practices. In 2024, bolstered by IRA funds, the agency directed a substantial $776 million towards these practices, then categorized as "climate-smart." While an exact comparison is challenging due to RPP combining EQIP and CSP figures, it appears that in at least 2024 and 2025, USDA had already allocated more money to these practices through EQIP alone.
Furthermore, the USDA stated it would set aside 25 percent of future EQIP and CSP funds for RPP contracts. However, between 2022 and 2025, an average of 25 percent of EQIP’s total funding was already being spent on these very practices, suggesting that this "set-aside" largely formalizes existing spending patterns rather than creating new opportunities.
Political Maneuvering and the Farm Bill’s Shadow
The financial landscape for conservation programs is further complicated by ongoing legislative battles. Republicans in Congress have proposed changes in the draft of the new Farm Bill, currently making its way through the Senate, that could significantly reduce the funds available for EQIP. These proposals, notably within the "One Big Beautiful Bill," involve moving extra conservation funds allocated by Democrats in the Inflation Reduction Act into permanent conservation programs, but simultaneously removing requirements that the money be used for climate-focused practices. Agricultural economists estimate these changes could lead to the rejection of over 56,500 farmer applications, potentially reducing EQIP funding by $2 billion in the coming years.
Anne Schechinger of EWG expressed grave concerns about these legislative developments. "I would definitely say this administration is making decisions that are leading to less regenerative farming overall," she asserted, pointing to the combination of reallocated funds and potential cuts. Additionally, many organic and regenerative farms have already faced significant funding losses due to USDA cuts to other programs, leaving them in a precarious position.
Advocacy groups have swiftly reacted to these proposed cuts. MAHA Action, the political arm of a prominent agricultural advocacy organization, along with popular advocates like Alexandra Muñoz and Kelly Ryerson, vociferously campaigned against these measures on social media platform X, with Ryerson stating that the bill would "defund the regen ag pilot." This highlights the deep concern within the regenerative agriculture community that even well-intentioned programs could be undermined by broader budgetary shifts.
Defining "Regenerative": Practices and Perceptions
The Regenerative Pilot Program’s list of primary practices includes those with proven environmental benefits, such as cover crops, conservation crop rotations, nutrient management, no-till, reduced-till, and pest management conservation systems. However, the interpretation and implementation of "regenerative" within the program have also drawn scrutiny.
MAHA Action, in its advocacy, described RPP as "helping farmers quit chemicals." Yet, on the RPP’s official list of primary practices, only one explicitly targets pesticide reduction: Integrated Pest Management (IPM), a system that aims to minimize pesticide use through various methods but does not necessarily eliminate them entirely. Critics also point out that some of the most commonly funded practices under RPP, such as live cover crops and no-till farming, can, in certain contexts (especially in conventional commodity fields), lead to an increase in herbicide use, rather than a decrease. This nuance underscores the ongoing debate about what truly constitutes "regenerative" and whether the program is driving fundamental shifts away from chemical-intensive agriculture.
Despite these caveats, many farmers and experts acknowledge the program’s benefits. Seth Kroeck, who runs Crystal Spring Farm in Brunswick, Maine, a certified organic vegetable and livestock operation, initially welcomed RPP’s design. He highlighted its potential to better serve organic farms by allowing for multiple practices within a single contract, aligning with the holistic nature of organic systems. "I have had a lot of contracts with NRCS over the years and one of my gripes has been they have so few programs geared toward organic and organic production systems," Kroeck said. "They don’t take into account that organic growers are stacking systems and stacking practices. We never got credit for any of those. As I understood it, it was going to be multiple practices, and you got credit for stacking a bunch of them and they didn’t necessarily have to be new practices to you."
The USDA spokesperson confirmed this design, explaining that RPP money can fund both "primary" regenerative practices and "facilitating" practices. For instance, a farmer implementing "prescribed grazing" (a regenerative practice) could also receive funding for necessary infrastructure like fencing or watering facilities. However, Kroeck’s own application was ultimately rejected, raising questions about the program’s accessibility for organic and diverse farming operations.
Farmer Experiences and Program Accessibility
The rapid enrollment of farmers into RPP contracts—3,600 between January and July 2026, jumping to 5,100 by mid-September—suggests high demand. However, experts believe this speed is partly attributable to NRCS agents enrolling farmers who were already seeking EQIP or CSP funds for popular, existing practices. During the Minnesota NRCS meeting, officials noted that six of the 15 practices on the regenerative list were consistently among their "top 10 practices" for EQIP every year. This implies that many "regenerative" contracts might simply be re-labeling practices farmers intended to adopt anyway, rather than spurring new regenerative conversions.
Beyond the numbers, the RPP offers some distinct advantages over typical conservation contracts. RPP contracts are longer, with a minimum duration of five years, providing farmers with more time to implement changes and observe benefits. Crucially, the program mandates soil health testing, a feature lauded by advocates. Jesse Womack, a policy specialist at the National Sustainable Agriculture Coalition, emphasized its importance: "That is so wildly important. If you know that your biologically active soil is going to provide more plant nutrition for you than you otherwise would have accounted for, then we can start talking about very serious reductions in applied fertilizer, which has incredible environmental benefits. Soil health testing is possibly one of the most important emerging management tools we have to help folks become more profitable per acre with less inputs."
Womack also highlighted the program’s requirement for "whole farm planning" with NRCS agents, though its practical difference from standard planning processes remains unclear. Seth Kroeck, despite his application being rejected, couldn’t discern a significant difference in this aspect during his application process. Robert Bonnie, a former USDA official who oversaw NRCS under President Obama and worked on climate-smart practices under Biden, echoed this sentiment, stating that a good NRCS agent should inherently be helping farmers with whole farm resource concerns.
"The [Regenerative Pilot] program is well-intended and is a good use of NRCS money. The practices are good, and there’s a lot of demand for them," Bonnie concluded. "But it’s not revolutionary, it’s a continuation of what NRCS has been doing for a long time. My concern is that in order to make programs like this successful, you have to have the staff to implement them."
The Staffing Crisis: A Critical Impediment
The most significant challenge facing the RPP, according to many experts and farmers, is the severe staffing shortages at local USDA field offices. These cuts, implemented by the Trump administration over the past year, have left many NRCS employees overwhelmed and struggling to meet program demands. In Minnesota, for example, NRCS agents reported being down approximately 100 employees, leading to long working hours to achieve RPP goals.
Jesse Womack starkly summarized the situation: "This was implemented in a period where NRCS staff has been pretty well eviscerated. There are counties across the country that no longer have a single NRCS staffer available to producers." This lack of personnel directly impacts farmers’ ability to access and navigate complex conservation programs, including a new initiative like RPP.
The staffing crisis raises concerns about equitable access. With fewer staff and large budgets to allocate, there’s pressure to process applications quickly, which can favor larger farms with more expensive contracts. "When you have very few hands to spend that money and really big budgets, the pressure becomes to work with bigger farmers on more expensive contracts," Womack explained. "That pretty explicitly disadvantages smaller farms." Data analyzed for Civil Eats by a former USDA budget specialist indicates that the average dollar amount across contracts increased by 70 percent, though the agency disputes that this reflects a bias toward the largest contracts.
Michael Happ from IATP worried that reduced staffing would also lead agents to prioritize simpler, less complicated practices over more advanced regenerative projects, which often require more technical assistance and planning. "They’re going to want to get farmers in and out the door. They’re going to want to minimize paperwork," Happ predicted. "So, they’re probably going to focus on the practices they already know."
Anecdotal evidence supports these concerns. Seth Kroeck in Maine recounted his agent’s "groan" when he inquired about RPP, highlighting the burden of new program applications on an already stretched staff. Despite her help, his application was rejected for unclear reasons. Similarly, Jason Russell of Big Boulder Farms in Iowa, who sought RPP funding for an innovative rotational grazing system on cropland, was turned down after a year of planning. "They said there’s no money available because they just want to concentrate on existing pastureland, not putting animals on existing cropland," Russell said, expressing his confusion. These rejections suggest that the program, despite its stated goals, may not be equipped to support truly innovative or less common regenerative approaches without sufficient staff expertise and capacity.
Looking Ahead: Promises and Unfulfilled Potential
The USDA spokesperson maintained that field staff have been instrumental in driving RPP adoption through technical assistance and knowledge sharing, asserting that the "national campaign" spurred discussions that might not have otherwise occurred. They also pledged future stakeholder roundtables to gather feedback and refine the program. However, the promised Regenerative Advisory Council, which was listed on the USDA website as a key component of the RPP launch, has reportedly been scrapped, casting a shadow on the agency’s commitment to external guidance.
The Regenerative Pilot Program embodies a critical tension in agricultural policy: the desire to promote sustainable practices against a backdrop of budgetary constraints and political shifts. While the executive order and the program’s focus on soil health testing and longer contracts are commendable steps, the absence of new funding and the severe impact of staffing cuts raise serious questions about its long-term effectiveness and ability to truly transform American agriculture on a broad scale. As the Farm Bill debate continues and the USDA grapples with its resource limitations, the future of regenerative agriculture in the U.S. remains a topic of intense scrutiny and concern.
