admin
WASHINGTON D.C. — Despite celebratory pronouncements from the Trump administration regarding its commitment to advancing regenerative agriculture, a new analysis reveals that the much-touted Regenerative Pilot Program (RPP) does not represent a significant new investment in sustainable farming practices. Instead, it reallocates existing funds, and critical staffing cuts at the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) threaten to undermine its potential benefits, experts and farmers contend. The program, while well-intended in its focus on soil health and conservation, faces substantial headwinds that call into question the true depth of the administration’s support for a transformative shift in American agriculture.
A New Mandate, Familiar Funding Streams
In June 2026, President Donald Trump issued the first-ever executive order (EO) dedicated to "advancing regenerative agriculture," sparking cautious optimism among proponents. Researcher Jonathan Lundgren, a prominent voice in the regenerative farming movement, articulated this sentiment on LinkedIn, stating, "This EO now engages the administration’s resources into supporting regenerative agriculture on an expanded scale. 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." The cornerstone of this executive directive was the mandate to "maximize the funding" and "expand the reach" of the USDA’s Regenerative Pilot Program (RPP), which had been initially unveiled in late 2025.
According to a USDA spokesperson, the agency has since exceeded its initial goals for the RPP, allocating $851.7 million across 5,100 farmer contracts. These contracts were distributed through two of the USDA’s longstanding and most critical conservation initiatives: the Environmental Quality Incentives Program (EQIP) and the Conservation Stewardship Program (CSP). Both programs are designed to provide financial and technical assistance to farmers and ranchers to address natural resource concerns and deliver environmental benefits. EQIP, for instance, offers financial and technical assistance to implement conservation practices on agricultural land, while CSP helps agricultural producers maintain and improve existing conservation systems and adopt additional conservation activities. The integration of RPP within these established frameworks was intended to leverage existing infrastructure and expertise.
However, a closer examination of the funding mechanisms reveals a more complex picture. Critics argue that the RPP, rather than injecting new capital into the sector, primarily rebrands and redirects funds already earmarked for conservation efforts. Anne Schechinger, senior director of agriculture and climate research at the Environmental Working Group, summarized the prevailing sentiment among many advocates: "I would definitely say this administration is making decisions that are leading to less regenerative farming overall." This assertion stems from the fact that while the RPP boasts impressive contract numbers, the financial allocations for specified regenerative practices within the program actually fall short of previous years’ spending on similar initiatives.
The Shifting Landscape of Agricultural Conservation
To fully grasp the current state of affairs, it is crucial to consider the recent history of federal agricultural conservation policy. Under the previous Biden administration, a significant legislative achievement was the passage of the Inflation Reduction Act (IRA) in 2022. The IRA provided an unprecedented infusion of additional funding into EQIP and CSP, specifically targeting "climate-smart" agricultural practices. This historic investment was designed to incentivize farmers to adopt practices that reduce greenhouse gas emissions, enhance carbon sequestration, and build resilience to climate change. Many of these climate-smart practices, such as cover cropping, no-till farming, and improved nutrient management, directly align with the principles of regenerative agriculture. The IRA’s additional funds led to a substantial increase in the total money available for conservation programs, enabling a record number of farmers to implement environmentally beneficial practices. For example, in 2024, bolstered by IRA funds, the USDA directed approximately $776 million towards practices that could be classified as "regenerative" or "climate-smart" through EQIP alone.
The current administration, however, has pursued a different strategy. Republicans, through the "One Big Beautiful Bill," moved to integrate the extra conservation funds allocated by Democrats in the IRA into the general conservation programs permanently. While this superficially increased the overall money available within EQIP and CSP, it critically removed the specific requirements that these funds be used for climate-focused practices. This re-prioritization, according to many environmental and agricultural groups, dilutes the impact of what was intended to be a climate-centric investment, potentially diverting funds from practices with the most significant climate benefits.
Moreover, the future financial outlook for conservation programs appears bleak. Proposed changes by Republicans in Congress within the draft farm bill currently making its way through the Senate could lead to a reduction of $2 billion in funds available to farmers seeking to enroll in EQIP in the coming years. Agricultural economists from institutions like the University of Illinois have estimated that these proposed changes could result in the rejection of over 56,500 farmer applications for conservation assistance, a significant setback for broad-based environmental stewardship. Furthermore, numerous organic and regenerative farms have already experienced substantial funding losses due to USDA cuts to other programs, leaving many struggling to maintain their advanced sustainable practices.
Dissecting the Regenerative Pilot Program’s Financial Footprint
The RPP, announced with considerable fanfare, has indeed disbursed a substantial amount of money. The USDA reported that $851.7 million has been committed across 5,100 contracts. However, the internal mechanics of the program’s design reveal that a little more than half of this funding, specifically $468.9 million, was directed towards the practices explicitly designated as "regenerative." The remaining $382.9 million was allocated to "other practices" on the same farms, which, while potentially beneficial, do not directly contribute to the program’s stated regenerative goals.
This distinction is crucial when comparing RPP’s impact to previous years. Prior to the RPP’s inception, an analysis by Anne Schechinger of the Environmental Working Group showed that USDA already obligated significant EQIP funds to the same list of regenerative practices: $314 million in 2023 and $471 million in 2025. In 2024, with the substantial boost from the IRA, that figure jumped to $776 million for "climate-smart" practices, many of which directly overlap with the RPP’s regenerative list. While a direct comparison is challenging due to the RPP’s inclusion of both EQIP and CSP funds, it is evident that in at least 2024 and 2025, the USDA already allocated comparable, if not greater, amounts of money to these practices through EQIP alone. This strongly supports the argument that the RPP largely represents a re-labeling and re-prioritization of existing funds rather than a net increase in investment.
Keith Kloubec, a state conservationist in Minnesota, candidly explained the funding mechanism during a September meeting with NRCS officials: "It’s all one big pot of money, we’re just carving it out." This statement underscores the fundamental issue: the RPP is not expanding the overall financial pie for conservation but rather re-slicing it. Michael Happ, program associate for climate and rural communities at the Institute for Agriculture and Trade Policy, voiced a similar concern, noting, "This is a set-aside of existing funds for practices that are already really popular. 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." The rapid enrollment of farmers into RPP contracts – jumping from 3,600 in July to 5,100 by mid-September – is likely attributable to agents simply categorizing applications for already popular conservation practices as "regenerative" to meet new administrative goals. Indeed, during the Minnesota call, NRCS agents highlighted that six of the fifteen practices on the regenerative list were consistently among their "top 10 practices" for EQIP every year.
Staffing Shortfalls and Implementation Hurdles
While the RPP’s financial structure raises questions, its implementation has been further complicated by severe staffing cuts within the USDA, particularly at local field offices of the Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS). NRCS field staff are the frontline workers who provide crucial technical assistance, help farmers develop conservation plans, and guide them through the complex application process for programs like EQIP and CSP. Data from early 2026 revealed that nearly 150 USDA county offices had no conservation staff, and federal data updated later in the year showed widespread staffing shortages across states. In Minnesota alone, NRCS agents reported being down approximately 100 employees, forcing existing staff to work extended hours to meet RPP goals.
Robert Bonnie, a former USDA official who oversaw NRCS under President Barack Obama, emphasized the critical link between staffing and program success. "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," he said. "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."
Jesse Womack, a policy specialist at the National Sustainable Agriculture Coalition, echoed these concerns, stating, "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 severe understaffing creates several negative implications. Firstly, it overwhelms existing personnel, making it difficult for them to provide comprehensive support and technical guidance, especially for new or complex programs. Secondly, it can lead to a focus on simpler, more easily processed applications to meet quotas, potentially sidelining more advanced or innovative regenerative projects. Thirdly, with fewer hands to disburse large budgets, there’s an inherent pressure to work with larger farmers on more expensive contracts, which explicitly disadvantages smaller and mid-size farms that often require more tailored assistance. Analysis of USDA data by a former USDA budget specialist for Civil Eats revealed that the average dollar amount across contracts increased by 70 percent, suggesting a shift towards larger operations, although the USDA spokesperson cautioned that 2026 data is "too premature to evaluate contract size."
Farmer Realities: Ambition Meets Bureaucracy
The real-world impact of these policy and staffing dynamics is most acutely felt by farmers. While the RPP does offer some genuine benefits—including longer contract terms (a minimum of five years, allowing more time for practices to take effect) and a mandatory soil health testing component—the bureaucratic hurdles and rejections have created frustration.
Jesse Womack highlighted the significance of soil health testing: "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." The program also requires "whole farm planning" with NRCS agents, though its practical distinction from typical conservation planning remains unclear to many farmers.
However, the RPP’s list of "regenerative" practices also raises questions. While it includes valuable practices like cover crops, conservation crop rotations, and nutrient management, only one practice is explicitly linked to reducing pesticide use (Integrated Pest Management). Some of the most commonly funded practices, such as cover crops and no-till farming, while beneficial for soil health, can sometimes lead to an increase in herbicide use in conventional commodity fields if not managed holistically. This nuance is often lost in the broad categorization, as MAHA Action, a political advocacy group, referred to RPP as a program "helping farmers quit chemicals," which may be an oversimplification.
Seth Kroeck, who runs Crystal Spring Farm in Brunswick, Maine, a certified organic vegetable and livestock operation, initially saw promise in the RPP’s design, which allowed for the stacking of multiple practices in one contract. "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," he explained. "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." Despite his optimism and a strong application, Kroeck’s proposal was ultimately rejected, leaving him and others questioning the program’s accessibility for genuinely integrated organic systems. His agent, the sole NRCS staff member in his county, had expressed the burden of navigating a new program with limited resources, illustrating the direct impact of staffing cuts on farmer support.
Another case in point is Jason Russell of Big Boulder Farms in Iowa, who sought RPP funding to implement an innovative grazing system on his cropland. After nearly a year of meticulous planning, measuring, obtaining quotes, and completing paperwork, his application was denied. "They said there’s no money available because they just want to concentrate on existing pastureland, not putting animals on existing cropland," Russell recounted, expressing confusion over the rejection, especially given the program’s stated aim to support diverse regenerative approaches. These experiences underscore a disconnect between the program’s ambitious goals and its on-the-ground execution, exacerbated by resource constraints and potentially rigid interpretations of guidelines by overwhelmed staff.
The Broader Implications for Sustainable Agriculture Policy
The USDA’s Regenerative Pilot Program, in its current form, highlights a tension between political rhetoric and practical policy implementation. While the administration has championed "advancing regenerative agriculture," the approach has largely involved leveraging existing programs and funds rather than creating new, robust financial incentives. The re-allocation of IRA funds and the proposed cuts in the upcoming farm bill further suggest a broader weakening of federal support for conservation initiatives.
The decision to scrap the promised Regenerative Advisory Council, which was initially listed on the USDA’s website as a key component of the RPP, further erodes confidence among stakeholders. While the USDA spokesperson stated that the agency would instead host "stakeholder roundtables" to gather feedback, the absence of a dedicated advisory body signals a potential lack of sustained, high-level engagement with the diverse voices in the regenerative agriculture community.
The implications extend beyond just funding. The focus on popular, easily measured practices, potentially at the expense of more complex, integrated regenerative systems, risks stifling innovation and limiting the true transformative potential of regenerative agriculture. If the program primarily serves to re-label existing conservation efforts without driving new adoption or supporting comprehensive farm-level transitions, its impact on environmental outcomes—such as significant carbon sequestration, biodiversity enhancement, or chemical reduction—may be limited.
Looking Ahead: Policy Debates and Farmer Resilience
As the 2026 Farm Bill negotiations progress, the fate of agricultural conservation programs remains a contentious issue. Advocacy groups like MAHA Action and prominent advocates such as Alexandra Muñoz and Kelly Ryerson have fiercely campaigned against the proposed cuts to EQIP, arguing that such reductions would "defund the regen ag pilot" and undermine progress towards sustainable farming. The ongoing debate underscores the critical role of legislative action in shaping the future of agricultural policy and the need for sustained, bipartisan support for conservation.
For farmers like Seth Kroeck and Jason Russell, who are already committed to regenerative practices, the current program’s limitations and bureaucratic hurdles represent lost opportunities and added frustrations. Their resilience and dedication to improving soil health and environmental stewardship often rely on a patchwork of resources, and federal programs are a vital component.
Ultimately, the USDA’s Regenerative Pilot Program serves as a significant case study in the challenges of translating broad policy ambitions into effective, equitable, and impactful on-the-ground initiatives. While the intention to elevate regenerative agriculture is laudable, its execution under the current framework — characterized by repurposed funds, significant staffing challenges, and a complex political landscape — suggests that the path to widespread regenerative adoption in the U.S. remains arduous and requires more than just a new label for old programs. The true test of the administration’s commitment will be measured not just by the volume of contracts, but by the tangible, verifiable improvements in environmental health and farmer livelihoods that the program genuinely facilitates.
