Gordon’s Policy Corner

Katelyn Hemmer, Policy & Programs Intern

By Katelyn Hemmer, OFRF Policy & Programs Intern, Winter 2025-26

Despite messaging around reinvigorated support for small farms, USDA’s policy choices over the last year have revealed a widespread erosion of resources for small farmers. Small farms have been the cornerstone of community for centuries, and it’s no different today. Making up 85% of all farms in the U.S., small family farms keep money in the local economy, conserve land for the next generation, and provide security in the face of global supply chain issues. Although the USDA’s financial assistance programming has by and large been utilized by larger and larger operations, the past year has resulted in a historic level of staffing cuts, leading to fewer resources for small and mid-size farmers and overall a widespread sense of uncertainty.

Key changes to agriculture policy & programs in 2025 affecting farmers in 2026:

• The USDA lost almost 1 in 4 NRCS employees in 2025, the vast majority of whom worked in field offices that provide direct technical assistance and grant support to farmers.
• The USDA terminated the Local Food for Schools Cooperative Agreement Program, the Local Food Purchase Assistance Cooperative Agreement Program, and the Regional Food Business Centers program, resulting in the loss of markets and support for small farmers.
• Programs that remain in place, such as the Patrick Leahy Farm to School Grant Program, have raised grant floors, making it harder for smaller entities and projects to get funding.
• Funding freezes, canceled programs, shutdowns, and market uncertainty have eroded farmers’ trust in the USDA and the federal government.

NRCS Program Cuts & What It Means for Farmers

Over the past year of program cuts and cancellations, the Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) was hit hard. NRCS provides many types of support to farmers including technical assistance, engineering, and conservation plans. NRCS cost share programs give farmers the opportunity to try more sustainable methods of production without risking their business on the initial infrastructure investment. NRCS programs have been backed up for years. Funding is competitive, with 43-44% of Environmental Quality Incentives Program (EQIP) applicants and 53-55% of Conservation Stewardship Program (CSP) applicants awarded contracts. Farmers who secure cost share contracts develop a specific design plan based on technicians’ assessment of the land, and they must follow that plan exactly to receive reimbursement. Much of the work at field offices involves site visits to develop these plans, answer farmers’ questions, and confirm site requirements. Even before this year’s cuts, NRCS employees were stretched thin.

The NRCS lost almost one in four of their employees between January and September of 2025. Many offices were reduced to one or two employees or closed altogether. In rural areas, the closure or severe reduction in staff of an NRCS office means that an already lengthy, bureaucratic process has slowed to a snail’s pace. Of the thousands of employees who were fired or took deferred resignation, only 30 were located in D.C.–– the rest were from field offices around the country. This means that the cuts didn’t “optimize the USDA workforce and stop wasteful spending,” they terminated the contracts of people who provided direct support to farmers in the form of site visits, grant support, and system design. Specific agricultural experience takes years to build and is often location-based. For example, a conservation plan for a farm in New Mexico will not work for one in New York due to differences in their agroecological regions. The cuts to NRCS have created difficulty and uncertainty for farmers with current contracts, hindered the ability of offices to begin new projects, placed the responsibilities of entire offices onto one or two employees, and limited the ability of farmers to farm how they choose to. The lost time and experience resulting from these cuts will impact the efficacy of the agency and farmers’ future conservation efforts.

In December, USDA secretary Brooke Rollins announced a $700 million investment in regenerative agriculture, administered through NRCS. Without a new Farm Bill and the creation of new programs, this money is going toward EQIP and CSP contracts, with no money reserved and no plan for restaffing NRCS field offices across the country. With cuts to other funding sources, both programs are still looking at a net decrease in funding according to analysis by MAD Agriculture: EQIP is now funded at a total of $2.655 billion for FY2026, an increase of $605 million over 2018 Farm Bill baselines, but a decrease of $2.845 billion relative to the combined amount previously allocated through IRA and the 2018 Farm Bill. CSP is now funded at a total of $1.3 billion for FY2026, an increase of $300 million over 2018 Farm Bill baselines, but a decrease of $2.2 billion relative to the combined amount previously allocated through IRA and the 2018 Farm Bill.

Reductions in Funding for Agriculture Programs and Grants Hurts Small Farmers

In March, the USDA cut $1 billion in taxpayer dollars that states could use to buy local produce for institutions such as schools, childcare centers, and food banks. The Local Food for Schools Cooperative Agreement Program and the Local Food Purchase Assistance Cooperative Agreement Program were both terminated, with existing contracts being given only 60 days notice. Other programs also saw cuts–– the Patrick Leahy Farm to School Grant Program was cut by $10 million, more than half its total awarded grants in 2024. Without federal funding, schools and food banks don’t have the extra funds to pay for local, sustainable food, and small farmers can’t afford to give away their food for free.

In July, the USDA dealt another blow to small farmers by eliminating the program that runs the nation’s Regional Food Business Centers. These centers were created with the specific intention of helping small farmers and strengthening the local supply chain in the face of increasing consolidation in the industry. While the centers were only created in 2023, many had already begun funding grants for projects like expanding commercial kitchens and building freezers that allow small farmers to grow their businesses. The Northwest and Rocky Mountain Regional Food Business Center, just one of twelve across the country, reported that their programs helped establish 30 new companies, and increased sales at 50 farms and businesses that worked with the center. Before termination, the program had a budget of $360 million–– a relatively small share of the USDA annual budget, but hugely impactful to the rural communities they served, with 287 businesses across the country reporting increased revenue in just one year of operation. It is difficult to see the termination of these centers as anything more than stated support for the largest players in industrial agriculture.

In September, Secretary of Agriculture Brooke Rollins announced an $18 million investment in the Patrick Leahy Farm to School Grant Program, the largest single-year investment in the program. However, besides the upset and uncertainty that the sudden termination of grants earlier in the year caused, the USDA has set a grant floor of $100,000 for individual partnerships. This means that there will be fewer projects and they will be awarded to larger farms. In previous years, small farms and small schools benefited from the program, with grants as small as $23,000 awarded to rural schools to ensure access to healthy food and create agricultural education programs. The agency also eliminated efforts to ensure that the grants were distributed equitably to underserved communities, low-income students, small farms, and rural school districts. With the new restrictions, small farms have lost another market.

How You Can Take Action to Support Small Farmers

Small farmers are struggling to keep their doors open. The number of farms declined 8% between 2017 and 2024 with the vast majority of closed farms having sales under $50,000. With margins so small, the funding freeze in early 2025 and the subsequent termination of many grants and programs dealt a huge blow to small farms. Additionally, the pause in SNAP funding caused by the government shutdown in late 2025 and the new restrictions on the program cut into small farmers’ sales. This is especially impactful in states that have SNAP incentive models that promote healthy eating, like Colorado’s “Double Up Food Bucks” or Georgia’s “Fresh For Less”. The policy changes and political events over the past year have had a measurable effect on farmer profit and future prospects.

Our food system has always been shaped by federal and state policy. There is widespread popular support for policies that would remove artificial dyes or banning harmful pesticides from both major political parties. Officials often propose legislation that would promote agricultural research, limit money going to the biggest players, and other programs or policy changes that would make it easier to live as a small farmer in America. Policy modifications to current government programs, such as Farm to School grants, could make it easier for small farmers to secure contracts. Fully staffed and fully funded NRCS offices would allow more farmers to afford projects that protect their land. Whether you are a farmer, a land owner, or just someone who consumes food, you have a stake in this issue and the ability to get involved. Here are a couple of resources to help you get started:

• OFRF get active guide
• Communicating with Legislators course

A personal note as I step away from OFRF

By Gordon Merrick, OFRF Policy Program Director 

This will be the last edition of Gordon’s Policy Corner that I will write. As I type that I certainly feel a mix of gratitude, pride, and a fair amount of dust in my eye. After nearly four years at the Organic Farming Research Foundation, I’ll soon be stepping away from an organization that has shaped how I think about food, farming, and what it means to do policy work that serves the people who are integral to our food system: farmers, farm workers, researchers, and those that translate the scientific research into practical tools.

When I joined OFRF, I was given an opportunity to rethink how we, a research organization, engage with policy research and advocacy that is rooted in the people we serve. Over the last four years, I’ve had the privilege of helping grow that work in ways that feel tangible and lasting: launching our Communicating with Legislators course which aims to demystify the policy process for researchers and farmers; helping craft and introduce the Organic Science and Research Investment Act in the House and the Senate; working to build stronger connections between researchers, producers, and the policymakers that serve them; developing practical, farmer-facing toolkits on USDA programs through our TOPP-W/SW work; and partnering with NRCS to strengthen research-backed tools and expertise relevant to organic within the agency.

Fellowship of the Rings photo credit: New Line Cinema

But, those are all things you can put in a report or sometimes feel in your hand. What doesn’t show up as easily on paper is the community. I’m especially proud of the role I was able to play in the TOPP network, a constellation of farmers, certifiers, researchers, nonprofits, and agency staff who are doing the unglamorous, essential work of helping organic systems, from the small urban farm to the complex distributors, exist and thrive. Forgive my nerdiness, but that larger network feels like a Tolkien-esque fellowship: a group up against the odds but deeply committed to carrying something important forward, together.

Looking ahead, I am confident that OFRF is set up to keep having an outsized impact on the adoption of organic agriculture systems. That’s because of the people that make up this organization, the relationships those people hold and nurture, and the way this organization operates: constantly grounding priorities and our work in farmer’s lived experiences. OFRF will continue to work to ensure that research is action-oriented, and refuse to accept that organic should be treated as a side quest instead of a core part of U.S. agriculture. The work we’ve built is bigger than any one person, and that is exactly how it should be.

One of the biggest lessons I’m carrying forward with me is both the need, and the effectiveness, of shifting our collective mindset from scarcity to abundance. From either/or to yes/and. From us-versus-them to whole systemic perspectives. Organic agriculture has always pointed in that direction: organic, at its core, is about working alongside natural systems to foster a naturally abundant system that already exists. Soil health doesn’t compete with profitability, farmer wellbeing isn’t matched against stewardship; they reinforce each other.

That being said, it feels important to name the moment we are in. We are living in a time when science is being questioned, expertise is being flattened to opinion, and fear is easier to sell than nuance. I hold real compassion for people who have been misled or who are reacting from a place of uncertainty or loss. At the same time, I believe strongly that compassion cannot mean silence in the face of real harm. We need to consistently provide both: patience to meet people where they are, and firm, principled opposition to actions that undermine farmers, research, and the systems that sustain us all.

I’m deeply grateful for the farmers, researchers, partners, and colleagues who trusted me, argued with me, taught me, and built things alongside me. OFRF will keep doing work that matters. But starting later this month, I’ll be cheering it on loudly from the sidelines.

I’m not disappearing, and I genuinely hope to stay in touch. If you want to keep talking about organic agriculture, the relationship between research and policy, how to build something better than what we’ve inherited, or to share your favorite bread recipe, please reach out. I’d love that.

Eat well and breathe deeply,

Gordon

By Gordon Merrick, OFRF Policy Program Director 

If it feels like we’ve been talking about the Farm Bill forever, you’re not wrong. As we turn the calendar to a new year, we are still operating under an extended version of the 2018 Farm Bill, once again kicking the can down the road on a comprehensive, bipartisan update to one of the most consequential pieces of legislation for U.S. agriculture.

Here’s a quick reset on where things stand, what key players are signaling, and how OFRF is approaching the year ahead.

A Quick Catch-Up: How We Got Here

Last year was defined less by progress and more by procedural survival. Congress passed multiple short-term extensions to avoid a lapse in Farm Bill authorities, ultimately extending the 2018 Farm Bill into the new year. While this kept critical programs operating, it also delayed meaningful updates to research, conservation, and rural development policy, areas that increasingly need modernization.

At the same time, Farm Bill negotiations were repeatedly sidelined by larger political dynamics: leadership changes, appropriations brinkmanship, reconciliation debates, and an overall lack of floor time. The result was a familiar outcome: temporary certainty paired with long-term stagnation.

For organic farmers and researchers, this has real consequences. Programs authorized by the Farm Bill can’t evolve, funding levels can’t be right-sized, and emerging challenges—climate volatility, supply chain disruptions, market consolidation—remain inadequately addressed.

What Key Players Are Saying About the Farm Bill This Year

As Congress returns, there’s no shortage of rhetoric about getting a Farm Bill “done this year.” Committee leadership in both chambers continues to express support for a bipartisan process, and USDA officials have reiterated the importance of predictability for farmers and rural communities.

That said, the signals are mixed. Some members are focused on a “skinny” Farm Bill approach. Others are openly questioning whether the traditional Farm Bill coalition can hold together. Meanwhile, broader debates over federal spending and agency structure continue to loom over the process.

What’s clear is this: nothing will move on autopilot. A successful Farm Bill this year will require sustained engagement, coalition-building, and pressure from outside Washington to remind lawmakers what’s at stake.

What OFRF Is Doing This Year for Organic Agriculture Policy

OFRF is approaching this Farm Bill cycle with clarity and intention. Our priorities remain consistent: ensuring that organic agriculture is fully recognized as a research-driven, conservation-forward, and economically significant part of U.S. agriculture.

This year, that means:

• Advocating for robust investments in organic research, including OREI, ORG/RTOP, and USDA intramural research.
• Working to ensure that technical and financial assistance programs actually function for organic and transitioning-to-organic producers, not just on paper.
• Elevating the role of organic agriculture as an economic engine, particularly in rural communities.
• Supporting bipartisan policy solutions, like the Organic Science and Research Investment (OSRI) Act, that can be integrated into a final Farm Bill.

Just as importantly, we’re continuing to ground-truth these priorities through direct conversations with farmers, researchers, and partners across the country. Policy that isn’t informed by lived experience doesn’t hold up, and we’re committed to making sure that doesn’t happen.

How You Can Get Involved

If there’s one lesson from the last year, it’s that silence doesn’t move policy. Whether this Farm Bill becomes another extension or a meaningful reset depends in part on how clearly lawmakers hear from the communities they serve.

You can:

• Talk with your members of Congress about why organic research and conservation matter in your district.
• Share your experiences navigating USDA programs: what works, what doesn’t, and what needs to change.
• Engage with OFRF’s and our partner’s policy updates, sign-on letters, and action alerts as opportunities arise.
• Encourage colleagues, partners, and neighbors to stay engaged, even when the process feels slow or opaque.

A new year doesn’t automatically bring a new Farm Bill. But sustained, informed engagement can.

We’ll keep doing our part to make sure organic agriculture is not an afterthought in this process. We hope you’ll stay in it with us.

Eat well and breathe deeply,

Gordon

Written by Vinnie Trometter and Gordon Merrick of OFRF’s Policy Team

Before we all rushed to our dinner tables for Thanksgiving, we at the Organic Farming Research Foundation (OFRF), organic agriculture researchers, and organic farmers were thankful for actions taken by several state capitols across the country. On November 20th, the state secretaries of agriculture from Connecticut, Delaware, and New Jersey joined Pennsylvania Secretary Redding to submit a letter to the U.S. Secretary of Agriculture, Brooke Rollins, requesting unreleased FY2025 funding for the Organic Agriculture Research Extension Initiative (OREI) be included on top of new fiscal year funds for the program in FY2026.

OFRF’s policy team spurred this effort because we wanted to make sure that state departments of agriculture were aware that their land-grant universities did not have an opportunity to apply for the largest organic research program under USDA despite it being a permanent and mandatory program under the Farm Bill. OREI represents $50 million out of the $72.5 million which USDA dedicates to answering organic farmer’s questions each year. However, USDA did not release an RFA for the program for FY25, resulting in zero awards being given out. Consequently, researchers have endured disruptions in the continuation of their work and in the delayed study of organic topics that focus on many new and emerging issues facing organic farmers.

OREI recipients are overwhelmingly agriculture researchers at land-grant universities who develop projects in partnership with working certified-organic farms. These projects are critical steps towards finding ways to unlock organic producers’ ability to be more productive and better market their goods. The need for programs that study organic productivity and supply chains is becoming increasingly important because the U.S. has a spiraling organic trade deficit and has lost more than 16% of its certified acreage since 2021. Yet at the same time, domestic demand for organically produced goods grew 5.2% last year, more than double the rate of the overall marketplace.

Shortly after the release of this letter, OFRF received word from USDA that FY2026 OREI funding will include all of FY2025’s monies, which is an outcome we are very thankful for. State-level advocacy is an important and effective strategy that OFRF uses to inform federal officials about the localized impacts of federal policy.

We encourage organic farmers, researchers, and stakeholders to engage with their state representatives, senators, and departments of agriculture to amplify their challenges and successes as it comes to deployment of federal funds targeting organic agriculture research topics.

If you want to read more blogs like this, sign up for our newsletter here; if you want to take a next step in engaging with the policy process at a local, state, or federal level, sign up for our free, email-based Communicating with Legislators course!

Eat well and breathe deep,

Vinnie and Gordon

Written by Vinnie Trometter and Gordon Merrick

As we alluded in last month’s Policy Corner, there is some semblance of good news legislatively regarding OFRF’s policy priorities!  Reps. Eugene Vindman (D-VA-07) and Mike Lawler (R-NY-17) introduced OFRF’s flagship marker bill, the Organic Science and Research Investment (OSRI) Act in the House of Representatives with broad sector support. With a companion bill already introduced in the Senate by Sens. Fetterman (D-PA) and Schiff (D-CA), this legislation is now introduced in both chambers.

At its core, the OSRI Act is about finally investing in the research capacity needed to keep pace with a fast-growing organic sector. This bill would:

• Increase funding for the only two USDA research programs dedicated to organic research: the Organic Research and Extension Initiative (OREI) and the Organic Transitions Program (ORG).
• Direct USDA’s Research, Education, and Economics (REE) mission area to catalog existing organic research and recommend pathways to expand the work.
• Charge the USDA’s Economic Research Service (ERS) to examine the economic impact of organic agriculture on rural and urban communities.
• Continue the growth of the Organic Data Initiative, ensuring robust market and production data remains available to farmers, businesses, researchers, and policymakers.

Taken together, these provisions would strengthen the scientific foundation of organic agriculture, ensure farmers have access to regionally relevant research, and support a new generation of scientists committed to agroecological approaches.

Bipartisan By Design

The bipartisan approach we are pursuing is an intentional attempt to communicate that the growth of the organic agriculture sector is a national priority, not a partisan project, and we aim to have the cosponsor list reflect that reality.

While quiet support for organic agriculture does exist across both parties, public leadership on organic issues has historically been stronger among Democrats. That’s shifting. Interest in soil health, regenerative systems, and farmer-driven innovation is growing in Republican circles, but many offices prefer to see key agricultural interests and members support policies before they cosponsor legislation.

This strategy is especially important because the House introduction occurred at the outset of what has become the longest federal government shutdown in U.S. history. In an environment where basic governing has become difficult, moving new legislation requires patience, persistence, and a fundamentally nonpartisan posture. That is exactly how OFRF operates, and we are here to meet this moment.

Moving Forward

Because of the current political landscape exacerbated by the current shutdown, Farm Bill 2.0 discussions have slowed to a standstill. But this pause also creates space. As Congress turns back toward core Farm Bill negotiations in the coming months, the OSRI Act is well-positioned to gain traction, especially if organic research is understood as an economic development and competitiveness package rather than a niche priority.

That’s why your outreach matters.

Over the coming months, OFRF will continue to share targeted district-level information, elevate producer voices, and build bipartisan support so that organic research is properly valued, and fully funded, in the next Farm Bill. Check out our Communicating with Legislators course and reach out to us to get started!

OFRF and our allies are continuing to meet with Congressional offices to highlight how organic research delivers tangible benefits to farmers through practical tools to strengthen on farm resilience, expanded market opportunities, and rural economic revitalization.

At a moment when the organic sector is the fastest growing segment of U.S. agriculture, the need for its fair share of research investments has never been clearer. Farmers are on the front lines of climate disruption and supply-chain volatility, and organic research projects have actively provided methods to help them continue to thrive.

When the tide rises for organic research, all producers benefit.

Stay tuned for more, and thanks for being in this work with us.

Vinnie and Gordon

By Gordon Merrick, OFRF Policy Program Director

Ensuring that there are sufficient research resources for organic producers is central to OFRF’s mission and represents the backbone of a resilient food system. That’s why we’re proud to announce that we have led the development of a letter urging Congress to include the Organic Science and Research Investment (OSRI) Act in the next Farm Bill, just introduced this month by Representatives Eugene Vindman (D-VA-07) and Mike Lawler (R-NY-17). This bill provides substantial support and funding for agricultural research programming that benefits all farmers, from those certified organic, transitioning to organic farming, and those who are not certified. The bipartisan introduction of the OSRI Act builds on the collaborative work with Senator John Fetterman’s (D-PA) and Senator Alex Schiff’s (D-CA) offices to introduce this bill in the Senate earlier this year.

What Is the Organic Science and Research Investment Act?

The OSRI Act would strategically identify and expand the USDA’s investments into organic research and data programs. Key provisions include:

• Coordinating and Expanding Organic Research Initiative – Directs USDA’s Research, Education, and Economics agencies to catalog and strengthen organic research, ensuring coordination and growth across programs.
• Increased funding for Organic Research and Extension Initiative (OREI) – Steps up funding from $60 million in 2026 to $100 million by 2031, while expanding priorities to include climate change, organic alternatives to prohibited substances, and Traditional Ecological Knowledge.
• Authorization of Researching the Transition to Organic Program (RTOP) – Provides Congressional authorization for the RTOP, currently known as the Organic Transitions Research Program (ORG), with $10 million annually from 2026–27 and $12 million from 2028–31.
• Doubling funding for the Organic Data Initiative (ODI) – $10 million over the life of the Farm Bill to improve data for risk management and market development, while directing ERS to conduct a comprehensive study of the economic impacts of organic agriculture.

These policies directly respond to the reality that organic agriculture currently represents over 6% of U.S. food sales and 15% of produce sales, yet the USDA’s investments into organic-applicable research are less than 2% of research budgets.  Importantly, organic agricultural research is applicable to all farm operations, while research into more efficient use of synthetic inputs, or compatibility of genetic engineering with chemistry applications can never apply to an organic farm.

How Does the OSRI Act Help All Farmers?

Investing in organic agriculture research isn’t just about advancing one production system; it’s about giving farmers across the United States the tools, knowledge, and resources to stay resilient in the face of a variety of consistent issues, from climate disruptions and volatile supply chains to rapidly changing market dynamics. While the OSRI Act focuses on organic systems, the innovations developed through these programs regularly spill over to the broader agricultural sector. From cover cropping to integrated pest management, organic innovations often set the stage for widespread adoption of ecologically sustainable and economically beneficial practices and systems. Ultimately, these investments empower farmers to make the right choices for their land and market opportunities.

Alongside this direct benefit to farmers through answering questions and addressing agronomic issues, this research funding also flows to the rural communities that host agricultural research stations. According to analysis done by the Economic Research Service, for every $1 invested into agricultural research, over $20 of economic benefit is triggered, both through the project work itself—which can be high-paying and not require an advanced degree—but also through the long-term gains in farm profitability and competitiveness that are the backbones of rural economies.

Broad Support for the OSRI Act Exists, You Can Help!

OFRF is joined by over 100 farms, businesses, and organizations from across the country in signing a letter urging the House Agriculture Committee to incorporate OSRI into the Farm Bill.  But there is always more we can do to ensure Congress understands the importance of this bill and the policies it represents.

You can help strengthen the future of agricultural research by:

• Signing up for our Communicating with Legislators Course
• Contacting your Representatives and Senators to urge them to co-sponsor the bill.
• Share this announcement and amplify the message using #InvestInOrganicResearch
• Writing a Letter to The Editor or Opinion Piece in your local newspaper, publicly calling on your elected officials to support this legislation.

Please reach out if you have any questions about how to get involved, we’re here to help! Contact gordon[at]ofrf.org

. . . . .

Support for the OSRI Act:

“Investing in organic agriculture research helps farmers and communities improve resiliency to both climate and supply chain disruption. These research programs build essential knowledge that empowers regionally appropriate organic programs to thrive. In turn, the benefits ripple across society by lifting rural communities, strengthening organic supply chains, and expanding healthy options for consumers.” – Renaud des Rosiers, Amy’s Kitchen

“The National Sustainable Agriculture Coalition strongly endorses the Organic Science and Research Investment Act (OSRI Act). The OSRI Act makes meaningful investments in providing organic producers with the research and tools they need to continue to improve upon already resilient farming systems and meet the growing market demand for organic products. A boost in funding for scientific research and economic data and analysis within NIFA and ARS will support both organic and conventional agricultural producers so they can sustain and improve their operations while helping us reach meaningful solutions for the climate crisis.” – Nick Rossi, National Sustainable Agriculture Coalition (NSAC)

“Research is critical to the growth of the organic sector, which is an extraordinarily important tool in mitigating the threats to health, biodiversity, and climate.”  – Jay Feldman, Beyond Pesticides

“Expanding American consumers’ access to healthy foods, free of synthetic pesticides, will significantly contribute to Making America Healthy Again. Organic agriculture remains the single best way to achieve this goal. Developing strong research and extension programs to support US organic agriculture are critical to the expansion of this important sector of our food economy.” – Matthew Grieshop, Grimm Family Center for Organic Production and Research at California Polytechnic State University

“Organic research is vital to maintain the backbone of critical agricultural efforts that help small-scale farmers and ensure that farming works for consumers as well.” – Colehour Bondera, Kanalani Ohana Farm

“Supporting the Organic Science and Research Investment Act means investing in soil health, the living foundation of organic farming and long-term sustainability.” – Karlin Warner, OneCert, Inc.

“We have heard time and time again from our local organic extension office that their organic extension agents serve more non-organic producers than they do already certified producers.  There is a lot of interest from non-organic producers in learning new and innovative ways to incorporate organic practices on their farms.  This reinforces what organic advocates have been suggesting for decades – that investments in organic research benefits ALL producers.” – Mike Dill, Organically Grown Company

“Strong, verifiable peer-reviewed research is needed to give organic farmers the tools that they need to be successful and competitive with sustainable organic cropping systems.   Funding research so that researchers, such as those in the American Society for Horticultural Science, can continue to develop innovative research-based solutions and technologies is critically important to farm success.” – Curt R Rom, American Society for Horticultural Science

As you might have been reading, hearing, or seeing in the news, the federal government is in the midst of a limited shutdown following a lapse in appropriations legislation. In plain terms, this means Congress has failed to pass the bills that keep the lights on; and when that happens agencies can’t spend money they don’t have.

Most federal employees are placed on furlough until funding is restored. Some, deemed essential, are required to continue working without pay until a deal is reached. For some historical context, the last government shutdown occurred during the 2018 Appropriations debate, which also coincided with the Farm Bill debate (time is a flat circle). Once funding resumes, all employees typically receive backpay (although that is now being called into question), but the programs they administer lose time that can’t be made up.

This particular standoff stems from broader political battles over domestic spending, primarily subsidies that make health insurance under the Affordable Care Act more . . . affordable. But whatever the cause of a shutdown, the result is the same: a complete freeze in all federal work which impacts the entire country. We’re in a historic period of partisan brinksmanship, and it is directly affecting the nation’s programming at USDA, especially for organic producers and the agricultural research they depend on.

Organic Programming During a Shutdown

For organic producers, this shutdown hits several critical programs at once, including:

• The Organic Certification Cost Share Program (OCCSP), which helps farmers recoup part of the cost of certification, and operates through the Farm Service Agency (FSA). With nearly all county FSA offices closed, farmers may find it hard to submit and process their cost-share applications.
• The National Organic Program, the regulatory and enforcement agency operated by the Agricultural Marketing Service (AMS), has furloughed nearly all of its roughly 40 staff members. That means no compliance, no enforcement, no rulemaking, and no certification review or accreditation activities until the government reopens.
• Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) staff, who provide critical in-the-field conservation support have also been sidelined. This affects all farmers, but hits organic operations as well. Farmers use NRCS conservation programs to address resource concerns on their operations, like erosion control and biodiversity conservation.

The delays stemming from the shutdown will ripple across the entire agricultural sector, but especially the organic sector. From the small diversified producer waiting for their NRCS or OCCSP cost-share funding, to the certifier waiting for regulatory guidance.

Impacts on Research Programming

The shutdown does not only impact the programming that directly serves producers, but also the underlying research infrastructure that provides the foundation for all regulatory frameworks for agricultural systems.

At the National Institute of Food and Agriculture (NIFA), the agency that administers competitive grant programs, only 13 of roughly 400 employees remain on duty. That means functionally no work is able to be continued on releasing Requests for Applications (RFAs), and no new awards can move forward. Many competitive grant programs, like the Organic Research and Extension Initiative (OREI), are already running nearly a full year behind their normal grant cycle.

Meanwhile, the Agricultural Research Service faces similar disruptions. This can be particularly harmful at this agency given that it manages long-term research trials vital to understanding soil health, pest management, livestock research, and climate adaptation. When these programs pause, data collection and continuity is lost, impacting the ability for these projects to deliver results to farmers.

Even data collection efforts like the Economic Research Service (ERS) and National Agricultural Statistics Service (NASS) are affected. The organic sector depends on ERS and NASS for production and market data, which informs everything from policy development to private investment. Losing access to this data hampers strategic planning for an entire sector. It is also worth noting some of dissonance here: this shutdown comes just months after a 100% increase in funding for the Organic Market and Production Data Initiative was included in the budget reconciliation package, a recognition by both Congress and the Executive branch how vital this work is.

What Happens Next?

No one can predict how long this shutdown will last. We do know that the deadlock in Congress is real, and it’s being played out at the expense of federal workers, farmers, researchers, and the general public alike. The USDA exists to carry out the policies Congress enacts and provides funding for. The current shutdown doesn’t just interrupt that process, it undermines it. The longer it continues, the more it erodes public trust in the government’s ability to deliver for rural America.

There isn’t a clear path forward for action yet, but OFRF will continue tracking these developments closely, and sharing what they mean for organic producers and researchers across the United States. In the meantime, we are looking forward to sharing good news regarding legislative work next month!

Until then, eat well and breathe deeply,

Gordon

Three piglets, one for each of the comments we submitted to the USDA last month.

At OFRF, we know that strong, transparent, and farmer-informed federal agencies are essential for the success of all U.S. agriculture, but especially organic agriculture. This month, we acted on that knowledge when we submitted three different comments on USDA actions: one to the USDA on their reorganization plan and two to the National Institute of Food and Agriculture (NIFA) on proposed changes to the Application Kit and Scientific Review Process. Each of these actions may seem bureaucratic and technical on the surface, but together they shape the future of agricultural research and technical service delivery.

NIFA Comments

Earlier this summer, NIFA announced that they are requesting public input on proposed changes to its Application Kit and Proposal Review Process. These processes, and the changes described, directly affect the accessibility, quality, and impact of all USDA-funded research projects.

OFRF raised concerns with the proposed addition of a “Disclosure of Foreign Relationships” form added to the Application Kit, related to a recent memo from the Secretary. While framed as a transparency measure, this new requirement risks chilling international collaborations and excluding non-citizen scientists who have long contributed to the strength of the United States’ agricultural research system. Already, we are seeing foreign-born researchers being impacted. Rather than strengthening national security, this has the risk of hollowing out our research capacity and weakening America’s leadership in agricultural innovation. OFRF urged NIFA to pause implementation of this requirement and engage with agricultural communities, from farmers to university researchers, in assessing its real-world impacts on research quality, workforce development, and international collaboration.

In a second Notice and Comment opportunity, OFRF emphasized the importance of peer review as the cornerstone of scientific integrity and accountability. NIFA’s competitive grants depend on fair, transparent, and diverse review processes that balance scientific merit with on-farm relevance. We recommended a variety of pathways for improving the process’s ability to respond to the needs of farmers and reflecting observations applicable to real-world farm operations. These improvements are not just about improving the administration of NIFA’s research grant programs, they are about making sure that USDA research funding is awarded to projects that matter to farmers, communities, and the environment.

Reorganization Comments

In a less formal comment opportunity, OFRF weighed in on the USDA’s proposed reorganization plan, announced on July 25, 2025. This plan threatens to further erode the research and technical service capacity farmers depend on. Our comments highlighted major risks relating to scientific capacity and program administration, and the very public-interest scientific mission this plan aims to achieve. We learned from the relocation of NIFA and ERS in 2018 that when relocation takes place rapidly and without community engagement, there are significant staff losses that persist for years into the future. We called on USDA to halt this reorganization until it engages in a transparent, public process with a cost-benefit analysis, regional listening sessions, and clear justifications for how changes will improve core services.

OFRF’s Commitment

OFRF works to engage in both legislative and administrative advocacy to reaffirm our commitment to ensuring agricultural research is led with scientific merit, farmer relevance, and diverse perspectives. Whether it is protecting the integrity of peer review, opposing exclusionary policies in grant applications, or defending USDA’s research and service capacity, we will continue to ground our policy priorities in the needs of organic farmers as well as the researchers and technical service professionals that support them.

Take Action, Support Our Work

The future of organic research depends on strong, transparent, and farmer-centered federal institutions. If you want to help defend that future:

• Stay engaged with OFRF by subscribing to our newsletter for updates and action alerts.
• Make your voice heard through signing up for our Communicating with Legislators course, where we can help you better understand how to engage with legislative offices.
• Consider making a donation to support our advocacy efforts.

Together, we can ensure that USDA research and services remain a public good that builds a future for resilient farms and thriving communities.

Eat well and breathe deeply,

Gordon

L-R: Mark Schonbeck, Gordon Merrick, Ashley Dulaney

This past week, Ashley Dulaney, our Communications Director, Mark Schonbeck, our Research Associate, and I attended the National Sustainable Agriculture Coalition’s Summer Meeting. This year, they decided to bring the meeting to the rolling mountains of Vermont, which has been subject to the impacts of climate change, and where I call home.

The week was full of strategy meetings and creating spaces to share the impacts of the changing federal policy landscape, but also to break bread with each other, connect as people doing the work, visit local farms, and give me the opportunity to share the joy that are maple creemees with the sustainable agriculture community.

But, frozen dairy treats aside, there were real opportunities for us as a sustainable agriculture community to expand beyond our niche silos of policy expertise and hear how the impacts we’re experiencing in agricultural research are also being felt in other areas of policy and law.

Over the course of three and a half days, we discussed strategy related to appropriations, the Farm Bill, potential future Reconciliation bills, and administrative actions; each affecting our work at OFRF and how we conduct our advocacy.

What’s at Stake: Farm Bill, Appropriations, and More

For those just tuning in or needing a quick reminder, here is what each of those terms means:

• Appropriations is the process Congress uses to allocate funding between different priorities that do not have “mandatory funding.” This process must occur every year; if it doesn’t, a government shutdown will happen.
• The Farm Bill is historically the piece of legislation that provides mandatory funding for food and agriculture programs, as well as authorizations for spending on other related programs that must go through the appropriations process.
• Reconciliation is a complex legislative process that Congress can use to “reconcile” its new and emerging priorities with the appropriations and mandatory funding provided either by a previous Congress or even the same Congress’s actions. Unlike appropriations and the Farm Bill process, reconciliation doesn’t require a filibuster-proof majority to pass in the Senate, but only a simple majority, and it is subject to strict rules regarding scope and limitations.
  • The most recent reconciliation bill, The One Big Beautiful Bill, was passed on July 4, 2025. For more details on what it includes, read NSAC’s blog post, “What’s Really Inside the Final Budget Reconciliation Bill: A Breakdown of Food and Agriculture Provisions.”
• From an administrative standpoint, when Congress appropriates money, legislates policy with mandatory funding, or completes a reconciliation process, these actions effectively serve as marching orders for the Executive branch to implement those programs and priorities. As we’ve written in recent months, there is growing concern about the USDA’s ability to administer those priorities and programs—especially with a staff estimated to be 16,000-18,000 members smaller than on January 20, 2025.

The Clock is Ticking — Here’s How to Act

As the dust continues to settle from the first six months of the new administration, it’s becoming increasingly clear that we have entered a new status quo for the relationship between Congressional authorization and instruction, and the Administration’s interest in following those. OFRF continues to deepen our engagement in both spaces, Congressional and Administrative, and will ensure you stay informed about what we are hearing and doing. Additionally, we want to make sure that we can bring the experiences and stories you are living to the Halls of Congress and the USDA.

We are entering a crucial time for the Farm Bill and Appropriations bills, as both expire at the end of September. Since Congress is in recess throughout August, this is a great opportunity to meet in person with your representatives while they are in their districts, along with any USDA officials who may be with them.

Relatedly, at the end of the fiscal year on September 30, all unspent funds the administration has refused to or is unable to distribute generally return to the U.S. Treasury.

So, if you’re a researcher relying on USDA competitive grant research programs to do your work, a Technical Service Provider who depends on that research to help farmers overcome challenges, a farmer who has seen an already complex support system become more complicated, or simply an eater concerned about how all of this will impact your grocery bill and the ability of local farmers to survive—now is the time to act.

Please contact me or any member of our policy team to share your stories, experiences, or concerns so we can bring them to Congress and the USDA to add context to their decisions and actions.

Eat well and breathe deeply,

Gordon

P.S. Enjoy these pictures from our time at the Summer Meeting in beautiful Stowe, VT. Thank you to NSAC for organizing such an impactful gathering.

By Gordon Merrick, OFRF Policy & Programs Director

If the past six months in the federal policy spheres have felt more like six years, know that you’re not alone. With endless stops and starts, shifting deadlines, and overlapping processes, it can be hard to track what actually matters and what is just noise. At OFRF, we want to keep our community grounded in the real implications for organic research and the systems that support and benefit from it. This month’s Policy Corner aims to give some brief updates on some of the processes we have been and continue to be engaged in, and how you can help support that work.

Reconciliation, the Farm Bill, and Legislative Movement

The reconciliation process is officially done, for now. While some Farm Bill programs were included in the final package, committee leadership has reiterated that they intend to try and pass the policy-focused Farm Bill provisions that were eliminated in the Senate’s “Byrd Bath.” This limited Farm Bill seems increasingly aspirational, with no clear floor time windows, mounting fractures in the traditional Farm Bill coalitions, and future reconciliation packages on the horizon, the outlook for passing a full, robust Farm Bill in the immediate term remains uncertain, and passing another extension of the 2018 Farm Bill increases in likelihood.

Meanwhile, the FY26 appropriations process is slowly moving ahead, but is significantly behind the normal schedule. OFRF worked with House offices on both sides of the aisle to ensure the House Report included important language supporting organic research and technical assistance. We’re now watching closely how that bill moves through the entire House as well as how the Senate version shapes up.

Programmatic Delays and Pending Announcements

We, like the entire research community, are still awaiting the release of the Organic Research and Extension Initiative (OREI), Organic Transitions Program (ORG), and all of the National Institute for Food and Agriculture’s (NIFA) Competitive Grant Requests for Applications. These funding opportunities were generally all posted earlier this year, then retracted for administrative review in February. After months of delay, time is running out to allow for a strong application window (at least 30 days), peer review (~60 days), and award process by the end of the Fiscal Year (Sept. 30th). We will continue to monitor this closely, and if you’re a researcher or a farmer working with researchers, keep an eye out for urgent updates from both NIFA as well as us.

NRCS Comment Period is Open

Right now, NRCS is accepting comments on its Conservation Practice Standards (CPSs) that have been selected for review this year. We’ll be submitting detailed comments, especially on CPS-595: Pest Management Conservation System, which still has room for improvement to allow for organic systems management. We want to hear from you if you’re a researcher or practitioner with insights on organic pest management, or other areas that are covered in the CPSs that are open for review.

Keeping You Connected

Regardless of legislative delays or agency slowdowns, our mission stays the same. We work every day to ensure that organic research, and the farmers and researchers behind it, receives more-robust support through federal and state programming. That includes helping our community connect with elected officials to help educate them on what they do, why they do it, and how it impacts their District, State, and oftentimes the entire Nation’s food system.

Want to get involved? Check out our free, email-based Communicating with Legislators course! If you have a story or a data point that you would like to share, please reach out and we are here to help.

Eat well and breathe deeply,

Gordon

P.S. You can catch up on recent editions of Gordon’s Policy Corner here.