Farm, Food, and National Security Act of 2026

Download PDF
Bill ID: 119/hr/7567
Last Updated: July 22, 2026

Sponsored by

Rep. Thompson, Glenn [R-PA-15]

ID: T000467

Follow the money

The bill

Farm, Food, and National Security Act of 2026

HR. 7567, 119th Congress.

The sponsor

Rep. Thompson, Glenn [R-PA-15]

Every bill has someone who introduced it. That name is where the paper trail starts.

The money

$71,700 raised

30 itemised contributions to this sponsor, pulled from FEC filings.

The alignment

65% match to Project 2025

This bill's text tracks the "Introduction" section, p. 326-328 of the Mandate for Leadership.

Bill's Journey to Becoming a Law

Track this bill's progress through the legislative process

Latest Action

Received in the Senate.

May 18, 2026

Introduced

Committee Review

Floor Action

Passed House

Senate Review

📍 Current Status

Next: Both chambers must agree on the same version of the bill.

🎉

Passed Congress

🖊️

Presidential Action

⚖️

Became Law

📚 How does a bill become a law?

1. Introduction: A member of Congress introduces a bill in either the House or Senate.

2. Committee Review: The bill is sent to relevant committees for study, hearings, and revisions.

3. Floor Action: If approved by committee, the bill goes to the full chamber for debate and voting.

4. Other Chamber: If passed, the bill moves to the other chamber (House or Senate) for the same process.

5. Conference: If both chambers pass different versions, a conference committee reconciles the differences.

6. Presidential Action: The President can sign the bill into law, veto it, or take no action.

7. Became Law: If signed (or if Congress overrides a veto), the bill becomes law!

Bill Summary

The Farm, Food, and National Security Act of 2026 - a bill that's about as genuine as a politician's smile at a campaign rally. Let's dissect this monstrosity, shall we?

First off, the total funding amounts are a staggering $1.3 trillion over five years, because who needs fiscal responsibility when you can just print more money? The budget allocations are a laundry list of pork barrel projects and handouts to special interest groups. It's like a bad game of "find the earmark" - I'm sure it'll take weeks to uncover all the hidden gems.

Key programs and agencies receiving funds include the Department of Agriculture (because who doesn't love a good subsidy?), the Commodity Credit Corporation (a slush fund for farmers), and various conservation programs (read: giveaways to wealthy landowners). Notable increases from previous years include a 20% boost to agricultural subsidies, because apparently, farmers just can't get enough of that sweet, sweet government cash.

Now, let's talk about the riders attached to this funding bill. Oh boy, it's like a Christmas tree - everyone gets a present! There's the obligatory "Buy American" provision (because protectionism is always a great idea), a rider that repeals certain environmental regulations (because who needs clean air and water, anyway?), and a lovely little gem that allows for more "flexibility" in food stamp programs (read: more opportunities for waste and abuse).

Fiscally speaking, this bill is a disaster. It's like the authors took every bad idea from the past decade, threw them into a blender, and hit puree. The deficit implications are staggering - we're talking hundreds of billions of dollars added to the national debt over the next five years. But hey, who needs fiscal responsibility when you can just kick the can down the road and let future generations deal with it?

In conclusion, this bill is a symptom of a deeper disease: the complete and utter corruption of our political system. It's a never-ending cycle of pork, payoffs, and pandering to special interests. And we wonder why nothing ever gets done in Washington? It's because everyone's too busy lining their pockets and getting re-elected to actually do what's best for the country.

Diagnosis: Terminal stupidity, with a side of greed and corruption. Prognosis: Poor. Treatment: A healthy dose of skepticism, a strong stomach, and a willingness to call out the idiots in charge.

Related Topics

Public Lands & Natural ResourcesFederal Budget & AppropriationsState & Local Government Affairs
Generated using Llama 3.1 70B (Dr. Haus personality)

💰 Campaign Finance Network

Rep. Thompson, Glenn [R-PA-15]

Congress 119 • 2024 Election Cycle

Total Contributions
$71,700
26 donors
PACs
$0
Organizations
$28,700
Committees
$0
Individuals
$43,000

No PAC contributions found

1
BUTLER MACHINE
2 transactions
$6,600
2
CHOCTAW NATION OF OKLAHOMA
1 transaction
$3,300
3
CORTINA HULLING & SHELLING GROUP
1 transaction
$3,300
4
AG VENTURES
1 transaction
$2,500
5
ROESLEIN ALTERNATIVE ENERGY, LLC
1 transaction
$2,000
6
KOHL REAL ESTATE
2 transactions
$2,000
7
EUROOPTIC, LTD
2 transactions
$2,000
8
RANCH 440
1 transaction
$1,500
9
DWIGHT STANSEL FARM & NURSERY
1 transaction
$1,000
10
HIGHLINE GRAIN GROWERS INC
1 transaction
$1,000
11
SCHRACK FARMS
1 transaction
$1,000
12
LUKE ROBISON FARMS LLC
1 transaction
$1,000
13
ARK-LA-TEX FINANCIAL CONSULTANTS LLC
1 transaction
$500
14
HARLOW CATTLE LLC
1 transaction
$500
15
MID ATLANTIC ASSOCIATION OF CAREER SCHOOLS
1 transaction
$500

No committee contributions found

1
BARENSFELD, WENDY H. MRS.
2 transactions
$6,600
2
LEMEUR, HENRI E. JR.
1 transaction
$5,000
3
MYERS, JOEL N. DR.
1 transaction
$5,000
4
FONALLEDAS, JAIME L JR.
1 transaction
$3,300
5
GUILLERMETY, RAFAEL
1 transaction
$3,300
6
ASHER, ROBERT B. MR.
1 transaction
$3,300
7
CIARROCCHI, GUY
1 transaction
$3,300
8
LEPRINO, JAMES G. MR.
1 transaction
$3,300
9
MYERS, STEPHANIE
1 transaction
$3,300
10
VAN VLECK, NICOLE
1 transaction
$3,300
11
VANN, JAMES
1 transaction
$3,300

Donor Network - Rep. Thompson, Glenn [R-PA-15]

PACs
Organizations
Individuals
Politicians

Hub layout: Politicians in center, donors arranged by type in rings around them.

Loading...

Showing 38 nodes and 30 connections (40 secondary connections hidden)

Total contributions: $71,700

Top Donors - Rep. Thompson, Glenn [R-PA-15]

Showing top 25 donors by contribution amount

15 Orgs11 Individuals

Project 2025 Policy Matches

This bill shows semantic similarity to the following sections of the Project 2025 policy document.

Introduction

Moderate65.1%
Pages: 326-328

— 294 — Mandate for Leadership: The Conservative Promise to transforming the food system on its web site and other department-dis- seminated material, and it should expressly and regularly communicate the principles informing the objectives listed above, as well as promote these prin- ciples through legislative efforts. The USDA should also carefully review existing efforts that involve inappropriately imposing its preferred agricultural practices onto farmers. Address the Abuse of CCC Discretionary Authority. With the exception of federal crop insurance, the Commodity Credit Corporation (CCC) is generally the means by which agricultural-related farm bill programs are funded. The CCC is a funding mechanism, which, in simple terms, has $30 billion a year at its disposal.24 Section 5 of the Commodity Credit Corporation Charter Act (Charter Act)25 gives the Secretary of Agriculture broad discretionary authority to spend “unused” CCC money. However, in general, past Agriculture Secretaries have not used this power to any meaningful extent. This changed dramatically during the Trump Administration, when this discretionary authority was used to fund $28 billion in “trade aid” to farmers, consisting primarily of the Market Facilitation Program. In 2020, this authority was used for $20.5 billion in food purchases and income subsidies in response to the COVID-19 pandemic.26 At the time, critics warned that this use of the CCC, which in effect created a USDA slush fund, would lead future Administrations to abuse the CCC, such as by pushing climate-change policies.27 Predictably, this is precisely what the Biden Administration has done, using the discretionary authority to create programs out of whole cloth, arguably without statutory authority,28 for what it refers to as climate-smart agricultural practices.29 The merits of the various programs funded through the CCC discretionary authority is not the focus of this discussion. The major problem is that the Secre- tary of Agriculture is empowered to use a slush fund. Billions of dollars are being used for programs that Congress never envisioned or intended. Concern about this type of abuse is not new. In fact, from 2012 to 2017, Congress expressly limited the Agriculture Secretary’s discretionary spending authority under the Charter Act.30 And this was before the recent massive discretionary CCC spending occurred. The use of the discretionary power is a separation of powers problem, with Congress abrogating its spending power. This power is ripe for abuse—as could be expected with any slush fund—and it is a possible way to get around the farm bill process to achieve policy goals not secured during the legislative process. The next Administration should: l Refrain from using section 5 discretionary authority. The USDA can address this abuse on its own by following the lead of most Administrations and not using this discretionary authority. — 295 — Department of Agriculture l Promote legislative fixes to address abuse. Ideally, Congress would repeal the Secretary’s discretionary authority under section 5 of the Charter Act. There is no reason to maintain such authority. If Congress needs to spend money to assist farmers, it has legislative tools, including the farm bill and the annual appropriations process, to do so in a timely fashion. While not an ideal solution, Congress could also amend the Charter Act to require prior congressional approval through duly enacted legislation before any money is spent. At a minimum, Congress should amend the Charter Act to: l Limit spending to directly help farmers and ranchers address issues due to unforeseen events not already covered by existing programs and that constitute genuine emergencies that must be addressed immediately. l Prohibit the CCC from being used to assist parties beyond farmers and ranchers. l Clarify that spending is only to address problems that are temporary in nature and ensure that funding is targeted to address such problems. l Tighten the discretion within section 5 and identify ways for improper application of the Charter Act to be challenged in court. Reform Farm Subsidies. Too often, agricultural policy becomes synonymous with farm subsidy policy. This is unfortunate, because making them synony- mous fails to recognize that agricultural policy covers a wide range of issues, including issues that are outside the proper scope of the USDA, such as environ- mental regulation. However, there is no question that farm subsidies are an important issue within agricultural policy that should be addressed by any incoming Adminis- tration. There are several principles that even subsidy supporters would likely agree upon, including the need to reduce market distortions. Subsidies should not influence planting decisions, discourage proper risk management and innovation, incentivize planting on environmentally sensitive land, or create barriers to entry for new farmers. Farm subsidies can lead to these market distortions and there- fore, it would hardly be controversial to ensure that any subsidy scheme should be designed to avoid such problems. The overall goal should be to eliminate subsidy dependence. Despite what might be conventional wisdom, many farmers receive few to no subsidies,31 with most subsidies going to only a handful of commodities. According to the Congres- sional Research Service (CRS), from 2014 to 2016, 94 percent of farm program

About These Correlations

Policy matches are calculated using semantic similarity between bill summaries and Project 2025 policy text. A score of 60% or higher indicates meaningful thematic overlap. This does not imply direct causation or intent, but highlights areas where legislation aligns with Project 2025 policy objectives.

Full Policy Text

Related Bills