Congress Punts on the Farm Bill (Again), Let’s Talk About Biotech Instead

Growing recognition of the power of biotechnology offers a way forward for agricultural innovation

For nearly a century, the Farm Bill has been the bedrock of American agricultural policy, a massive legislative package updated with predictable frequency since the 1930s. By the 1970s, the farm bill process had become a reliable bipartisan exercise, uniting rural and urban lawmakers by coupling farm subsidy programs with federal food assistance. In the decades to follow, a five-year cycle defined the rhythm of national farm policy.

However, the era of the five-year farm bill came to an end last year. The 2018 farm bill may be the last of its kind. After several extensions of the 2018 bill, the 2024 election ushered in a Republican-controlled Congress that effectively shattered the historical bipartisan process. The majority opted to work on its own to pass a new agricultural policy package that bolstered farm subsidy programs while enacting major cuts to food assistance. The move prioritized short-term financial relief for farmers over a truly comprehensive update to agriculture programs.

Enthusiasm for a farm bill is expected to hit even lower lows among Republicans, Democrats, and traditional agricultural constituencies in 2026. But American agriculture cannot afford a legislative vacuum. Trump’s tariffs have driven up prices of farm inputs. Total fruit and vegetable production in the U.S. has been on the decline since peaking in 2020. Absent similar yield and efficiency gains made for field crops like corn and soy, yields for vegetables like broccoli and lettuce have stagnated in recent years. U.S. orange production has suffered dramatic losses due to the spread of citrus greening disease. The value of investing in the innovation needed to address these challenges can’t be overstated. Luckily, a fresh opportunity is emerging thanks to growing bipartisan interest in the power of biotechnology and the burgeoning bioeconomy.

The last few years of partisanship may have killed the five-year Farm Bill. But, there are alternate pathways for bipartisan agricultural policymaking that can improve outcomes for farmers, help reduce the cost of food for consumers, and support the innovation necessary for assured American agricultural competitiveness. Namely, by making agriculture a central pillar of a whole-of-government effort to scale the bioeconomy—a priority for both Republicans and Democrats—Congress can usher in the innovation needed to secure the future of American agriculture over the long term.

Agricultural Biotech and National Security

By failing to reverse a several decade trend of underinvestment in public agricultural research funding, Congress’s retreat from a comprehensive farm bill threatens to expose a national security vulnerability. Underfunding public R&D jeopardizes the country’s ability to proactively address new crop pests, investigate new ways to reduce losses from animal diseases, and equip U.S. producers with on-farm improvements to mitigate the cost of destructive weather events like droughts. In stark contrast, international rivals as well as key allies are surging ahead, strategically leveraging biotechnology to secure their own agricultural futures and gain a competitive edge in the global market.

In a major 2025 report, the National Security Commission on Emerging Biotechnology (NSCEB) issued a sobering conclusion: China is quickly ascending to biotechnology dominance after two decades of making it a national strategic priority. China’s investments in biotechnology are not limited to defense or medicine, but have focused heavily on agriculture. By embracing cultivation of a growing number of genetically engineered crops and aggressively funding R&D, China is betting on biotechnology to boost food security, reduce import reliance, and stretch its global influence.

From 2019 to 2021, China spent more on public agricultural R&D than the U.S., India, and Brazil combined. Over the last decade, total factor agricultural productivity grew faster in India, China, and Brazil while the U.S. experienced a slight decline. Underinvesting in public agricultural R&D isn’t the only thing that jeopardizes long term total factor productivity growth in the U.S. Falling behind in its pace of regulatory approvals for advanced agricultural biotechnologies risks creating competitive disadvantages that reduce market share, the loss of which is difficult to rebound from. While the U.S. regulatory process for new plants, animals, and food products developed using biotechnologies can be slow and fragmented across multiple agencies, the world’s other largest agricultural exporters like Canada, Brazil, and Argentina are increasing the speed at which new high-yield and climate-resilient crops are developed, approved and planted. Brazil and China in particular are strengthening their trade relationships and cooperation on agricultural biotechnology through regulatory alignment and joint research partnerships. To the extent their pace surpasses the U.S.’s ability to innovate and enable new products to swiftly reach the market, U.S. farmers will be at a disadvantage and America’s long-held position as a global leader and stabilizer in agricultural trade will erode.

Research and Regulatory Actions Pave the Way for Innovation

The second Trump administration’s actions thus far recognize the connection between agricultural vitality and national security.

In July of 2025, the Department of Agriculture released a National Farm Security Action Plan, which signals a growing interest in American agriculture as a key element of national defense. The plan takes a multi-pronged approach, focusing on securing U.S. farmland from foreign adversaries and enhancing agricultural supply chain resilience. Notably, the plan also acknowledges the role that research and innovation play in strengthening American agricultural productivity and proposes a new USDA partnership with the Defense Advanced Research Project Agency (DARPA) to fund projects that promote military readiness, protect U.S. plants and animals, and enhance agricultural security. By leveraging its own research authorities like the Agriculture Advanced Research and Development Authority (AGARDA) and partnering with DARPA, USDA can spearhead the study of high-impact solutions. Advanced research topics could include paradigm-shifting applications of genetic engineering to enhance crop and livestock productivity and improve stress tolerance.

One month later in June, the Department of Defense launched its own initiative to catalyze innovations to defend America’s agricultural infrastructure through the Biotechnology Technologies Office. The effort aims to pave the way for research on early warning systems for chemical and biological threats, rapid-response agricultural countermeasures, and massively accelerated crop engineering for long-term threats. Further, the Office of the Under Secretary of War for Research and Engineering announced biomanufacturing would be one of a suite of new critical technology areas used to drive Department-wide technology priorities. As has been seen with DARPA-pioneered research in other technology areas—like the internet and GPS—support for agricultural biotechnology with defense applications could have significant co-benefits for civilian applications in the future. For example, technologies developed to protect crops from biological attacks could be leveraged to protect against pests and diseases.

Interest in biotechnology is also growing in Congress where a new coalition is coalescing around building the bioeconomy. The first BIOTech Caucus was launched at the end of 2025 with a broad, bipartisan membership. The caucus aims to advance the recommendations driven by the strategic findings of the NSCEB, focusing on ensuring domestic bio-security, driving innovation, and unlocking opportunity.

Congressional Action Is Needed To Build the Bioeconomy

This year, agriculture leaders in Congress and agricultural interest groups should shift their legislative focus to advancing a bioeconomy strategy that recognizes agriculture as both crucial to national security and an economic opportunity. In line with the recommendations of the NSCEB, Congress should advance policies to support three major priorities: committing dedicated, long-term funding to agricultural biotechnology research; directing agencies to adopt modernized regulatory frameworks that are science-based and product-focused; and encouraging interagency coordination under a unified national strategy. As a first step toward advancing these recommendations, lawmakers introduced a series of bipartisan biotechnology bills this Congress.

To match the pace of global competitors, the U.S. must commit substantial funding for agricultural biotechnology research and development. The Synthetic Biology Advancement Act would establish a National Synthetic Biology Center to award grants to rapidly advance research on gene editing, genomes to phenomes, microbiomes, digital agriculture, and controlled environment agriculture. It explicitly builds on USDA’s existing Agricultural Genome to Phenome Initiative to understand how variability in the environment interacts with genetic diversity to impact productivity. In addition to expanding funding for research grants, Congress should ensure small and midsized biotechnology developers have better access to capital as they move from researching to scaling up production. In addition, the Independence Investment Fund Act, introduced in December 2025, would support companies with promising early-stage technologies as they navigate this period, often called the valley of death, with equity investments. For biotechnology companies in particular, this type of government-backed support would help to crowd in private capital as new products are subject to regulatory reviews and eventually brought to market.

Also outside of USDA, the National Biotechnology Safety Act would set up a new research program at the National Science Foundation (NSF) to conduct risk assessments that directly aid regulatory agencies in developing clear, science-based regulatory pathways for products of biotechnology. This effort would help to scientifically de-risk new technologies for commercialization. NSF should use the program to fund risk assessments that specifically help clear regulatory pathways, to focus on novel technologies and products, and to avoid unnecessarily exhaustive safety assessments for known biotech products and products that were previously thoroughly evaluated. After establishing the new risk assessment program with sufficient funds, NSF should roll in the existing USDA Biotechnology Risk Assessment Research Grants (BRAG) program to prevent duplication. Ultimately, the overall balance of spending must be weighted toward developing beneficial biotech products rather than endlessly assessing low-risk products.

The National Biotechnology Safety Act also aims to improve the slow, fragmented regulatory environment. The bill would direct the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine (NASEM) to do a two-phase study on the safety and benefits of biotech. NASEM is an excellent choice to do a study on the safety and benefits of biotech, but the bill outlines some overly broad and repetitive research questions. Previous NASEM reports have already thoroughly assessed the evidence for the benefits and purported negative effects of GE crops. Instead of repeatedly asserting the safety of GE crops, NASEM should instead be directed to build upon their own previous findings that highlighted regulatory deficiencies and identify specific processes and criteria necessary to rapidly reduce or remove biotechnology-specific oversight for products that present no greater risk than comparable conventionally bred products.

Finally, as the federal government’s support for biotechnology expands, Congress must strengthen coordination between and among regulatory agencies and research programs. Towards this goal, the National Biotechnology Initiative Act would create a National Biotechnology Coordination Office (NBCO) within the Executive Office of the President. Headed by a presidentially appointed director, the NBCO would be charged with coordinating biotechnology policy across federal agencies and mandating a national strategy that integrates economic competitiveness, regulatory efficiency, and national security. Complementing this, the Agricultural Biotechnology Coordination Act would establish an office at USDA to direct coordination on biotech both within USDA and between USDA, the NBCO, and other agencies. Additionally, the Agriculture and National Security Act would strengthen coordination between USDA and national security agencies like DARPA, formalizing the process to identify national security vulnerabilities in the food supply chain and integrating biotechnology as a core strategy for risk mitigation.

Building Scientific Capacity

There is encouraging momentum within the Trump administration and in Congress to advance a biotechnology-centered agenda. But this enthusiasm is not without political tension. The administration’s national security focus on agricultural science runs counter to its own broader agenda to cut the scientific and regulatory workforces across federal agencies. Federal downsizing efforts have hamstrung the very agencies—USDA, FDA and EPA—that would be responsible for carrying out new biotechnology research programs and providing the rapid, science-based regulatory approval for novel products crucial to ensuring America’s bioeconomy not only thrives, but leads on the global stage.

The success of a targeted biotechnology policy agenda for agriculture hinges on Congress’ ability to provide robust funding for these priorities and protect essential scientific personnel needed to execute them on the federal level.