Regenerative Agriculture Gets an Executive Order – But Not a Budget
At the end of June, President Donald Trump signed an executive order directing federal agencies to advance regenerative agriculture; the order mandates doing so by expanding research and creating public partnerships, without new additional federal regulation. The administration’s use of this terminology and apparent appreciation for it came as a surprise to many experts. Defined as “a holistic land management practice that aims to build soil health, close the carbon loop, and boost crop resilience and nutrient density,” this agricultural strategy has been a growing policy topic and a climate-conscious effort to help reduce some of the harms of industrial agriculture. Regenerative principles and practices stand in stark contrast to those of industrial agriculture, and to the public health and ecological harms that stem from it.
On its face, the executive order is framed as an investment in American farmers. However, that message is misleading in that the order doesn’t invest new money into the flagship $700 million Regenerative Pilot Program the administration points to as proof of its commitment. The pilot program predates the order, and it's funded by redirecting $400 million from the Environmental Quality Incentives Program (EQIP) and $300 million from the Conservation Stewardship Program (CSP), the same base conservation programs producers already rely on to support practices such as cover cropping, reduced tillage, and nutrient management.
The timing is part of what makes this order notable: President Trump signed it the very same day the Supreme Court ruled 7-2 in favor of Bayer, Monsanto's parent company, shielding it from state-level failure-to-warn lawsuits over Roundup, a popular weed killer. Users of the product—and in some cases, plaintiffs in high-level court cases—have long argued that its key ingredient, glyphosate, causes cancer. (CLF researchers agree with the plaintiffs.) The current administration’s Environmental Protection Agency sides with Bayer/Monsanto, maintaining that the chemical poses no cancer risk when used according to label instructions. Trump officials and Monsanto executives point to the Court’s findings as evidence that states shouldn't be allowed to set their own labeling requirements beyond what the agency has approved. That dispute is now playing out inside the administration's own coalition. Within that coalition, there is tension around how best to support farmers, a constituency that has been historically loyal to the current president (President Trump won nearly 78% of the vote in farming-dependent counties in 2024), and fulfilling the priorities of Make America Healthy Again (MAHA) movement, which sees the ruling as evidence the administration is siding with industry over the health concerns it claims to champion.
Meanwhile, the Senate's Farm Bill draft also threatens to further weaken these same programs: Sen. Boozman (R-Arkansas), chair of the Senate Agriculture Committee, introduced a draft that would cut EQIP by $1.9 billion over its first five years and permanently strip $500 million from CSP's baseline. That strain is already visible on the ground: demand for EQIP and CSP contracts rose 10-15% over the past year, yet approved EQIP contracts fell nearly 40% and CSP approvals dropped by more than a fifth, a gap USDA officials have partly attributed to staffing shortages.
This is an example of a chasm between messaging and action. The administration promising a healthier America has defunded the agencies that would deliver it and shielded the responsible industries from liability. This doesn't fix our broken agricultural system. Instead, it suggests MAHA functions as a political asset for the administration more than a guiding principle, leaving farmers with promises that aren't backed by the resources or policies to deliver on it. Even the language is retreating, as climate references quietly disappear from federal agriculture policy altogether.