Charlcey Plummer should have been in high cotton. “In 2025, we grew the best cotton crop we’ve ever had,” said Plummer, an Oklahoma cotton grower whose family operation has weathered trade disputes, drought, and rising input costs over the past decade. “But then we profited the least a mount we ever have.” For farmers and ranchers, a certain amount of uncertainty is part of the business. In recent years, however, that uncertainty has grown alongside sharply rising costs. “Every input on the farm is higher,” Plummer said. “Seed, chemicals, fertilizer, labor, equipment, even interest rates impact what we do on the farm.” For more than half a century, the federal Farm Bill has served as one of Congress’s most durable and complex pieces of legislation. Renewed about every five years, it has traditionally bundled together farm safety nets, conservation programs, nutrition assistance, research funding, trade promotion, and rural development into a single, sprawling compromise. That model is now under strain, as Congress has increasingly struggled to renew the bill on schedule. Rather than including them in a Farm Bill, several major agricultural programs were enacted through H.R. 1, the One Big Beautiful Bill Act. Lawmakers from both parties are now signaling that the next Farm Bill, if it materializes at all, is likely to be significantly narrower than its predecessors. Instead of serving as the primary vehicle for farm and food policy, the Farm Bill may increasingly function as a secondary measure, addressing issues left unresolved by budget reconciliation bills. For producers like Plummer, the significance of H.R. 1 is less about how Congress labels the bill and more about what it delivers. Extended crop insurance, updated reference prices, and disaster assistance provide something farmers have not had in years: a long planning horizon. The shift away from a comprehensive Farm Bill raises fundamental questions for producers, rural communities, and lawmakers alike. Is the new approach giving way to a two-track system, with revenue and spending settled through budget legislation and everything else left to a so-called skinny Farm Bill? And if so, what does that mean for agriculture policy in states like Oklahoma, where producers depend on both predictability and flexibility to manage risk? Rep. Frank Lucas, R-OK, is a longtime member of the House Agriculture Committee. In a written statement, Lucas said the reconciliation bill was intended to provide producers with certainty while Congress remains unable to advance a comprehensive Farm Bill through the Senate. “Fortunately, most of what typically gets passed in a Farm Bill was included in the recently enacted One Big Beautiful Bill, like updating the commodity support programs,” the written statement attributed to Lucas said. “This puts us in a much better position as we look towards passing what’s left in a ‘Skinny Farm Bill.’” At a June 5, 2025, hearing of the Subcommittee on Conservation, Research, and Technology, which Lucas chairs, the 19-term representative from Cheyenne noted two previous attempts to pass a comprehensive Farm Bill had failed. In lieu of a Farm Bill, Congress passed two reauthorization measures providing temporary extensions to keep programs operating. “We are currently in the second extension of the 2018 Farm Bill, and rural America badly needs legislation to reflect the current state of agriculture and the rural economy,” he said. H.R. 1 was not introduced as a Farm Bill. It did not move through the traditional Agriculture Committee process, nor did it require the bipartisan coalition that has historically made Farm Bills possible. Instead, it advanced through budget reconciliation, allowing passage by a simple majority. The decision to move core farm programs through budget reconciliation was driven as much by Senate math as by policy. A comprehensive Farm Bill would have required 60 votes to clear the Senate, a threshold that Republican leaders did not believe they could reach given Democratic opposition to both spending levels and nutrition policy changes. Reconciliation, by contrast, allowed Republicans to pass fiscal and revenue-related farm provisions with a simple majority, bypassing the filibuster and avoiding a stalemate that could have stretched on for years. H.R. 1 extended and expanded crop insurance, Price Loss Coverage and Agricultural Risk Coverage programs, disaster assistance, animal health funding, and trade-related support over a ten-year budget window. It also included tax provisions affecting agricultural estates and closely held farm businesses. House Agriculture Committee leadership has made a similar case. In public statements, Rep. Glenn “GT” Thompson, R-Pennsylvania, who chairs the committee, argued that H.R. 1 delivered long-sought updates to commodity programs and risk management tools that had stalled in previous Farm Bill negotiations. From that perspective, H.R. 1 functioned as a substitute for the most expensive and politically difficult parts of a Farm Bill, even as it left other areas untouched. With revenue and risk management largely addressed through reconciliation, lawmakers are now openly describing the next Farm Bill as narrower in scope. Lucas has framed the approach as pragmatic rather than ideological. In statements and staff briefings, Lucas has emphasized that producers need predictability and cannot afford to wait for a comprehensive bill that may never assemble a winning coalition. The remaining Farm Bill agenda, as Lucas and others described it, includes conservation programs, research funding, rural development initiatives, base-acre updates, labor issues, and unresolved regulatory disputes that could not be addressed through reconciliation rules. Budget reconciliation, however, is a limited tool. Under Senate rules, it can be used only for provisions that directly affect federal spending or revenue, leaving large portions of agricultural policy outside its reach. Conservation programs, research funding, rural development initiatives, and many regulatory issues must still move through regular legislative order, requiring bipartisan support and, in the Senate, 60 votes to advance. One of the most prominent examples is California’s Proposition 12, a voter-approved law establishing animal housing standards for pork, eggs, and veal sold in the state, including products raised elsewhere. The U.S. Supreme Court upheld the law in 2023 but explicitly noted that Congress, not the courts, should be the appropriate forum for resolving conflicts between state regulations and interstate commerce. Livestock groups have warned that while H.R. 1 addressed immediate safety-net concerns, it did not resolve regulatory conflicts that could reshape national markets. Industry representatives say disputes such as Proposition 12 illustrate how state-level rules can impose production standards nationwide, an issue they argue must still be addressed in a future Farm Bill. For Oklahoma producers, the shift from a comprehensive Farm Bill to the two-track approach has produced a mix of relief and uncertainty. Plummer, whose family operation spans four generations, said the certainty provided by extended crop insurance and updated reference prices is critical in an era of rising input costs and volatile global markets. At the same time, Plummer noted that cotton producers remain exposed to trade disputes and international competition that often require legislative responses beyond insurance programs. She pointed to the long-running Brazil–United States cotton dispute as a reminder that farm policy does not stop at the water’s edge. Producers across the state operate in a climate defined by drought cycles, extreme heat, and increasing pressure on water resources, while managing land that often supports both crop and livestock production. That combination makes federal risk-management tools especially consequential, not just for year-to-year survival, but for long-term decisions about land use, investment, and succession. The Oklahoma Cattlemen’s Association has highlighted disaster assistance and animal disease prevention funding included in H.R. 1 as particularly important for livestock producers facing recurring drought and biosecurity risks. The association emphasized that faster disaster triggers and expanded indemnity payments help stabilize operations in the short term. Yet even supporters of the reconciliation approach acknowledge that many traditional Farm Bill functions remain unresolved. “There isn’t a lot that we as a cattle industry will be working on in a smaller or ‘skinny’ Farm Bill,” Oklahoma Cattlemen’s Association Executive Vice President Michael Kelsey wrote in response to questions. “But that also reflects how much of the heavy lifting has already been done elsewhere.” Historically, nutrition programs such as the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program accounted for the majority of Farm Bill spending and served as the political glue binding urban and rural interests together. In this cycle, nutrition policy has largely moved onto a parallel track. Nutrition policy has increasingly become a flashpoint in broader budget debates, making it harder to sustain the bipartisan coalitions that once held Farm Bills together. By addressing SNAP changes through H.R. 1, congressional leaders effectively decoupled nutrition from agricultural policy, a move supporters say streamlined passage but critics warn could weaken the political foundation that historically made comprehensive Farm Bills possible. H.R. 1 made significant structural changes to SNAP, including new state cost-sharing requirements tied to payment error rates, increased state responsibility for administrative costs, and adjustments to benefit calculations. Analysts at the Congressional Research Service and Iowa State University’s Center for Agricultural Law and Taxation describe these changes as a redistribution of Farm Bill priorities rather than a simple budget cut. Supporters of the changes argue they improve program integrity. Critics, including policy analysts at the Oklahoma Policy Institute, warn that shifting nutrition policy out of the Farm Bill weakens one of the few remaining bipartisan coalitions in Congress and places new fiscal pressure on states. While nutrition issues remain politically charged, lawmakers involved in Farm Bill discussions increasingly describe them as separate from the core question now facing Congress: whether agriculture policy itself can still be addressed comprehensively. Congress has extended the 2018 Farm Bill multiple times while failing to pass a full reauthorization. According to the Congressional Research Service, what were once viewed as temporary bridges may now be evolving into a lasting structural change. Major farm safety net programs have been settled through budget reconciliation. Nutrition policy is increasingly debated through separate legislative channels. What remains for the Farm Bill is important, but narrower, and potentially more fragile. For producers planning equipment purchases, land transitions, and generational transfers, the question is no longer simply when the next Farm Bill will pass. It is whether the Farm Bill, as a single, comprehensive bargain, still exists. Stephen Martin is an Oklahoma City-based journalist and contributor to Oklahoma Watch. Contact him at [email protected]. The post Oklahoma Farmers Face Uncertain Future as Comprehensive Farm Bill Splinters appeared first on Oklahoma Watch. ...read more read less