The Vernon County farm owned by Wisconsin Farmer's Union President Darin Von Ruden. (Henry Redman | Wisconsin Examiner)

Wisconsin lawmakers at the state and federal level have proposed a flurry of policies to support Wisconsin farmers after the first year of the second Trump administration brought increased uncertainty, the whiplash of trade wars and the fear of increased immigration enforcement against migrant workers. 

Last week, the Trump administration announced it would be providing $12 billion in bridge payments to American farmers to help them manage the economic fallout of Trump’s tariffs. The tariffs have increased the costs of inputs such as machinery and fertilizer while limiting international markets for U.S. farm products. 

After the bailout was announced, Wisconsin farm advocates said the money was needed to help make ends meet this year, but called for more permanent solutions so farmers can make a living from what they grow. 

“This relief will help many Wisconsin farm families get through a tough stretch, and we recognize the need for that kind of support in a crisis,” Wisconsin Farmers Union President Darin Von Ruden said in a statement. “But farmers in our state don’t want to rely on emergency payments year after year — we want a fair shot at making a living from the work we do. It’s time for long-term solutions that bring stability back to our markets, tackle consolidation, and ensure rural communities across Wisconsin can thrive.”

Wisconsin’s soybean farmers have been among the hardest hit by the Trump trade wars because China was a massive market for the crop. 

Dr. Success Okafor, policy fellow at the Michael Fields Agricultural Institute, told the Wisconsin Examiner that the Trump administration needs to help farmers of commodity crops such as corn and soybeans and specialty crops such as vegetables. The U.S. Department of Agriculture program has set aside $11 billion for commodity producers and $1 billion for specialty crops. 

“For many Wisconsin farmers, especially those already under financial pressure, the relief is important, but the key issue is not whether the relief exists, but it is whether it is accessible and aligned with long-term resilience,” Okafor said. “Soybean farmers in Wisconsin have been hit particularly hard by the trade disruptions, and targeted relief for those losses is absolutely warranted. But the question is not whether soybean producers should receive support, but how this relief can be structured so it does not unintentionally exclude other farmers who are also economically vulnerable.”

Okafor said key elements of an equitable government relief program for farmers would include transparency in how losses are calculated, flexibility in program design and making sure access is not limited by short deadlines or complex paperwork. 

Bipartisan bill to help for organic farms

Last week, Democratic U.S. Sen. Tammy Baldwin and Republican Rep. Derrick Van Orden joined a bipartisan effort to support organic farmers. The Domestic Organic Investment Act would extend a UDA grant program to help organic farmers find markets for their products. 

A number of Democratic state legislators also introduced legislation aimed at helping Wisconsin’s farmers find markets for their products. The bills are unlikely to move forward under the Republican-controlled Legislature, but the package of agriculture bills is among the proposals Democrats have made throughout the year to signal their agenda if they win a state legislative majority next year. 

The proposal includes grants to support specialty products that are sold locally, providing healthy food to federal food assistance recipients and expanding the state’s farmland preservation program. 

“The federal government has failed our farmers and our agricultural economy,” Sen. Mark Spreitzer (D-Beloit) said at a news conference last week. “We would not need a $12 billion bailout for our farmers if the Trump administration was doing right by them in the first place. We are now trying to play catch up, and here in Wisconsin, we are trying to fill in those gaps and support our farmers in these difficult times as the Trump administration fails.” 

At its annual conference in Wisconsin Dells last week, the Farmers Union set its 2026 priorities, which include managing the continued consolidation of the agricultural industry, protecting the rights of immigrant workers, supporting family dairy farms and ensuring access to quality health care. 

At the local level across Wisconsin, debates are raging over the best use of the state’s agricultural land. A number of communities had heated  arguments over proposals to construct massive data centers on existing farmland while others have continued yearslong efforts to oppose the expansion of massive factory farms. 

Despite pressure from industry groups and business lobbyists, towns across western Wisconsin have enacted local ordinances limiting the ability of farms to expand without local approval. Last week, the town of Gilman became the third Pierce County community to pass a local CAFO ordinance. Gilman officials said their goal was protecting local resources while trying to encourage a local agricultural industry that can support smaller family farms. 

The new ordinance, Gilman town board chair Phil Verges said, puts in place minimum standards to address community concerns.

“We have legitimate concerns and this is the best option we have to protect ourselves from the seemingly unlimited growth of these factory farms,” Verges said. “We can’t sit by and do nothing.”

Holstein milking cows at an Idaho dairy on July 20, 2012. (Photo by Kirsten Strough/U.S. Department of Agriculture.)

WASHINGTON — School cafeterias got a step closer to seeing whole milk again after the U.S. House passed a measure Monday to restore the dairy staple to school lunches. 

The bill unanimously passed the Senate back in November, and now heads to President Donald Trump’s desk. 

The bipartisan effort — which passed the House by voice vote — came after whole milk was barred from school meal programs for more than a decade amid a broader push to curb childhood obesity. 

Under the bill, schools that participate in the U.S. Department of Agriculture’s National School Lunch Program would be allowed to offer “flavored and unflavored organic or nonorganic whole, reduced-fat, low-fat, and fat-free fluid milk and lactose free fluid milk” as well as “nondairy beverages that are nutritionally equivalent to fluid milk and meet the nutritional standards established by the Secretary.” 

The bill also would exempt milk fat from being considered saturated fat as it applies to schools’ “allowable average saturated fat content of a meal.” 

The measure allows parents and guardians, on top of physicians, to offer a written statement for their student to receive a nondairy milk substitute.  

GOP Sens. Roger Marshall of Kansas and Dave McCormick of Pennsylvania, along with Democratic Sens. Peter Welch of Vermont and John Fetterman of Pennsylvania, introduced the measure in the Senate in January. 

Republican Rep. Glenn “GT” Thompson of Pennsylvania and Democratic Rep. Kim Schrier of Washington state brought corresponding legislation in the House.

‘An essential building block’

During floor debate Monday, Thompson, who chairs the House Agriculture Committee, said the bill’s purpose is to “restore students’ access to a wide variety of milk options, ensuring students have the necessary nutrients to learn and to grow.” 

Thompson said “milk is an essential building block for a well-rounded and balanced diet, offering 13 essential nutrients and numerous health benefits,” but that “unfortunately, out-of-touch and outdated federal regulations have imposed restrictions on the types of milk students have access to in school meals.” 

Thompson pointed out that the bill “does not require any student to drink or any school to serve whole milk” and instead “simply gives schools the flexibility to serve a broader variety of milk in the school lunchroom.” 

But Rep. Bobby Scott, ranking member of the House Committee on Education and Workforce, voiced his opposition, saying that while the bill “does make some improvements to the whole milk debate with its inclusion of better options for students seeking non-dairy alternatives,” he remains “disappointed that the bill overall would make school meals less healthy.”

The Virginia Democrat said the bill “goes against the dairy industry’s stated commitment to ensure that students have access to the healthiest dairy options” consistent with USDA’s and the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services’ Dietary Guidelines for Americans.

Milk industry praise

The top five milk-producing states in 2023 were California, Wisconsin, Idaho, Texas and New York, according to the U.S. Department of Agriculture’s Economic Research Service.

Michael Dykes, president and CEO of the International Dairy Foods Association, celebrated House passage of the bill, which he dubbed a “defining victory for children’s health and for the dairy community that has fought for more than a decade to restore whole and 2% milk for our nation’s students.” 

Dykes urged Trump to sign the bill into law so that USDA “can begin working with state governments and school districts across the country to make this law a reality.” 

Cows graze at Nice Farms Creamery in Federalsburg, Maryland.  (Photo by Preston Keres/USDA)

WASHINGTON — The U.S. Department of Agriculture will spend $700 million to support regenerative agriculture as part of the Make America Healthy Again agenda, Agriculture Secretary Brooke Rollins and Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. announced Wednesday. 

The USDA pilot program for regenerative agriculture — a conservation management approach centered on improving the health of soil and increasing biodiversity — enacts part of President Donald Trump’s administration’s September “Make Our Children Healthy Again Strategy,” which offered more than 120 recommendations for addressing childhood chronic diseases.  

The pilot program will take funding from existing USDA conservation programs, which provide financial and technical assistance to farmers, with the aim of improving soil health.

“Protecting and improving the health of our soil is critical, not only for the future viability of farmland, but to the future success of American farmers,” Rollins said at a press conference alongside Kennedy and Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services Administrator Dr. Mehmet Oz. 

“In order to continue to be the most productive and most efficient growers in the world, we must protect our topsoil from unnecessary erosion and boost the microbiome of the soil,” Rollins said.

Kennedy said a September report from the administration’s Make America Healthy Again Commission, which the health secretary chairs, included “the promise to make it easier for farmers in this country, to give them an off-ramp — farmers who are dependent on … chemical and fertilizer inputs — to give them an off-ramp where they can transition to a model that emphasizes soil health.” 

Kennedy has long advocated against use of chemicals in farming.

Repurposing funding

The department will dedicate $400 million to the initiative through the department’s Environmental Quality Incentives Program and $300 million from its Conservation Stewardship Program, according to a USDA press release.

“It’s baseline funding that we received through our budget, so we have the ability to tag that funding specifically for this pilot, and that’s what we’re doing,” Aubrey J.D. Bettencourt, chief of USDA’s Natural Resources Conservation Service, or NRCS, said.

Rollins also said she would seek corporate partners for the program using a 2022 law that authorizes USDA to channel private contributions to conservation programs. 

The move “will bring corporate label and supply chain partners directly into partnership” with NRCS, Rollins said.

The pilot program “connects the producer and the work that they’re doing on the farm, granting them the credit for that voluntary action of change in practice on their farm that then can transition into the supply chain, into the marketplace and directly back to the consumer,” Bettencourt said. 

SNAP waivers 

Meanwhile, Rollins and Kennedy also announced Wednesday six more states whose waivers were approved to prohibit Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, or SNAP, benefits from being used to purchase certain non-nutritious items beginning in 2026. 

The effort, also part of the Make America Healthy Again agenda, adds Hawaii, Missouri, North Dakota, South Carolina, Virginia and Tennessee to the list of states that will have such bans. 

The bans restrict which items recipients of the federal food assistance program that helps 42 million Americans afford groceries can buy with their SNAP benefits.

Arkansas, Colorado, Florida, Idaho, Indiana, Iowa, Louisiana, Nebraska, Oklahoma, Texas, Utah and West Virginia already have similar incoming bans.

A store displays a sign accepting Electronic Benefits Transfer, or EBT, cards for Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program purchases for groceries on Oct. 30, 2025 in New York City. (Photo by Spencer Platt/Getty Images)

The U.S. Department of Agriculture will begin next week to block nutrition assistance funding for states led by Democrats that have not provided data on fraud in the program, Secretary Brooke Rollins told President Donald Trump at a Cabinet meeting Tuesday.

USDA sought data from states earlier this year related to their administration of Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, or SNAP, benefits, Rollins said Tuesday. She added the data was needed to address fraud that she called “rampant” in the program that helps 42 million people afford groceries.

Most states complied with the request, but 21, mostly run by Democrats, refused, she said. A USDA spokesperson later implied the department was missing data from 22 states.

“As of next week, we have begun and will begin to stop moving federal funds into those states until they comply, and they tell us and allow us to partner with them to root out this fraud and to protect the American taxpayer,” Rollins said.

A USDA spokesperson in an email listed 28 states, plus one territory, from which they said the department has received data.

That would leave the following 22 states, all led by Democratic governors, that have not provided data: Arizona, California, Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, Hawaii, Illinois, Kansas, Kentucky, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, Washington and Wisconsin. 

The spokesperson provided some additional details of the initiative, including that the department was targeting administrative funds, and that the next step would be a formal warning.

Blue states sought to protect bad actors, including criminals and immigrants in the country without legal status, “over the American taxpayer,” the statement said.

“We have sent Democrat States yet another request for data, and if they fail to comply, they will be provided with formal warning that USDA will pull their administrative funds,” the spokesperson said.

Court records show the department sent the states a new request for data on Nov. 28, and asked for a response within seven days, which would be Friday. 

The letter was reproduced as part of a suit the 22 states have brought against the administration over the request for SNAP recipients’ data.

Leading Dem calls threat illegal

It’s unclear what authority Rollins would have to block funding, which Congress has appropriated.

The federal government pays for all benefits for SNAP, which was formerly known as food stamps. It splits the administrative costs with states.

The USDA spokesperson did not answer a direct question about the legal authority for withholding funds.

Democrats on the U.S. House Agriculture Committee said any effort to block SNAP funding would be illegal.

“Yet again, Trump and Rollins are illegally threatening to withhold federal dollars,” a social media post from an official account of committee Democrats read. “SNAP has one of the lowest fraud rates of any government program, but Trump continues to weaponize hunger.”

The committee’s lead Democrat, Angie Craig of Minnesota, issued her own statement that also accused the administration of “weaponizing hunger” and said Rollins “continues to spew propaganda.”

“Her disregard for the law and willingness to lie through her teeth comes from the very top – the Trump administration is as corrupt as it is lawless, and I will not sit silently as she carries out the president’s campaign against Americans struggling to afford food in part because of this president’s tariffs and disastrous economic policies.”  

SNAP fraud

The data USDA has sought from states includes verification of SNAP recipients’ eligibility, along with a host of personal information such as Social Security numbers.

An early USDA review of data provided by the 28 states and Guam “indicates an estimated average of $24 million dollars per day of federal funds is lost to fraud and errors undetected by States in their administration of SNAP,” the department said in the Nov. 28 letter.

Preventing those losses could save up to $9 billion per year, the letter added.

But the types of fraud cited in some of the public statements from Rollins and the department are rare, existing data show.

A 2023 USDA report showed about 26,000 applications, roughly 0.1% of the households enrolled in SNAP, were referred for an administrative or criminal review.

People in the country illegally have never been authorized to receive SNAP benefits.

“The long-standing data sources indicate that intentional fraud by participants is rare,” Katie Bergh, a senior food assistance policy analyst for the left-leaning think tank Center for Budget and Policy Priorities, said in a November interview.

Trump administration target

SNAP has been a consistent target for cuts during Trump’s second presidency.

The issue was a focal point during the six-week government shutdown, during which the administration reversed itself often but generally resisted calls — from states, advocates, lawmakers and federal judges — to fund food assistance.

Shortly after the government reopened, Rollins in television interviews said she would force all recipients to reapply for benefits, a proposal seen as logistically challenging by program experts.

And the Republican taxes and spending law passed by Congress and signed by Trump earlier this year included new work requirements and other restrictions on SNAP eligibility that advocates say will lead to major drops in benefits. 

The law will also make states pay for some share of benefits and increase the share of administrative costs that states are responsible for, potentially leading some states to cut benefits.