This chapter is about farming and food. It says the department should do less. It wants farm subsidies cut back. It says food stamps should move to another department. It also wants school meal programs limited to children in need.
The document says “must”Who acts: CongressHow: legislationp. 290 in the PDF
What the document says
“Congress must limit the USDA’s role.”
The chapter says a proper mission would make the department's primary focus agriculture and would clarify that its client is the American people in general rather than a subset of interests such as farmers, meatpackers or environmental groups. It says the department should remove obstacles to food production rather than try to shape the economy.
What the document actually says
“Congress must limit the USDA’s role.”
That sentence, in plain words
Congress must cut back what this department does.
What this is about
This department handles farming and food. The book says it does far too much. It says Congress should narrow its job by law.
Read against the documents indexed here on August 26, 2026, and nothing was found that answers this. The nearest candidate revises the delegations of authority from the Secretary of Agriculture to the department's general officers, which moves work between offices inside the department. The proposal asks Congress to narrow what the department does, and no indexed law changes its statutory mission. Executive Order 14414, also among the candidates, directs more department activity in regenerative agriculture rather than less. That is a record of a search, not a finding that nothing has happened: an act this site does not hold, or one that answers the proposal in words unlike its own, would not be caught by it.
The document says “should”Who acts: CongressHow: legislationp. 298 in the PDF
What the document says
“Separate the agricultural provisions of the farm bill from the nutrition provisions.”
The chapter says agricultural programs should be considered in legislation distinct from food stamps and the nutrition title, on separate reauthorization timelines, and that the two have been combined for political reasons which proponents readily admit.
What the document actually says
“Separate the agricultural provisions of the farm bill from the nutrition provisions.”
That sentence, in plain words
Take the food stamp part out of the farm law. Vote on the two apart.
What this is about
One big law covers both farming and food stamps. They are voted on together. The book says that is a political trick. It wants them split.
Read against the documents indexed here on August 26, 2026, and nothing was found that answers this. Nothing indexed comes close. No indexed law separates the nutrition title from the agricultural titles or puts them on different reauthorization timelines, and the candidates returned here are proclamations and unrelated rules matched on farm and nutrition words. That is a record of a search, not a finding that nothing has happened: an act this site does not hold, or one that answers the proposal in words unlike its own, would not be caught by it.
The document says “should”Who acts: CongressHow: legislationp. 299 in the PDF
What the document says
“All means-tested antipoverty programs should be overseen by one department—specifically HHS, which handles most welfare programs.”
This would move food stamps and related nutrition programs out of the Agriculture Department, which currently administers them, and into the department that runs most other welfare programs.
What the document actually says
“All means-tested antipoverty programs should be overseen by one department—specifically HHS, which handles most welfare programs.”
That sentence, in plain words
One department should run all the programs that help poor people. It should be the health department.
What this is about
Food stamps are run by the farming department today. Most other help for poor people is run elsewhere. The book says one department should run them all.
Read against the documents indexed here on August 26, 2026, and nothing was found that answers this. Nothing indexed comes close. The candidates cover telemedicine prescribing, a hostage and detainee proclamation, marijuana research, childhood vaccine recommendations and an amendment to Health and Human Services civil rights regulations. None moves food stamps or any other means-tested program out of the Agriculture Department, which is a transfer of statutory authority that would take an act of Congress. That is a record of a search, not a finding that nothing has happened: an act this site does not hold, or one that answers the proposal in words unlike its own, would not be caught by it.
The document says “should”Who acts: CongressHow: legislationp. 296 in the PDF
What the document says
“Repeal the federal sugar program.”
The chapter describes the program as central planning whose purpose is to limit the sugar supply in order to raise prices, and says it has a regressive effect because lower-income households spend more of their money on food.
What the document actually says
“Repeal the federal sugar program.”
That sentence, in plain words
The sugar program should end. Congress should repeal it.
What this is about
One program limits how much sugar is sold. That keeps the price up. The book says poorer families feel that most. It wants the program ended.
Section 10312 works on the machinery the chapter would repeal. It sets the raw cane sugar loan rate at 24.00 cents a pound for the 2025 through 2031 crop years and the refined beet sugar rate at 136.55 percent of it, puts a floor under storage rates for forfeited sugar, carries dates in the marketing allotment provisions of the Agricultural Adjustment Act of 1938 from 2023 to 2031, sets deadlines for reallocating unused import quota, and orders a study of whether further terms and conditions should be placed on refined sugar imports. Nothing in it repeals or ends the program. The law continues and adjusts the loan rate and quota provisions the chapter describes, so it answers the proposal only by going the other way.
In plain English
The chapter asked that the federal sugar program be repealed. The 2025 law keeps it and adjusts it. It sets the raw cane sugar loan rate at 24 cents a pound through 2031 and extends quota dates. Nothing in it ends the program.
The document says “should”Who acts: CongressHow: legislationp. 297 in the PDF
What the document says
“At a minimum, taxpayers should not pay more than 50 percent of the premium.”
The chapter states that taxpayers cover about 60 percent of the premium cost for policies bought in the federal crop insurance program, calls reducing that one of the most widely supported and bipartisan reforms, and says taxpayers should not pay more than the farmers who benefit.
What the document actually says
“At a minimum, taxpayers should not pay more than 50 percent of the premium.”
That sentence, in plain words
Right now taxpayers pay most of this cost. They should pay no more than half.
What this is about
Farmers buy insurance for their crops. Taxpayers pay most of the cost. The book says they should pay half at most.
Section 10504 amends section 508(e)(2) of the Federal Crop Insurance Act, the provision that sets the taxpayer share of the premium the chapter would cap, and raises five of its figures: 64 to 69, 59 to 64, 55 to 60, 48 to 51 and 38 to 41. Section 10502 raises a further figure in the same subsection, in subparagraph (H)(i), from 65 to 80. The chapter asks that taxpayers pay no more than 50 percent of the premium, so the law moves the same numbers the other way. The figures raised attach to particular coverage levels rather than to the roughly 60 percent average share the chapter cites, and the provisions amended are not indexed on this site, so which coverage each figure governs cannot be checked here.
In plain English
The chapter asked that taxpayers pay no more than half of a crop insurance premium. The 2025 law moves the same numbers the other way. It raises five shares, such as 64 to 69 and 38 to 41, and lifts one more from 65 to 80. Each figure ties to a set coverage level, not to the average share the chapter cites.
The document says “should”Who acts: CongressHow: legislationp. 297 in the PDF
What the document says
“Congress should prohibit this duplication by prohibiting farmers from receiving an ARC or PLC payment the same year they receive a crop insurance indemnity.”
The chapter states that farmers can receive support from the Agriculture Risk Coverage or Price Loss Coverage programs and from federal crop insurance for price declines and revenue shortfalls in the same year.
What the document actually says
“Congress should prohibit this duplication by prohibiting farmers from receiving an ARC or PLC payment the same year they receive a crop insurance indemnity.”
That sentence, in plain words
A farmer can be paid twice for one bad year. Congress should stop that.
What this is about
A farmer can claim from two programs at once. Both cover the same loss. The book says only one should pay.
Section 10303 acts on the overlap the chapter would prohibit. It amends section 508(c)(4)(C)(iv) of the Federal Crop Insurance Act by striking the words Crops for which the producer has elected under section 1116 of the Agricultural Act of 2014 to receive agriculture risk coverage and acres, and inserting the single word Acres, which removes the exclusion that had kept crops enrolled in agriculture risk coverage out of that provision, and section 10305 extends agriculture risk coverage itself through the 2031 crop year. The chapter asks Congress to bar a farmer from receiving an agriculture risk coverage or price loss coverage payment in the same year as a crop insurance indemnity, and no indexed law enacts such a bar. The provision amended is not indexed on this site, so what coverage it governs cannot be checked here, and the amendment concerns eligibility for a crop insurance option rather than the receipt of an indemnity.
In plain English
The chapter asked Congress to bar a farmer from taking a farm payment and a crop insurance payout in one year. The 2025 law goes the other way. It strikes words that had kept crops in one farm program out of an insurance option, and it extends that program through 2031. No indexed law creates the bar the chapter wants.
The document says “should”Who acts: Congress, USDAHow: legislationp. 303 in the PDF
What the document says
“Work with lawmakers to eliminate CEP.”
The Community Eligibility Provision lets schools in high-poverty areas serve free meals to all pupils without individual applications. The chapter says school meal programs should serve children in need rather than become an entitlement for students from middle and upper income homes. It separately asks for a rule clarifying that only a whole school or whole district, not a subset of schools, can qualify.
What the document actually says
“Work with lawmakers to eliminate CEP.”
That sentence, in plain words
Work with Congress to end this rule.
What this is about
One rule lets some schools feed every child free. It is used where many families are poor. The book says meals should go only to children in need.
Read against the documents indexed here on August 26, 2026, and nothing was found that answers this. The Whole Milk for Healthy Kids Act of 2025, Public Law 119-69, approved January 14, 2026, amends the Richard B. Russell National School Lunch Act, which is the statute the Community Eligibility Provision sits in. What it changes is which milk may be served and what food service training must cover. It leaves eligibility untouched, and nothing indexed repeals or narrows the provision that lets high-poverty schools serve all pupils without individual applications. That is a record of a search, not a finding that nothing has happened: an act this site does not hold, or one that answers the proposal in words unlike its own, would not be caught by it.
The document says “should”Who acts: USDAHow: internal managementp. 303 in the PDF
What the document says
“any efforts to expand student eligibility for federal school meals to include all K–12 students should be soundly rejected”
The chapter says such expansion would allow what it calls an inefficient, wasteful program to grow, and asks that the school lunch and breakfast programs be restored to their original goal of feeding children who would otherwise have no food at school.
What the document actually says
“any efforts to expand student eligibility for federal school meals to include all K–12 students should be soundly rejected”
That sentence, in plain words
Some want free school meals for every child. The book says that should be turned down flat.
What this is about
Some people want free meals for all pupils. The book says no. It says meals should go only to children who need them.
Read against the documents indexed here on August 26, 2026, and nothing was found that answers this. The nearest candidate changes which milk schools may serve, not who may be served. Nothing indexed expands federal school meals to all K-12 pupils, and nothing rejects such an expansion. This proposal asks that a future step be refused, so an absence of action is not by itself evidence either way. That is a record of a search, not a finding that nothing has happened: an act this site does not hold, or one that answers the proposal in words unlike its own, would not be caught by it.
The document says “should”Who acts: USDAHow: internal managementp. 303 in the PDF
What the document says
“the USDA should not provide meals to students during the summer unless students are taking summer-school classes.”
The chapter states that pupils can currently get meals from schools in summer even if they are not attending summer school, which it says has in effect turned school meals into a federal catering program.
What the document actually says
“the USDA should not provide meals to students during the summer unless students are taking summer-school classes.”
That sentence, in plain words
In summer, feed only the children who are in class.
What this is about
Some children get meals at school in summer. They do not have to be in class. The book says only those in class should get them.
Read against the documents indexed here on August 26, 2026, and nothing was found that answers this. The nearest candidate amends the school lunch statute, but only to allow whole milk and to add food allergy content to training for food service staff. No indexed document conditions summer meals on a pupil attending summer school, and none changes the summer food service rules at all. That is a record of a search, not a finding that nothing has happened: an act this site does not hold, or one that answers the proposal in words unlike its own, would not be caught by it.
The document says “should”Who acts: USDA, CongressHow: legislationp. 304 in the PDF
What the document says
“Farmers should not be paid in such a sweeping way not to farm their land.”
The chapter says that if there is a desire to keep extremely sensitive land out of production this should be done through targeted efforts clearly connected to a specific environmental harm, and that the department should work with Congress to eliminate what it calls this overbroad program.
What the document actually says
“Farmers should not be paid in such a sweeping way not to farm their land.”
That sentence, in plain words
Farmers get paid not to farm their land. That should not be done so widely.
What this is about
One program pays farmers to leave land empty. It is meant to protect nature. The book says it is far too broad.
Read against the documents indexed here on August 26, 2026, and nothing was found that answers this. The Emergency Conservation Program Improvement Act of 2025, Public Law 119-102, widens the Emergency Conservation Program and the Emergency Forest Restoration Program under the Agricultural Credit Act of 1978, adding advance payments of up to 75 percent and reaching more kinds of repair after disasters. That is a cost share for restoring damaged farmland, a different program from the Conservation Reserve Program, and the law expands rather than ends it. Nothing indexed eliminates payments for keeping land out of production. That is a record of a search, not a finding that nothing has happened: an act this site does not hold, or one that answers the proposal in words unlike its own, would not be caught by it.
The document says “should”Who acts: USDA, CongressHow: legislationp. 305 in the PDF
What the document says
“The new Administration should, to the extent authorized by law, limit the use of permanent easements”
A conservation easement restricts how land may be used. The chapter notes that easements signed with the department can be enforced in perpetuity, and asks that permanent ones be limited and that Congress prohibit the department from creating new ones.
What the document actually says
“The new Administration should, to the extent authorized by law, limit the use of permanent easements”
That sentence, in plain words
Use fewer deals that last for ever. Do it as far as the law allows.
What this is about
A farmer can sign a deal to protect land. Some of these last for ever. The book says that is too long.
Read against the documents indexed here on August 26, 2026, and nothing was found that answers this. The nearest candidate changes disaster repair cost share programs and says nothing about easements. The other four candidates are Congressional Review Act resolutions disapproving Energy Department appliance efficiency rules and a Comptroller of the Currency rule, matched only on the word conservation. Nothing indexed limits the department's use of permanent conservation easements or bars it from creating new ones. That is a record of a search, not a finding that nothing has happened: an act this site does not hold, or one that answers the proposal in words unlike its own, would not be caught by it.
The document says “should”Who acts: CongressHow: legislationp. 305 in the PDF
What the document says
“Promote legislation that would allow state-inspected meat to be sold in interstate commerce.”
The chapter notes that states with department-approved inspection programs must meet and enforce requirements at least equal to those under the federal meat and poultry inspection laws, and says the barriers to selling their meat across state lines should be removed.
What the document actually says
“Promote legislation that would allow state-inspected meat to be sold in interstate commerce.”
That sentence, in plain words
Let meat checked by a state be sold in other states too.
What this is about
Meat must be checked before sale. Some states run their own checks. That meat cannot cross state lines. The book says it should be allowed to.
Read against the documents indexed here on August 26, 2026, and nothing was found that answers this. Executive Order 14364, signed December 6, 2025, creates food supply chain task forces at the Justice Department and the Federal Trade Commission to investigate price fixing and anti-competitive behavior, naming meat processing among the vulnerable sectors. It is competition enforcement. It leaves untouched the federal inspection requirements that keep meat from state-inspected plants inside its own state, and nothing indexed promotes legislation to remove that barrier. That is a record of a search, not a finding that nothing has happened: an act this site does not hold, or one that answers the proposal in words unlike its own, would not be caught by it.
The document says “should”Who acts: USDAHow: regulationp. 306 in the PDF
What the document says
“Reduce the number and scope of marketing orders and checkoff programs.”
Marketing orders regulate how a commodity is handled and sold, and checkoff programs collect mandatory assessments from producers to fund promotion. The chapter asks that new requests be rejected as far as the law allows and existing programs eliminated where possible, noting that petition processes make it difficult for affected parties to end them.
What the document actually says
“Reduce the number and scope of marketing orders and checkoff programs.”
That sentence, in plain words
Cut the number of these programs. Cut how far they reach.
What this is about
Some programs control how a crop is sold. Others charge farmers a fee to pay for adverts. The book says there should be fewer of both.
Read against the documents indexed here on August 26, 2026, and nothing was found that answers this. The Agricultural Marketing Service, which administers marketing orders, delays the effective date of its Poultry Grower Payment Systems and Capital Improvement Systems rule from July 1, 2026 to December 31, 2027 while it considers what to do with it. That rule sits under the Packers and Stockyards Act, not under a marketing order or a checkoff program, and delaying it reduces neither the number nor the scope of either. That is a record of a search, not a finding that nothing has happened: an act this site does not hold, or one that answers the proposal in words unlike its own, would not be caught by it.
The document says “should”Who acts: USDAHow: internal managementp. 293 in the PDF
What the document says
“the USDA should remove all references”
The full passage asks that a new Administration announce its principles through an executive order and that the department remove all references to transforming the food system from its website and other material. The chapter says the department should not place ancillary issues such as climate change ahead of food productivity and affordability.
What the document actually says
“the USDA should remove all references”
That sentence, in plain words
The department should take all of these mentions out.
What this is about
The department talks about changing the food system. The book says that is not its job. It wants those words removed from its website.
Read against the documents indexed here on August 26, 2026, and nothing was found that answers this. The nearest Agriculture Department candidate revises internal delegations of authority and removes no language from department material. The other removal candidates belong elsewhere: one strikes references to rescinded Council on Environmental Quality regulations, another corrects office names at the Surface Transportation Board. Nothing indexed removes references to transforming the food system from the department's website or publications, and no executive order announcing the principles the chapter asks for appears among the candidates. That is a record of a search, not a finding that nothing has happened: an act this site does not hold, or one that answers the proposal in words unlike its own, would not be caught by it.
Daren Bakst, “Department of Agriculture,” in Mandate for Leadership: The Conservative Promise, edited by Paul Dans and Steven Groves (The Heritage Foundation, 2023), pp. 289-318. https://static.heritage.org/project2025/2025_MandateForLeadership_FULL.pdf
This page
“Department of Agriculture,” Project 2025, chapter 10. Read the Mandate, https://readthemandate.org/project-2025/chapter-10/ (retrieved October 7, 2026).
Cite the document when the claim is about what the document says. Cite this page when the indexing, the wording or the record of what has happened is what is being relied on.
What This Page Covers, and What It Leaves Out
Recommendations on the department's mission, farm subsidies and crop insurance, nutrition and school meal programs, conservation programs, meat inspection and marketing programs.
The chapter's statistics on farm output and food spending, its account of the current administration's plans, and a number of narrower regulatory items.
Several proposals here require legislation the chapter acknowledges may be difficult, particularly on farm subsidies, where it says the next Administration will primarily have to look to legislative solutions.
