Real journalists wrote and edited this (not AI)—independent, community-driven journalism survives because you back it. Donate to sustain Prism’s mission and the humans behind it.

The House voted on a spending bill Nov. 12 that reopened the government, and President Donald Trump added his signature, closing out the longest federal shutdown in the country’s history. 

In recent weeks, the Trump administration has been the subject of lawsuits and widespread criticism for its handling of food assistance during the shutdown. During the weekslong government shutdown, changes to the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) led to disruptions in benefits, creating chaos for low-income families that rely on this financial support to buy food. As Prism previously reported, SNAP was already winnowed in the aftermath of the passage of Trump’s One Big Beautiful Bill, which cut the program by nearly 20%. According to the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA), SNAP provides government assistance to more than 40 million people, including more than 15 million children, who would struggle to afford regular meals. 

The country’s most vulnerable—low-income people and children—depend on decisions made by 535 members of Congress who each take home an annual salary of at least $174,000. However, these decisions are only one factor shaping the nation’s fractured food system. 

The U.S. food system involves large-scale corporations throughout the supply chain, from production to distribution. Commodity crops grown at a massive scale are made into processed food and fuel that is largely shipped overseas. Researchers note that growing crops such as corn and soybeans at scale can have negative environmental impacts, from soil nutrient depletion and the use of chemical fertilizers to an antagonistic, extractive relationship with water. The way industrial farming operates is antithetical to environmental stewardship—the firms that profit off of meat and dairy consumption are some of the world’s largest climate polluters, on par with the carbon emissions of oil corporations such as Exxon. 

But there’s hope among the U.S.’s small farmers, who see it as their role to raise food in a way that supports healthy ecological processes rather than working against them. But these same farmers are fighting tooth and nail for land access in a country that favors quantity over quality. 

That is, there was a sense of hope in the USDA-administered programs to support farmers’ efforts to heal land, but the shutdown stalled many programs and sowed distrust in others. 

“The issue that I see is trust and whether it’s being built or broken,” said Michael Happ, the program associate for climate and rural communities at the Institute for Agriculture and Trade Policy, a research and policy organization that advocates for fair and sustainable farming practices. 

Programs administered through the USDA such as the Conservation Reserve Program, the Agricultural Conservation Easement Program, and the Environmental Quality Incentives Program (EQIP) provide young, beginning, and small farmers with financial, technical, and grant application support. Support for these environmental programs isn’t guaranteed. Happ said that about half of EQIP applications are rejected, many of which come from farmers of color. Still, these sorts of programs help lower the high barrier to entry for would-be farmers, keep farmers on their land by supporting soil and growing practices that lead to higher yields, and connect farmers with community-supported agriculture networks that help guarantee a market base. 

And these programs don’t just help farmers with start-up costs or repair damaged ecosystems, they actively help small farmers adapt to the ecosystem changes brought about by climate change. Farming is seasonal work, with fall being a critical time to prepare land for eventual freezes, store hay for spring, and ready cropland for potential extreme storms and rainfall.

Molly Sowash operates a direct-to-consumer 70-acre ranch raising pigs and cattle. A multiyear Natural Resources Conservation Services (NRCS) contract encouraged Sowash and her husband to implement a number of practices that support environmental health, from putting up fencing to allow for rotational grazing, to planting native grasses that support pollinator populations. Typically, an NRCS contract is closed out when a USDA representative has the chance to go out to the farm and ensure that projects have been fulfilled. But since the shutdown began, no one has been able to give Sowash the green light—or the $4,000 check that was promised to her. 

“We could have used that cash, especially during this time,” Sowash said. While the ranch does have a “cushion” that helped carry them through until the government reopened, she doesn’t feel comfortable incurring more costs until the check clears.  

Many of the farmers most directly impacted by the shutdown are like Sowash; those with active USDA NRCS contracts that were held in a financial limbo. USDA contracts can help farmers with down payments on expensive farm equipment, which offers them the chance to run their own operation if they would otherwise not be able to. But since the shutdown began, some expected reimbursements for this farm equipment haven’t come in. These funding disbursements, often through EQIP, allow farmers to pay staff, establish healthy soil initiatives, and set up hoop houses that allow them to extend the growing season. 

Farm Services Agencies, which provide technical and application assistance to farmers, were already understaffed in the aftermath of Elon Musk’s Department of Government Efficiency firings. During the federal government shutdown, these agencies were closed. Experts warned that even as the government reopens, farmers might not be able to meet the Nov. 21 filing deadline to apply for NRCS programs such as the Healthy Forests Reserve Program and Landscape Conservation Initiatives. 

The USDA did not respond to a request for comment by the time of publication. Prism received an automated response saying its team is currently furloughed.

Grace Moore was luckier than many. Moore works on a 4-acre vegetable and flower farm in central Indiana. She’s in the process of starting her own farm on her parents’ property and credits that land access to the relative ease of overcoming the primary hurdle for many farmers starting out. For her own farm, she applied for funding through EQIP to plant hedgerows as a way of restoring soil health from years of monocropping. She also applied for, and received, funding to put up a high tunnel. 

Even with her success in navigating government funding, she cautions against implicit trust in federal support for small farmers.

“More than ever, I think [it’s] a risk to be relying on programs like EQIP and other NRCS programs,” Moore said, noting how unfortunate this is, given how financially accessible USDA programs make small farming. This is especially true for those who wouldn’t otherwise be able to implement pricey conservation practices that make farming sustainable.

The shutdown, which lasted more than 40 days, has served as a stark reminder of how much influence the government has over a small farm’s ability to be successful.  

“It never feels good to be at the mercy of any of that,” Moore said. She hypothesized that small farmers will be less likely to take the financial risks of implementing climate-friendly solutions without a guarantee that the federal government is ready and willing to keep up its end of the bargain. 

Rural communities need small farms to continue their work, if anything, just to stall the pace of corporate accretion in the landscape of food production. 

“It’s all connected,” Happ said of the food system, its producers, and consumers. “I think people in rural communities understand that, farmers understand that, and I think they’ve been showing up for each other in a way that the government hasn’t been.”

Happ told Prism that the shutdown affected rural farmers in multiple and compounding ways. SNAP disproportionately serves those in rural areas who experience higher rates of poverty and food insecurity than those living in suburban or urban areas. Many farmers themselves rely on federal funds to purchase food, he added, “I think there’s been this realization that the government has turned their backs on them.”

Editorial Team:
Tina Vasquez, Lead Editor
Carolyn Copeland, Top Editor
Stephanie Harris, Copy Editor