- WorkersProvides predictable labor cost levels for farm employers by freezing AEWRs through December 31, 2026.
- Potential benefitPrevents scheduled AEWR increases from raising wage costs for growers during the freeze period.
- StatesReduces administrative adjustment burdens by maintaining existing state wage rates and clarifying classification.
Supporting Farm Operations Act of 2025
Referred to the House Committee on the Judiciary.
The bill directs the Secretary of Labor to keep each State's adverse effect wage rate (AEWR) for H‑2A agricultural workers at the level that was in effect on December 31, 2023, through December 31, 2026. It also requires the Department to use a primary‑duties evaluation when determining the applicable wage for employees who perform multiple tasks.
Worker wage increases versus farm cost and predictability
Narrow, sector‑specific change likely to attract support from agricultural interests and some colleagues; opposition possible from labor advocates.
The bill directs the Secretary of Labor to keep each State's adverse effect wage rate (AEWR) for H‑2A agricultural workers at the level that was in effect on December 31, 2023, through December 31, 2026.
It also requires the Department to use a primary‑duties evaluation when determining the applicable wage for employees who perform multiple tasks.
Content is narrow and administrable, but touches contentious labor/immigration policy; moderate stakeholder opposition and Senate hurdles lower prospects.
How solid the drafting looks.
Worker wage increases versus farm cost and predictability
Who stands to gain, and who may push back.
These are examples from the analysis, not a ranked list of the most-affected groups.
- WorkersFreezing AEWR likely reduces wage gains for H-2A workers relative to inflation and planned increases.
- WorkersMay weaken market wage pressure, indirectly lowering pay prospects for domestic farmworkers.
- WorkersConstrains Department of Labor flexibility to adjust AEWR based on changing labor market data.
Why the argument around this bill splits.
Worker wage increases versus farm cost and predictability
Likely viewed negatively: freezes a wage floor that could otherwise rise, potentially harming seasonal agricultural workers.
The primary‑duties clause raises concerns about narrowing classifications to avoid higher pay.
A mixed view: appreciates predictability for agriculture and supply chains, but worries the freeze could lock in inadequate wages and invite legal or administrative complications.
Sees tradeoffs worth managing.
Likely supportive: prevents retroactive or unanticipated wage hikes that raise farm labor costs, and the primary‑duties rule offers administrative clarity.
Seen as protecting agricultural competitiveness.
The path through Congress.
Reached or meaningfully advanced
Reached or meaningfully advanced
Still ahead
Still ahead
Still ahead
Content is narrow and administrable, but touches contentious labor/immigration policy; moderate stakeholder opposition and Senate hurdles lower prospects.
- No Congressional Budget Office or cost estimate provided
- Stakeholder reactions (farm groups vs. worker advocates)
Recent votes on the bill.
No vote history yet
The bill has not accumulated any surfaced votes yet.
Go deeper than the headline read.
Worker wage increases versus farm cost and predictability
Content is narrow and administrable, but touches contentious labor/immigration policy; moderate stakeholder opposition and Senate hurdles l…
Pro readers get the full perspective split, passage barriers, legislative design review, stakeholder impact map, and lens-based policy tradeoff analysis for Supporting Farm Operations Act of 2025.
Go beyond the headline summary with full stakeholder mapping, legislative design analysis, passage barriers, and lens-by-lens tradeoff breakdowns.