S. 1693 (119th)Bill Overview

FARMER Act of 2025

Agriculture and Food|Agriculture and Food
Cosponsors
Support
Republican
Introduced
May 8, 2025
Discussions
Bill Text
Current stageCommittee

Read twice and referred to the Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry.

Introduced
Committee
Floor
President
Law
Congressional Activities
01 · The brief
Plain-English summaryWhat this bill actually does

The bill amends the Federal Crop Insurance Act to increase premium subsidy factors for certain individual farm-based revenue or yield protection plans when elected on enterprise or whole-farm units; makes technical changes to Supplemental Coverage Option (SCO) coverage level and its subsidy language; and requires a USDA Risk Management Agency study (and report within one year) on feasibility of offering SCO-like coverage at a sub-county but supra-individual level for counties larger than 1,400 square miles.

Why people may split

Progressives emphasize distributional fairness and targeting

Watch point

Relative to its intended legislative type, this bill is a focused substantive amendment to the Federal Crop Insurance Act that specifies discrete subsidy rate changes and technical adjustments to coverage options and supplements those changes with a required study and report; it integrates directly into existing statutory provisions but omits fiscal-resourcing detail and broader operational safeguards.

The bill amends the Federal Crop Insurance Act to increase premium subsidy factors for certain individual farm-based revenue or yield protection plans when elected on enterprise or whole-farm units; makes technical changes to Supplemental Coverage Option (SCO) coverage level and its subsidy language; and requires a USDA Risk Management Agency study (and report within one year) on feasibility of offering SCO-like coverage at a sub-county but supra-individual level for counties larger than 1,400 square miles.

Passage40/100

Narrow, bipartisan-leaning agricultural tweak with modest cost increases; more likely as committee-approved amendment or folded into a larger farm bill or package.

CredibilityPartially aligned

Relative to its intended legislative type, this bill is a focused substantive amendment to the Federal Crop Insurance Act that specifies discrete subsidy rate changes and technical adjustments to coverage options and supplements those changes with a required study and report; it integrates directly into existing statutory provisions but omits fiscal-resourcing detail and broader operational safeguards.

Contention45/100

Progressives emphasize distributional fairness and targeting

02 · What it does

Who stands to gain, and who may push back.

Likely benefits vs burdens50% / 50%
CitiesFederal agencies

These are examples from the analysis, not a ranked list of the most-affected groups.

Likely helped
  • Potential benefitReduces producers' out-of-pocket crop insurance premiums for specified enterprise and whole-farm policies.
  • Potential benefitMay increase enrollment in enterprise and whole-farm insurance, stabilizing farm revenues and jobs.
  • CitiesCould lower farm income volatility, improving credit access and investment capacity for participating producers.
Likely burdened
  • Federal agenciesIncreases federal subsidy costs, raising budgetary expenditures for the crop insurance program.
  • Potential burdenLikely benefits larger operations more, since enterprise and whole-farm units are more common there.
  • Potential burdenMay create moral hazard by lowering producer incentives to adopt risk-reducing practices.
03 · Why people split

Why the argument around this bill splits.

Progressives emphasize distributional fairness and targeting
Progressive60%

Likely cautiously supportive of stronger farmer risk protection but concerned about who benefits.

Support stems from protecting farm incomes and rural communities, but critics will note potential bias toward larger operations and lack of means-testing or environmental conditions.

Some impacts (distributional, fiscal) are uncertain.

Split reaction
Centrist70%

Pragmatic support tempered by budget and implementation concerns.

Sees value in improved risk management for agriculture but wants clarity on costs, distributional effects, and administrative details for SCO changes.

The mandated study is a useful step before broader expansion.

Leans supportive
Conservative85%

Generally favorable as congressional support for farm risk protection.

Views increased premium support as strengthening agricultural resilience and helping rural economies.

Some fiscal conservatives may still demand clarity on net budget effects, but overall aligns with traditional farm policy priorities.

Leans supportive
04 · Can it pass?

The path through Congress.

Introduced

Reached or meaningfully advanced

Committee

Reached or meaningfully advanced

Floor

Still ahead

President

Still ahead

Law

Still ahead

Passage likelihood40/100

Narrow, bipartisan-leaning agricultural tweak with modest cost increases; more likely as committee-approved amendment or folded into a larger farm bill or package.

Scope and complexity
24%
Scopenarrow
52%
Complexitymedium
Why this could stall
  • Absent congressional cost estimate or CBO score
  • Net fiscal impact and whether offsets are required
05 · Recent votes

Recent votes on the bill.

No vote history yet

The bill has not accumulated any surfaced votes yet.

06 · Go deeper

Go deeper than the headline read.

Included on this page

Progressives emphasize distributional fairness and targeting

Narrow, bipartisan-leaning agricultural tweak with modest cost increases; more likely as committee-approved amendment or folded into a larg…

Unlocked analysis

Relative to its intended legislative type, this bill is a focused substantive amendment to the Federal Crop Insurance Act that specifies discrete subsidy rate changes and technical adjustments to coverage options and su…

Go beyond the headline summary with full stakeholder mapping, legislative design analysis, passage barriers, and lens-by-lens tradeoff breakdowns.

Perspective breakdownsPassage barriersLegislative design reviewStakeholder impact map
Open full analysis