In the world of agricultural law, 2025 was a year for significant developments and changes.  In summary below, attorneys at the National Agricultural Law Center have identified and compiled the top legal and policy developments that affected agriculture this year, including many that will do so in years to come.

• Questions about- and limitations on- the foreign ownership of farmland has continued to be on the mind of state legislators across the country.  Six states including Arkansas, Georgia, Idaho, Nebraska, Tennessee, and Utah amended their existing laws. Four states that did not previously have a similar law- Arizona, Kentucky, Texas, and West Virginia- passed one.  In addition to legislative action, several courts have also considered the constitutionality of these laws.  Recently, a federal appellate court issued a decision in a case challenging Florida’s foreign ownership law, holding that 1) the plaintiffs did not have standing to proceed and 2) even if standing was not an issue, plaintiffs were unlikely to succeed on their challenge to the law’s registration and affidavit requirements.  Other courts have ruled on challenges to various state laws include the Arkansas law and the new Texas law, with the latter resulting in a decision in line with the recent Florida ruling. NALC articles about these and other similar cases are available here. For further resources and information, see NALC’s Foreign Ownership of Agricultural Land: FAQs & Resource Library here.
• In November, federal agencies issued new proposed rules to revise implementation of both the CWA and the ESA. EPA and the United States Army Corps of Engineers (the Corps) released their highly anticipated proposal to redefine the Clean Water Act (CWA) term “waters of the United States” (WOTUS). The term is important for CWA implementation because only those waters that meet the definition are protected under the Act’s permitting programs. According to EPA and the Corps, the new proposal will bring the definition of WOTUS in-line with the Supreme Court’s 2023 ruling in Sackett v. EPA which held that WOTUS should extend only to “relatively permanent” waters and wetlands which are “indistinguishable” from such waters due to a continuous surface connection. A public comment period on the proposal is open until January 5, 2026 with a final rule expected out later next year. Click here to learn more. The United States Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) and the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) issued four proposed rules that would make numerous changes to how the ESA is carried out. Specifically, the proposals would revise how the Services list and delist species, designate critical habitat, and conduct interagency consultation. The proposals would also roll back FWS’s blanket 4(d) rule, a decades-old regulation which allows FWS to automatically apply fully ESA protection to all species listed as threatened. A comment period on each of the proposed rules is open through December 22. For further information, click here.
• The industrial hemp industry was dealt a significant setback in November when Congress reopened the federal government and passed several appropriations bills, including one for agriculture.  One provision in the bill closed the so-called “hemp loophole” created by the 2018 Farm Bill, which amended the Agricultural Marketing Act of 1946 to allow hemp production. The 2018 Farm Bill defined hemp as “the plant Cannabis sativa L. and any part of that plant…with a delta-9 tetrahydrocannabinol [THC] concentration of not more than 0.3 percent on a dry weight basis.” This specification unintentionally created the “hemp loophole” that resulted in the production and sale of federally unregulated intoxicating THC products, because processors could take CBD from legally produced plants and chemically process it into delta-8 and delta-10, which did not fall under the definition. In recent years, states have responded to the loophole in a variety of ways, some regulating the sale of certain products while others ban the sale outright. To read more about these state efforts and the lawsuits challenging them, click here.  The appropriations act redefined “hemp” crops based on total THC content, not just delta-9. Further, it excluded intermediate and final hemp-derived cannabinoid products containing synthesized THC and cannabinoids from the definition. While industrial hemp- hemp grown for the use of the stalk, seed, edible leaves, or supporting research- is included in the definition,, the majority of hemp currently produced is for the purpose of cannabinoid production. This hemp provision will become effective on November 12, 2026.
• The Make America Healthy Again (“MAHA”) movement is an area of policy that received significant attention this year. On the federal level, this movement is spearheaded by Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) Secretary Robert Kennedy and furthered primarily by the actions of both HHS and the MAHA Commission. However, this year there has also been significant attention to these priorities by state actors, including both state legislators and non-legislative actors. A few examples of the state legislative proposals includes the creation of labeling requirements for foods that contain certain ingredients, an attempt to ban food products that contain certain ingredients from school meals, the establishment of a statewide ban on the sale of foods that contain synthetic color dyes, and encouragement to seek a USDA waiver to limit the foods that may be purchased with SNAP benefits. Additionally, some states sought non-legislative avenues for MAHA priorities. For instance, the Texas Attorney General opened up a civil investigation against multiple food manufacturing companies alleging that their sale of certain foods was a violation of state consumer protection laws. To learn more these and other legal activities surrounding these issues, click here.
• The question of whether federal pesticide law preempts state tort law liability claims continued to be top-of-mind this year, stemming from lawsuits filed by plaintiffs claiming that exposure to a pesticide product caused them to develop some sort of illness or injury. The most well-known of these lawsuits involve glyphosate, the active ingredient in Roundup, and plaintiffs who file tort claims in state court arguing that Bayer, the manufacturer of Roundup, failed to warn consumers of the health risks of using its products. Bayer and others have argued that the plaintiffs’ failure to warn claims should not be brought in the first place, claiming that they are preempted by the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA) which prevents states from adding language to a federally registered pesticide label that is either different from or in addition to what has been approved at the federal level. Plaintiffs in these lawsuits have argued that their failure to warn claims are not preempted by federal law because FIFRA prohibits the sale of pesticides that do not include necessary health warnings.  In response, some state legislatures have attempted to pass laws specifying that a federally approved pesticide label will be considered a sufficient defense to any failure to warn claims filed in that state. For more information on recent state efforts to limit liability for pesticide companies, click here. Ultimately, the matter may be resolved if the Supreme Court agrees to hear Monsanto Co. v. Durnell, which asks the Justices to weigh in on the preemption issue. While it is still unclear whether the Supreme Court will agree to take the case, a recently filed brief from the Office of the Solicitor General urges the Court to not only hear the case, but rule that FIFRA preempts state law failure to warn claims. Whatever the outcome, the question of federal preemption in pesticide injury lawsuits is sure to carry into 2026.
• Throughout 2025, the Trump Administration has increased tariff rates on U.S. imports from trading partners around the globe. To accomplish this, the administration has relied on various legal authorities, including the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA).  The IEEPA allows the President to regulate transactions in foreign exchange after declaring a national emergency, although no President has ever used the IEEPA’s authority to this extent.  The constitutional authority to do so was challenged in V.O.S. Selections, Inc. v. Trump, which was heard by the Supreme Court on November 5.  To learn more about the case, click here.  Other tariff decisions have been mitigated by potential trade agreements with foreign counties. While these agreements are for the most part initial frameworks and not yet binding, the structure of many of them have been confirmed through joint statements issued by participating countries. For example, one such agreement was executed by President Trump and China’s President Xi Jinping at a summit in South Korea. Under that agreement, the U.S. has committed to lower the above mentioned tariffs on Chinese imports and China has agreed to suspend all of its retaliatory tariffs. President Trump’s trip to Asia also yielded new trade agreements with several nations including Japan, Malaysia, Cambodia, Vietnam, and Thailand. To learn more about the details of these trade agreements, click here. Whether these various agreements will be fully executed remains to be seen. More time will be needed to see which terms are finalized and which are changed or removed entirely.  An upcoming NALC webinar with USDA Deputy Secretary Stephen Vaden will discuss many of these issues, and registration is available here.
• 2025 saw substantial changes to the Department of Labor’s (DOL) H-2A foreign farm worker program. The H-2A program allows agricultural employers facing a shortage of domestic labor to hire foreign workers in a seasonal or temporary capacity. Prior to 2025, the wages paid to these workers were calculated using the DOL’s 2023 Adverse Effect Wage Rate (AEWR). The AEWR is intended to set foreign worker wage rates at a level that does not create an “adverse effect” on the wage rates of U.S. workers. On August 25, a federal judge issued a ruling that vacated the 2023 AEWR rule. To learn more about that case and why the rule was vacated, click here. For a period after the 2023 AEWR rule was vacated, the 2010 version of the rule was the methodology used in the H-2A program. On October 2, the DOL published an interim final rule that revised the AEWR methodology once again. Currently, this interim final rule governs wage calculations under the H-2A program. However, this interim final rule has also been challenged in court. On November 21, the agricultural group United Farm Workers filed suit against the Department of Labor seeking an injunction preventing enforcement of the interim final rule. Heading into 2026, what impact this case will have on the H-2A program remains to be seen. 
• Issues surrounding pesticide registration and labeling were also an on-going theme of the year, with lawsuits, petitions, and regulatory proposals seeking to impact the tools available to farmers. In April, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) released its final Insecticide Strategy, the latest step in the agency’s goal of bringing pesticide regulation into compliance with the Endangered Species Act (ESA). The final Insecticide Strategy outlines various mitigation measures that may be included on product labels in order to limit exposure to listed species. More information is available here.  Later, in July, EPA announced a public comment period of its proposal to re-register three dicamba-based herbicides for direct use on dicamba-tolerant soybean and cotton crops.  While EPA indicated an intention to finalize the labels in time for the products to be available for the 2026 growing season, final labels have not yet been issued. To learn more about the proposal, click here. In August, environmental groups asked a federal court to overturn EPA’s decision to register Enlist One and Enlist Duo. According to the groups, EPA’s decision to register the herbicides conflicts with both FIFRA and the ESA, specifically arguing that the mitigation measures EPA added to the labels to reduce exposure to listed species do not meet federal standards. The case could be the first test of EPA’s Herbicide Strategy. Click here to learn more. Finally, the Natural Resources Defense Council in October asked a federal court to compel EPA to respond to a 2020 petition the group submitted asking the agency to make changes to the current pesticide tolerances for neonicotinoid insecticides. While the lawsuit is still in the early stages, it could have long-term implications for the continued availability of neonicotinoids which are commonly used to treat seeds prior to planting. For more on that case, click here.
• Concerns about competition across the agricultural supply chain remained prominent in 2025. The Trump Administration has directed the Department of Justice and USDA to investigate potential anticompetitive conduct among major meatpackers, especially in the beef sector.  At the same time, concerns about competition in agricultural inputs such as seeds, crop protection, and fertilizer gained momentum. For example, the Department of Justice expanded inquiries into consolidation among major seed and chemical manufacturers and as recently as December 10th President Trump ordered federal agencies to “investigate food-related industries within their established areas of expertise and determine whether anti-competitive behavior exists in food supply chains in the United States”
• H.R.1, commonly known as the One Big Beautiful Bill Act (OBBBA), had many provisions of interest to agriculture from both a commodity, crop insurance, and tax perspective.  It reauthorized many of the Title 1 programs such as ARC and PLC through 2031 while increasing reference prices on covered commodities between 10-21%. It increases the payment limitations from $125,000 to $155,000, disregards LLCs and corporations for purposes of payment limitations and ties eligibility to actively engaged operators. Crop insurance also received a funding boost as well as several program and policy changes. Click here to read more.  On the tax side, the OBBBA made several tax incentives and credits permanent. Most notably, the unified credit for estate taxes was raised permanently to $15 million per person starting in 2026 and this number is indexed to increase with inflation. More information about the tax implications of the OBBBA are available in a webinar recording here. 

Looking ahead to 2026, many of the top issues from this year will continue to develop. Additional areas to watch are challenges to Prop 12 and related statutes on issues of preemption, interest in state legislatures around the labeling and sale of cell-cultured proteins, and updates to the Colorado River operating plan.  We also expect to see issues related to financial distress in the farm economy and state level responses such as amending or creating grain indemnity laws and financial assistance programs.