Farm Subsidy Reform: What the Data Shows About Fixing American Agriculture
Every five years, Congress debates the Farm Bill — the primary vehicle for farm subsidy policy. Every five years, the same arguments recur: farmers need support, spending is too high, the wrong people benefit. What's usually missing from these debates is data. Our database of $147.29B in USDA payments across 157 programs (2017-2025) provides the evidence base for meaningful reform.
The Case for Reform
Problem 1: Extreme Payment Concentration
The top 10% of recipients collect nearly three-fourths of all farm subsidy dollars. Meanwhile, 69% of American farms receive nothing. The system doesn't support “farmers” broadly — it supports the largest agricultural operations. The small vs. large farm gap continues to widen.
Problem 2: Emergency Spending Growth
Emergency and disaster programs have gone from supplemental to dominant. Trade war bailouts, COVID relief, and recurring disaster payments now exceed traditional program spending in many years. These programs bypass normal authorization and lack the scrutiny of Farm Bill programs.
Problem 3: Program Proliferation
The USDA operates 157 separate programs, including 43+ zombie programs with fewer than 100 payments each. Administrative overhead multiplies with each program, and recipients can collect from 14+ programs simultaneously.
Problem 4: The Small Farm Gap
The average payment is about $4,600 — but the median is far lower. Small farms that arguably need the most help receive the least. Programs designed to help family farms disproportionately benefit large operations with the resources to navigate complex application processes.
Problem 5: Conservation vs. Commodity Tension
The USDA simultaneously pays farmers to produce (commodity subsidies) and pays them not to produce (conservation programs). These contradictory incentives undermine both goals. CRP is increasingly under pressure as emergency commodity spending grows.
Five Data-Backed Reform Ideas
Consolidate into 20–30 Core Programs
157 programs is unmanageable. Merge overlapping programs, eliminate zombie programs, and create clear categories. This alone could save billions in administrative costs while making the system navigable for the small farmers who need it most.
See zombie programs →Implement Real Payment Caps
Current $125K payment limits are easily circumvented through LLCs, partnerships, and spousal entities. Reform should cap total household agricultural subsidies regardless of entity structure, with the savings redirected to small and mid-size operations.
See payment limit analysis →Create Emergency Spending Guardrails
Emergency farm programs should have automatic sunset clauses (2 years max), spending caps tied to the baseline budget, and mandatory GAO review before extension. The current system treats every crisis as unprecedented, creating permanent spending.
See COVID spending analysis →Means-Test Large Operations
Operations above $1M in annual revenue shouldn't receive commodity subsidies. They have access to crop insurance and commercial risk management tools. Redirecting these payments to operations under $250K in revenue would better serve the Farm Bill's stated purpose.
See corporate farm analysis →Resolve the Conservation-Commodity Conflict
Stop paying farmers to both produce and not produce. Integrate conservation requirements into commodity programs — require soil health practices, cover cropping, or buffer strips as a condition of receiving commodity payments.
See conservation vs. commodity →The Political Reality
Farm subsidy reform is politically difficult. The Farm Bill combines food stamps (SNAP) with agricultural subsidies, creating a coalition between urban and rural legislators that makes reform of either component nearly impossible. Large agricultural interests have significant lobbying power, and “protecting farmers” remains politically popular even when most farmers receive nothing.
But the data is clear: the current system primarily benefits large operations, encourages emergency spending binges, and maintains an administrative apparatus far larger than necessary. Whether reform comes from the left (equity concerns) or the right (efficiency concerns), the destination is similar: fewer programs, better targeting, real caps.
Explore the Data
Every claim in this article is backed by our open database. Explore it yourself: