SPRINGFIELD, Ill. – Just five days before the House Ag Committee was to begin final markup of their Farm, Food and National Security Act of 2026 – also known as Farm Bill 2.0 – Rep. Glenn “GT” Thompson (R-Penn.), Chair of the Hous Ag Committee, granted Farm World an exclusive interview following his address to members of the Illinois Pork Producers Association (IPPA). In a discussion ranging from the farm bill to the United States-Mexico-Canada Agreement (USMCA) and farm labor, Thompson described the goals and priorities of the House Ag Committee as their latest farm bill version is readied for consideration on the House floor.

Farm World: We’re currently in the midst of a split farm economy, with a notable disparity between margins for row crop and livestock producers. How is the House Ag Committee addressing this imbalance?

Glenn Thompson: “Normally it is livestock that is suffering, so I don’t think that any of us involved in (row crops) wants to wish their brethren in livestock ill will. Things are going good in livestock right now, not to say there aren’t any problems, but the things that we are doing in the farm bill…we’ve already put into law the greatest investment and reference prices maybe in history across the board in row crops. We’ve put provisions in place to lower the cost of crop insurance. We’ve got a lot of vegetable growers and sugar beet growers and specialty crop growers, and we are putting in provisions so many of these growers will have access to crop insurance programs.

“We’ve done some of the greatest investments in agricultural research, and our specialty crops have been a big beneficiary of that in the past. We’ve also accomplished something nobody thought we’d be able to do: mandatory funding for agriculture research facilities every year. We continue to work on access to rural broadband and promoting precision agriculture. When you go through the 12 farm bill titles there is a tremendous amount that serves both crop farmers and livestock producers.”

FW: The USMCA trade agreement beneficial to pork and corn producers faces a mandatory review in July. Should the U.S. agree to extend the agreement for another 16 years?

GT: “It has been very positive and I want to see that success continue. I love the fact that we are revisiting it. What normally happened in the past – NAFTA is a great example – is they create these trade agreements and everybody goes out and celebrates and nobody revisits them. There is a reason we re-authorize things; it gives us a chance to fix it, tweak it or improve it or add things we never thought about. I don’t want to see USMCA blown up, but let’s polish the apple a bit and see where things aren’t working.

“I’m a big fan of the U.S. Trade Representative, Jamieson Greer. He knows how important agriculture is and I trust him. I’m humbled when he reaches out to me as chairman for advice on these trade agreements, but I also initiate communications. That’s why I have challenged members of the IPPA here at the Swine Mixer to let me know what you need; what are the markets and how is trade going with your trading markets? Are there new markets on the radar? If I don’t know these things I can’t help, and I want to help.”

FW: Recent immigration crackdowns have producers across the U.S. concerned about farm labor availability. What are the answers?

GT: “We can have the greatest farming operation and production but if you don’t have a workforce, you don’t have anything. If we don’t have a workforce in agriculture we have food insecurity. It’s something that as chairman I have addressed through a working group in the 118th Congress, and made recommendations that you can find on the House Agriculture (Committee) website. It addresses the needs of year-round agriculture. I’m excited and optimistic about it.” (More details: https://agriculture.house.gov/policy/agricultural-labor-working-group.htm) 

FW: The Trump administration is expected to rule soon on pesticide labeling, including new regulations for dicamba. Is the House Ag Committee involved in this process?

GT: “We are looking to unify (labeling) using an army of scientists that work for the EPA for two reasons. Number one is food affordability, and that’s a huge issue today. If we have 50 different labels and companies and manufacturers have to comply with all 50 states, that’s only going to drive up the cost of the product and food, and that’s unacceptable. That’s probably not the most important reason to me, though; my number one reason is the safety of the farmer. If the labeling is different in all 50 states, or many of those states, you really run the risk of confusion when it comes to preparation, application and cleanup. Any kind of chaos and confusion in labeling can put at risk the farmer, so my trust in this issue is really within the EPA and the scientists they have. So, it is a matter of farmer safety and affordability.”

FW: Many critics of pesticide approval place this action at direct odds with Make America Health Again (MAHA) tenets. Your response?

GT: “I don’t think so, technically. The MAHA movement is like a lot of movements with people at different extremes. Maybe some of the more extreme folks do not understand the science behind this production. These chemicals are very important in maintaining the health of these crops, so I am always more than willing to help anyone inside the MAHA movement – which I consider myself a part of – that has any questions. I was the one who led the championing of the restoration of Whole Milk for Healthy Kids, and that was probably the first victory we had for MAHA. People have hard-held beliefs, and I just ask them to come to the table and let’s talk about the science behind this issue, the truth behind this issue.”

FW: Your version of a new farm bill is facing markup and delivery to the House next week. Are you optimistic it will remain intact and passed by the Senate?

GT: “We will pass Farm Bill 2.0 out of the committee and out of the House and send it to the Senate. (Senate Ag Committee Chair) Sen. (John) Boozman has got to put together his own version with the task of not only getting it out of committee, but he needs 60 votes to get it out of the Senate. At the end of the day, we will bring it to a conference committee, and that’s when we will work out the differences. I feel pretty optimistic about the version we are putting forward. 

FW: Historically, the farm bill’s nutrition title and the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) have hung up the farm bill in the lengthy deliberations between Democrats and the GOP. Will this be an issue with Farm Bill 2.0?

GT: “We are not really doing much with Title 5, the nutrition title, at this point because we’ve already done all the heavy lifting and quite frankly things are coming together nicely. States are getting their act together and making great progress at reducing their error rates, and we really didn’t cut anyone’s benefits with Farm Bill 1.0 (aka One Big, Beautiful Bill). We just made the states more accountable in terms of administering the program. We don’t want anybody who is struggling with nutrition to not get access to the SNAP program, and we have a provision where we are going to be able to provide purchases from farmers for food banks. It is a part of the base text of this farm bill.”