In 2018, Congress planted the seeds for Native American sovereignty over their food packages and agriculture programs. Eight years later, tribes are still waiting to see whether those seeds will be allowed to grow.
A new House of Representatives Farm bill arrives after three years of delay, and at first glance, it reads less like an expansion of that sovereignty than a pause. Introduced by House Agriculture Committee chair Rep. Glenn “GT” Thompson (R-Penn.), H.R. 7567, The Farm, Food, and National Security Act of 2026, runs more than 900 pages. A keyword search of the text turns up only scattered references to tribes — a handful of sections in legislation that will shape rural economies for the next five years.
The Native Farm Bill Coalition’s review of the House proposal characterizes the bill as largely a continuation of existing law. The group notes that while tribes remain eligible for major USDA programs, the text does not introduce new authorities or expand the self‑determination tools established in the 2018 Farm Bill. Most tribal provisions included in earlier bipartisan drafts do not appear in the current version.
The lone new tribal provision is a small pilot in the nutrition title. It allows USDA to test tribal administration of the Commodity Supplemental Food Program, a senior food‑box program normally run by states. The authority is optional and capped. It doesn’t touch the Food Distribution Program on Indian Reservation (FDPIR). It doesn’t expand 638 self‑determination authority — named for the Indian Self-Determination and Education Assistance Act provision that allows tribes to administer federal programs themselves.
It’s a narrow test, not the shift in control that has served as a central plank in the Native Farm Bill Coalition’s advocacy over the years. The group has pushed for permanent 638 authority for FDPIR, stronger tribal roles in conservation and forestry, fixes to trust‑land collateral in credit programs, and more support for tribal colleges and universities. Several of those proposals surfaced in earlier bipartisan drafts. They are not in this version.
The 638 pilots launched in 2018 showed what tribes could do with more control. When last year’s FDPIR supply‑chain disruption hit, pilot tribes were better positioned because they weren’t tied to a single USDA warehouse. They could buy locally. They could buy tribally. In interviews over the past year, advocates repeatedly returned to one example: Menominee buying beef from Oneida became a shorthand for what sovereignty in food programs looks like in practice.
“The tribes that did get to participate really have great success in how they were choosing where they were purchasing food and what kind of food,” said Intertribal Agriculture Council policy director Abi Fain, speaking to me prior to the release of Thompson’s bill. “One of my favorite examples was a partnership between Menominee and Oneida in Wisconsin, where Menominee purchased Black Angus beef from Oneida and put that into their FDPIR program, and their clients loved having that fresh, high‑quality product.”
Those pilots are still funded. They’re still functioning. But they’re still capped. The most recent appropriations deal includes $3 million for the demonstration projects — enough to keep the existing tribes operating, not enough to expand the model. Attempts by other representatives to expand the program, such as H.R. 3956 introduced by Sharice Davids (D-Kans.) in June last year, have been referred to the Agriculture Committee but haven’t made it further than that.
Other 2018 gains are in the same holding pattern. Tribes still lack a formal role in setting priority resource concerns for the National Resources Conservation Service under the Department of Agriculture, even though those decisions shape how producers score in conservation programs. Trust‑land collateral issues remain unresolved. Tribal colleges and 1994 land‑grant institutions see steady funding but no new authority. Rural development programs keep tribes eligible but don’t prioritize tribal infrastructure or broadband.
“Having tribes and tribal citizens mentioned is really important to ensure that programming is reaching the people doing the work,” Fain said.
The coalition plans to be in every room where negotiations happen, Fain said. House and Senate agriculture leaders say they want a farm bill this year. Advocates I spoke with described the current moment as familiar: bipartisan interest in tribal agriculture, but uneven follow-through in legislative text. Tribes have made surging advances in food sovereignty, building their own processing infrastructure, expanding trade opportunities and hoping for legislation that cements that sovereignty in permanent law.
Instead, they’re looking at a bill that keeps the scaffolding for self-determination in place but doesn’t add new beams. In a sector that’s all about growth – literally – it’s all been stasis on the legislative end, in particular as the Trump administration’s pivot away from diversity-focused programs continues to see collateral damage done to tribal support such as set-asides and small business markets.
Still, even in a polarized Congress, support for Indian Country agriculture appears bipartisan, Fain told me. Prior proposed farm bills on both sides of the aisle included tribal provisions. Thompson’s bill also hasn’t been marked up in committee yet, so there’s still time to get those important priorities in place. The support is there, Fain said – now it’s about turning it into actionable legislation.
“There is still progress being made, and we want to keep momentum,” Fain said. “We have been fortunate that tribes in the coalition and producers who have joined us on fly‑ins have helped us build strong relationships with members of Congress and members of the Ag Committee on both sides of the aisle. We hope to continue doing that.”