Standing Up for Those Who Feed America: The Farmer and Rancher Freedom Framework

In February 2026, Secretary of Agriculture Brooke Rollins and the USDA launched the Farmer and Rancher Freedom Framework. This initiative marks a meaningful shift toward protecting producers, restoring common sense, and reaffirming agriculture's role as the backbone of this country.

A Comprehensive Strategy to Address Agricultural Lawfare

The Farmer and Rancher Freedom Framework is a comprehensive strategy to address what has become a growing concern across rural America: agricultural lawfare. Unfortunately, agricultural lawfare has become a common reality for producers. It has been waged against farmers, ranchers, and property owners across many states.

As outlined by the USDA, “Agricultural lawfare is the use of administrative, legal, and legislative government systems to adversely impact farmers, ranchers, and agricultural producers. Political considerations and extreme environmental and other progressive policy goals often motivate lawfare. Lawfare in the agricultural context typically takes the form of the following: excessive red tape and permitting at the federal, state, or local levels; use of litigation by private and public entities to deter favorable outcomes for agriculture; use of egregious civil and criminal penalties; and use of eminent domain to inhibit agricultural production.”

Colorado SB 26-062 Stopped in House Committee: A Major Win for Agriculture, Rural Communities, and Property Rights

The controversial rodenticide restriction bill, Colorado SB 26-062, which threatened to upend pest management statewide, has been indefinitely stalled in the Colorado House Agriculture, Water & Natural Resources Committee, marking a major victory for farmers, ranchers, food producers, and rural property owners.

After passing the Colorado State Senate, SB 26-062 appeared poised to advance. However, when it reached the House Agriculture Committee, where real-world agricultural expertise carries weight, lawmakers chose to pause the bill indefinitely (PI the bill), effectively halting its progress for the session.

A Bipartisan Decision to Protect Agriculture

The decision to indefinitely postpone SB 26-062 did not happen in a vacuum. It required lawmakers willing to carefully weigh the impacts on agriculture, food safety, and rural economies.

Members of the House Agriculture Committee who voted to PI the bill deserve recognition for stepping forward and acknowledging the real-world consequences it would have created. Their votes protected producers and the broader food supply chain that depend on effective pest control to ensure safety and compliance.

More than 100 U.S. pork producers traveled to Capitol Hill this week to urge lawmakers to address California Proposition 12, arguing the law has increased consumer costs, disrupted production and created uncertainty for farms nationwide.

The National Pork Producers Council said 105 producers from 23 states met with federal lawmakers armed with new retail and USDA data they say shows ongoing economic impacts from the animal housing law.

According to research from the North Dakota State University Agricultural Risk Policy Center, price increases tied to Proposition 12 have continued two years after full implementation. The study found covered pork products in California averaged 20% higher prices than comparable increases in the rest of the country.

Researchers said pork loin prices were up 32%, ribs 22%, shoulders 16% and bacon 16% due to the law.

NPPC said California consumers have paid an estimated $350 million more for pork products while pork consumption in the state has declined.

The group also argued Proposition 12 has intensified concerns about a growing patchwork of state animal housing standards that producers say complicates interstate commerce and long-term investment decisions.

The Hidden Agenda: How Animal Rights and Environmental Extremism Use Misleading Names to Undermine Agriculture and Property Rights

The animal rights movement has been highly effective at shaping public perception through strategic naming and messaging. Words like “compassion,” “justice,” and “protection” are intentionally chosen because they resonate emotionally with the public. Most people naturally support humane treatment of animals, and these organizations leverage that shared value as a starting point.

However, the goals of these groups have nothing to do with animal welfare. Their stated missions and policy positions often reveal an underlying objective of eliminating animal use altogether, whether in food production, research, or working partnerships between humans and animals. Behind that carefully constructed language is a broader ideological movement, one that, in many cases, seeks to fundamentally dismantle animal agriculture and restrict private property rights.

Understanding how this movement functions is essential for producers, landowners, and all stakeholders in agriculture. It provides a foundation for addressing false narratives and advocating for food production and private property rights.

Who is Influencing the California Sustainable Groundwater Management Act (SGMA): Threatening California Dairies and Ranches

A New Era of Water Regulation in California Agriculture

California agriculture has always relied on one key resource: water. Groundwater has long provided a dependable, relatively affordable foundation for dairy and ranching operations across the state, especially in the Central Valley. The passage of the Sustainable Groundwater Management Act (SGMA) in 2014 marked a significant turning point. Enacted through a series of legislative measures, including AB 1739, SB 1168, and SB 1319, SGMA established a statewide requirement to achieve "sustainable" groundwater basins by 2040–2042. While framed as a long-term environmental safeguard, its practical effects are now evident in severe costs, reduced water access, and considerable operational uncertainty for farmers and ranchers. SGMA is not merely an additional regulation layered onto an already complex system. The most disturbing aspect of these changes is that outside non-governmental organizations (NGOs) have been given substantial influence over how water is managed. It signifies a structural change in how agriculture functions in California and, in many cases, whether it can continue to operate at all.

In May 2026, voters in Lane County, Oregon, will decide the fate of Ballot Measure 20-373, also known as the “Lane County Watersheds Bill of Rights.” While proponents frame the measure as a necessary step to protect clean water and the environment, a closer examination reveals something far more concerning: a sweeping, legally ambiguous framework that threatens agriculture, private property rights, rural economies, and even outdoor recreation.

This proposal is not just misguided; it’s potentially transformative for farmers, ranchers, and rural families in ways that could destabilize how land is owned, managed, and used across Oregon and beyond.

A Radical Legal Shift Disguised as Environmental Protection

Ballot Measure 20-373 is part of the broader global “rights of nature” movement, which seeks to grant legal rights to natural features such as rivers, lakes, and ecosystems. This framework would allow watersheds to have the legal right to “exist, flourish, regenerate and evolve,” and residents would be empowered to enforce those rights in court.

At first glance, this may sound benign, even noble. However, the legal implications are profound.

The USDA’s Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS) released an updated New World screwworm (NWS) Response Playbook this week to serve as a comprehensive guide for coordinated, science-based action should the parasitic insect reach U.S. territory.

The USDA called NWS a “devastating pest” that can cause serious, and in some cases, deadly infestation to animals and humans.

NWS continues to persist in parts of South America and has recently moved north through Central America and Mexico. It reached southern Mexico in late 2024, prompting an initial closure of the U.S. border to livestock imports. After a brief reopening, the border has been closed continuously since May 2025, removing more than 1 million head of Mexican cattle a year from the U.S. market at a time when the U.S. beef herd is at a 75-year low and beefpackers are struggling with severe cattle shortages.

The scourge was eradicated decades ago from the United States, which remains NWS-free. Nevertheless, agricultural authorities continue to work to keep NWS from crossing the Rio Grande, and to prepare in the event it does.

USDA is executing its five-pronged plan to keep NWS out of the United States, Under Secretary for Marketing and Regulatory Programs Dudley Hoskins said.

The Bureau of Land Management today announced the launch of a new web‑based map tool designed to connect ranchers with information on vacant grazing allotments on public lands available for targeted prescribed grazing. The tool supports the agency’s broader effort to improve rangeland health, reduce invasive weeds, and lower the risk of wildland fire across the West.

“Recent wildfires have hit farmers and ranchers in western Nebraska especially hard, threatening their communities and livelihoods. The BLM is stepping up to support affected producers as they confront the devastating impacts of these historic fires,” said Acting BLM Director Bill Groffy. “Through this new web tool, we are connecting displaced producers with grazing options on public lands, offering urgently needed opportunities to keep their operations moving forward while also protecting our nation’s food supply and reducing future wildfire risk.”

The web-based map allows ranchers to efficiently locate vacant allotments on public lands suitable for targeted prescribed grazing and provides easy instructions to apply for a permit. Prescribed grazing can strategically lower wildfire fuel loads, suppress invasive weeds, and promote healthier, more resilient public lands.

Join the Oklahoma State University Extension Service on May 11-12, 2026, for two days of hands-on, research-based training on sustainable and profitable grazing practices.

This two-day workshop is co-designed with input from university researchers, Extension specialists, NRCS, and local conservation district personnel, as well as experienced ranchers.

Key Topics will Include

• Grazing basics and grazer’s math
• Grazing system design (rotational-management intensive grazing)
• Forage selection, establishment, and pasture renovation
• Soil health and fertility
• Electric fencing and water delivery systems for managed grazing systems
• Forage quantity estimates and carrying capacity determination
• Matching livestock with forage resources
• Economics of grazing systems
• Integrating technology (e.g., grazing apps)
• Mixed species grazing

The format will blend classroom instruction, field demonstrations, and peer-to-peer learning. Participants will receive printed material, access to digital resources, and continued support through an online support community.

Location

OSU Wes Watkins Agricultural Research and Extension Center

As ballot-driven animal rights activism continues to evolve, Oregon’s Initiative Petition 28 (dubbed the “People for the Elimination of Animal Cruelty Exemptions”, or PEACE, Act) stands out as one of the most far-reaching proposals the animal agriculture community has seen in recent years.

At a glance, IP 28 is framed by proponents as an effort to strengthen animal abuse laws and “end animal cruelty.” In practice, it would criminalize animal agriculture (and activities such as hunting, fishing, and trapping and pest control) because it involves killing animals.

Current animal welfare laws across the country, including in Oregon, recognize long-standing exemptions for agriculture, hunting, veterinary care, and other necessary activities that could involve death or injury of an animal. IP 28 would remove those exemptions, fundamentally altering Oregon’s animal abuse statutes in way that criminalizes lawful and necessary activities across agriculture, natural resource management, and daily life.

For livestock production, that raises immediate concern. IP 28 would redefine “sexual assault” to include routine breeding practices, potentially applying this classification to livestock, equine operations, and even domestic pets. This would expose farmers, ranchers, veterinarians, breeders, and animal owners to criminal liability for standard, humane practices that are essential to animal health, food production, and genetic management.