Analysis of USDA’s Regenerative Agriculture Initiative (RAI)

By Dan Kane, PhD

tl;dr

In December 2025, USDA announced the Regenerative Agriculture Initiative (RAI), positioning it as a significant new investment in regenerative agriculture at a moment of major transition for federal conservation funding. The RAI is not a new program but instead a repackaging of existing USDA conservation programs, EQIP and CSP. Nor does it designate new funding towards either of these programs and the practices they target. It will likely function as a priority national funding pool producers can apply to with some minor modifications to requirements and the application process. Efforts by the prior administration to increase funding to key regenerative practices and the regenerative agriculture community more broadly through the Inflation Reduction Act (IRA) would have provided greater funding overall in FY2026 and beyond.

WHAT IS THE RAI?

The Regenerative Agriculture Initiative (RAI), also called the Regenerative Pilot Program (RPP), is a program announced by Secretary Rollins on December 10 2025. The press release from USDA describes it as a $700 million pilot program for FY2026 focused on helping farmers transition to regenerative practices. Funding for the program comes through the NRCS’s EQIP and CSP programs. The announcement also includes three core requirements:

• Whole Farm Assessment: A complete assessment of all resource concerns is required, with the goal of establishing a whole farm plan before the end of the contract period. At a minimum, whole farm plans must meet NRCS planning criteria in the soil and water resource categories. These plans may be developed by NRCS staff, partners, or technical service providers.

• Primary Practices: At least one primary regenerative management practice must be included in the contract. All practices identified in the conservation plan will be eligible for financial assistance; however, producers may select which practices they want to include in the financial assistance application based on their goals and objectives.

• Soil Testing: Participants must agree to perform soil testing in the first and last year of the contract (at a minimum) to establish a starting baseline and to record the resulting changes. Financial assistance for soil testing will be available to both producers who have not previously completed soil testing and producers who are already testing their soil.

Eligible practices include a range of existing NRCS conservation practice codes for practices such as cover cropping, planned grazing, etc. Presumably farmers will be expected to follow those practice standards.

Last, the RAI announcement also claims they will be implementing two other changes to programming. First, a new streamlined application process will be rolled out with the RAI whereby a farmer can bundle their applications for different practices into one single application. Second, the program will allow for the integration of private funding via the SUSTAINS Act.

ANALYSIS

For the most part, the RAI does not appear to be introducing any new funding or programs. Instead, it’s a repackaging of existing programs with some modifications to process that are as yet unclear. I’ve detailed major points below.

Funding:

• RAI is $700 million for FY2026 ($400 million to EQIP, $300 million to CSP).

• A key piece of context to note here is that the current Farm Bill is simply an extension of the 2018 Farm Bill, meaning that there are no new core programs in the bill’s conservation title. RAI, then, is a repackaging of existing programs.

• CSP and EQIP funding are distributed primarily through state funding pools and select national funding pools focused on specific resource concerns or policy objectives. Producers can apply to either. Decisions about which applications get funding are made based on how they score in the USDA’s Conservation Assessment and Ranking Tool (CART). National funding pools are typically more strongly weighted in CART. Details have not been released, but RAI will most likely be a priority national funding pool.

• The 2018 Farm Bill set mandatory funding levels for EQIP and a capped funding authority for new CSP contracts. Actual obligations (i.e. the amount of funding distributed under either program) are constrained by those amounts set out in statute. The original 2018 Farm Bill was set to expire in FY2023, so the baseline funding levels for either program have stayed at the same level as FY2023 with each extension.

  • EQIP was funded at around $2.05 billion for FY 2023.

  • CSP was funded at around $1 billion for FY 2023.

• The Inflation Reduction Act added approximately $19.5 billion into USDA conservation programs above and beyond 2018 Farm Bill funding levels over a period of four fiscal years (FY2023-FY2028).

  • EQIP would’ve been expanded by $8.45 billion over that period, with about $3.45 billion of that coming in FY 2026 for a combined total of $5.5 billion in FY2026.

  • CSP would’ve received $3.25 billion over that period with $1.5 billion coming in FY2026 for a combined total of $2.5 billion in FY2026.

  • IRA funds dedicated to either program were allowed to be used for “climate-smart” practices. Practices under RAI overlap with the ones funded through IRA.

• The IRA has not been fully repealed, but the One Big Beautiful Bill Act (OBBB) of July 2025 (the budget bill) effectively rescinded or reallocated large portions of IRA funding. The OBBB used IRA funding to increase baseline EQIP and CSP funding levels for FY2025-FY2034. However, this change still represents a net decrease relative to the amount of funding that would’ve been available to these programs between the 2018 Farm Bill authorizations and the IRA additions.

  • EQIP is now funded at a total of $2.655 billion for FY2026, an increase of $605 million over 2018 Farm Bill baselines, but a decrease of $2.845 billion relative to the combined amount previously allocated through IRA and the 2018 Farm Bill.

  • CSP is now funded at a total of $1.3 billion for FY2026, an increase of $300 million over 2018 Farm Bill baselines, but a decrease of $2.2 billion relative to the combined amount previously allocated through IRA and the 2018 Farm Bill.

• Given all the shifts in funding, and the reallocation of IRA funds to CSP and EQIP baseline spending enacted through the OBBB, RAI is effectively funded through the reallocation of IRA funds. But, considering the reduction in total funding, it’s still not net new spending compared to what would’ve happened had IRA stayed in place.

• Although the OBBB increased baseline EQIP and CSP funding over a longer time period, the Congressional Budget Office still estimates that the rescission and reallocation of IRA funds will result in a net decrease of ~$2 billion in actual conservation spending through FY2034.

• Plus, had the IRA remained in place and a new Farm Bill been actually legislated after the 2018 Farm Bill expired in FY2023, conservation funding might have been adjusted upward to reflect inflation to levels on par with what’s in the OBBB without having to reallocate IRA funds.

Requirements:

• Whole farm planning.

  • Whole farm conservation assessments and planning around resource concerns have long been a part of NRCS’s Conservation Technical Assistance approach and are technically required for CSP.

  • In practice, depending on which pool of funding a producer is pursuing, the NRCS office they are working with, and the resource concerns they are addressing, whole farm assessment and planning may be minimal or cursory.

  • This new requirement may lead to more comprehensive planning and action. But details are unavailable at present.

• Primary practices.

  • The primary practices eligible for funding in this program are all current conservation practice standards and include some of the most commonly suggested practices for regenerative agriculture (e.g. cover crops, reduced tillage, etc.).

  • All listed practices are in-field practices and do not include common EQIP and CSP practices focused on field margins or removing land from production (e.g. conservation cover).

• Soil testing.

  • The only conservation practice standard under EQIP that has previously required soil testing was CPS 590 for soil nutrient management.

  • Some CSP enhancements have also previously required soil testing at baseline and after implementation to measure improvements to the target soil resource concern (e.g. E528S - Soil Health Improvements on Pasture).

  • The requirement for soil testing under RAI is different from how EQIP and CSP have previously been implemented. But details on what kind of testing qualifies, how costs will be covered/shared, and what metrics will be targeted are lacking. Such testing may be useful but may also generate data with little utility.

• Changes in process.

  • The announcement says that as part of RAI, the USDA NRCS will be rolling out a more streamlined application process for farmers that will allow them to bundle applications to either program.

  • Bundled applications have already been part of other NRCS programs, including CSP and the Regional Conservation Partnership Program (RCPP). Under IRA RCPP saw the greatest increase of funding of all USDA conservation programs.

  • Complaints about the application process for EQIP and CSP being too cumbersome and repetitive have been consistent, however, so any effort to improve process is likely welcome.

• Public and private partnership.

  • The formal announcement of RAI did not include any information on public/private partnerships, but the press release did:

    • “There is a growing desire among private companies to fund conservation practices that improve natural resources management. This announcement unlocks new opportunities for USDA to leverage existing authorities to create public-private partnerships within NRCS conservation programs. These partnerships will allow USDA to match private funding, in turn stretching taxpayer dollars further, and bringing new capacity to producers interested in adopting regenerative practices.”

    • The authority to develop these types of partnerships was created through the SUSTAINS Act of 2023, which was led by Rep. Glenn Thompson (R-PA) on the House Ag Committee.

    • No details on what these partnerships might look like have emerged.

Other parallel changes:

• USDA has removed the income eligibility cap on EQIP and CSP funding, meaning much larger farms are now eligible to apply.

• At least 2,400 staff have left the USDA NRCS since January 2025, bringing current total staffing to around 9,000. Secretary Rollins has also released a USDA reorganization strategy focused on building regional hubs. This strategy may impact NRCS capacity and distribution and may lead to more voluntary departures.

• With capacity at NRCS significantly decreased and changes on the horizon, and with the income eligibility cap gone, it’s possible that local offices will elect to greenlight fewer, larger projects for the sake of efficiency and timely distribution of funds.

BOTTOM LINE

The Regenerative Agriculture Initiative (RAI) is not a new program but instead a repackaging of existing USDA conservation programs, EQIP and CSP. Nor does it designate new funding towards either of these programs and the practices they target. It will likely function as a priority national funding pool producers can apply to with some minor modifications to requirements and the application process. Efforts by the prior administration to increase funding to key regenerative practices and the regenerative agriculture community more broadly through the Inflation Reduction Act (IRA) would have provided greater funding overall in FY2026 and beyond.

While some of the changes included in this program (bundling applications, whole farm planning, soil testing) are good ideas, they’re ideas that NRCS has already applied through other programs. Major reductions in NRCS staff and proposed changes to how the NRCS is structured are likely to limit total capacity and reduce agency efficiency and function. Last, the elimination of income eligibility caps and the potential integration of public/private partnerships into the program raise concerns that this program and USDA conservation programs writ large will end up primarily serving very large farmers and agribusiness interests.

Any USDA programming focused on regenerative agriculture is a welcome addition to the financial stack for producers. No doubt we at Mad Ag will keep this program in mind as a potential option for the producers with whom we work. But this is a small win in comparison to the huge loss that came through the rescission/reallocation of IRA funds.