EO-14414
Advancing Regenerative Agriculture and Strengthening American Farm Resilience
- Signed
- Jun 25, 2026
- Published
- Jun 30, 2026
Federal Register: 2026-13254
Source: Federal Register.
Promoting Regenerative Farming Practices and Pesticide Modernization
What it does
This order directs federal agencies — primarily USDA, EPA, and HHS — to expand support for regenerative agriculture practices such as soil health techniques, precision farming, and reduced chemical inputs. It instructs the EPA to speed up registration of newer pesticide alternatives and review labeling of pre-harvest desiccation chemicals, while directing NIH and ARPA-H to fund research into cumulative chemical exposure and innovative crop protection technologies. It also directs USDA to maximize funding for an existing Regenerative Pilot Program and build public-private partnerships to help farmers adopt these practices.
Who benefits
Farmers and ranchers interested in adopting regenerative or precision agriculture methods, who would gain expanded federal funding, research support, and access to newer, potentially lower-cost inputs. Rural communities and agricultural economies that could see improved farm profitability and market access. Consumers who may benefit from research into cumulative chemical exposures in the food supply. Agri-tech and biotech companies developing alternative crop protection technologies, who would gain access to NIH prize challenges and ARPA-H funding. Researchers and universities pursuing New Approach Methodologies for chemical risk assessment.
Who is affected
Manufacturers of older, conventional pesticide products whose market position could be weakened if EPA prioritizes registration of newer alternatives. Farmers currently relying on pre-harvest desiccation chemicals, who may face new labeling requirements or use restrictions following EPA's review. Chemical industry stakeholders whose products could face heightened scrutiny under the cumulative exposure research framework. Taxpayers who fund the over $1 billion already committed across HHS, USDA, and EPA, plus any additional appropriations required by this order. Conventional agriculture input suppliers whose business models depend on existing chemical crop protection markets.
Supporters argue
Supporters argue that this order modernizes American agriculture by aligning federal investment with proven soil-health practices that lower input costs, maintain yields, and improve long-term farm viability — strengthening rural economies without mandating any specific farming method. They contend that accelerating EPA registration of newer pesticide alternatives and funding research into cumulative chemical exposures directly addresses public health concerns about the food supply, fulfilling the government's core duty to protect citizens while empowering farmers with more choices rather than more restrictions.
Opponents argue
Opponents argue that the order's emphasis on expediting EPA pesticide registrations — even while requiring risk assessments — could compress the review timelines that protect public health and the environment, potentially allowing inadequately tested chemicals into the food supply. They contend that the order's explicit carve-out preventing agencies from taking regulatory action "beyond current statutory requirements" effectively limits the government's ability to respond to new scientific findings about cumulative chemical exposures, leaving consumers and ecosystems without adequate protection if emerging research reveals new risks.
Constitutional basis
Executive orders rest on constitutional authority or statutory delegation. This summary describes the legal grounding cited or implied by the order.
The order rests on the President's Article II, Section 1 executive power to direct the activities of executive branch agencies, and on statutory authority delegated to the EPA under the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA) for pesticide registration, to USDA under the Farm Bill for agricultural conservation programs, and to HHS/NIH under the Public Health Service Act for research funding. Because the order explicitly limits itself to actions "consistent with applicable law and subject to the availability of appropriations," it does not claim to create new regulatory authority beyond what Congress has already granted. A future president could reverse this order by issuing a new executive order, though congressionally appropriated program funds and ongoing research grants would require separate legislative or administrative action to unwind.