The upcoming vote on the 2025 Farm Bill has sparked intense debate, as critics argue it is laden with provisions that align with Green New Deal (GND) priorities, favor Big Tech interests, and exacerbate the United States’ growing inflation and national debt challenges. The Farm Bill, a massive legislative package renewed every five years, traditionally addresses agricultural policy, food assistance, and rural development. However, the 2025 iteration is being criticized for embedding costly subsidies and incentives for carbon capture, data centers, water allocation, and public land use for private interests, which many see as disconnected from the needs of farmers and rural communities. These provisions, framed as climate-focused solutions, are viewed by detractors as giveaways to corporate and tech giants, driving up costs and contributing to the nation’s fiscal woes.
The Green New Deal, first introduced by Representative Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez and Senator Ed Markey in 2019, is a non-binding resolution advocating for a rapid transition to net-zero carbon emissions, coupled with social and economic reforms. While not law, its influence is evident in recent legislation like the Inflation Reduction Act (IRA) of 2022, which allocated billions for climate initiatives. The 2025 Farm Bill is poised to extend this trend, incorporating GND-inspired policies that critics argue stray far from traditional agricultural priorities.
One prominent feature is the emphasis on carbon capture and storage (CCS) technologies. The IRA already allocated significant funding for CCS, offering tax credits of up to $180 per ton of carbon captured, a sharp increase from the previous $50 per ton. The Farm Bill is expected to further incentivize farmers and agribusinesses to adopt these technologies, often requiring expensive infrastructure. While proponents claim CCS reduces emissions, critics argue it benefits large corporations like tech firms and energy companies, which can leverage these credits to offset their own emissions while farmers bear the financial and operational burden. The high costs of CCS equipment and implementation could strain small and medium-sized farms, many of which lack the capital to invest in such systems without significant subsidies.
Additionally, the Farm Bill is likely to include provisions promoting “climate-smart” agricultural practices, such as cover cropping and soil carbon sequestration, backed by nearly $20 billion in IRA funding redirected to existing USDA programs like the Environmental Quality Incentives Program (EQIP)., While these practices aim to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, they often require farmers to overhaul operations, invest in new equipment, or forego productive land, all of which increase costs. Critics contend that these initiatives prioritize environmental goals over food production, potentially reducing crop yields and driving up food prices at a time when inflation is already a pressing concern.
The inclusion of data center incentives in the Farm Bill is another contentious issue. As tech giants like Alphabet, Meta, and Amazon expand their digital infrastructure, they require vast amounts of land, water, and energy to power data centers. The Farm Bill is rumored to facilitate access to public lands and water resources for these projects, framed as supporting rural economies through job creation. However, critics argue this represents a giveaway to Big Tech, allowing private companies to exploit public resources for profit under the guise of sustainability.
Data centers consume enormous quantities of electricity and water for cooling, often straining rural infrastructure. By prioritizing these projects, the Farm Bill risks diverting resources from farmers who rely on water for irrigation and land for cultivation. For example, in drought-prone regions, allocating water to data centers could exacerbate scarcity, raising costs for agricultural producers and, ultimately, consumers. Moreover, the energy demands of data centers could drive up electricity prices, further squeezing farmers already grappling with rising operational costs.
The push for public land use for private interests extends beyond data centers. The Farm Bill may include provisions allowing private companies to lease federal lands for renewable energy projects, such as solar and wind farms, or even experimental technologies like geothermal energy. While these align with GND goals, they raise concerns about the privatization of public resources. Critics, including Senator Mike Lee, argue that such policies favor corporate interests over public welfare, reducing access to land for traditional agricultural or recreational use.
Inflation remains a critical issue for American consumers, with food and energy prices significantly impacting household budgets. The Congressional Budget Office reported that inflation, while cooling from its 2022 peak, continues to hover around 3% annually, with food prices rising faster than the general rate. The Farm Bill’s focus on costly climate initiatives risks exacerbating this trend. Subsidies for carbon capture, data centers, and renewable energy projects require significant federal spending, which critics argue fuels inflation by increasing government borrowing and injecting money into the economy without immediate productive returns.
The IRA, a precursor to the Farm Bill’s climate provisions, is estimated to cost between $780 billion and $1.2 trillion over ten years, far exceeding initial projections due to high uptake of tax credits. These costs are not fully offset by economic benefits, as many of the subsidized technologies, like CCS, remain unproven at scale. The Farm Bill’s continuation of these subsidies could further drive up the national debt, currently exceeding $37 trillion, with interest payments projected to reach $1 trillion annually by 2030.
Higher energy and food prices are a direct consequence of these policies. For instance, carbon capture mandates for fossil fuel plants, supported by IRA funding, require costly retrofits that energy companies pass on to consumers. Similarly, redirecting agricultural land for carbon sequestration or renewable energy projects reduces arable land, potentially decreasing food supply and increasing prices. The American Action Forum estimates that GND-inspired policies could cost up to $93 trillion over a decade, a burden that would disproportionately affect low- and middle-income households already struggling with inflation.
The national debt is a looming crisis, with the U.S. borrowing heavily to fund climate initiatives and other programs. The Farm Bill’s inclusion of costly GND priorities risks further inflating the debt, as subsidies for carbon capture, data centers, and land use changes require significant upfront investment with uncertain long-term returns. The House Budget Committee has criticized the Biden administration’s environmental agenda, estimating that just a few of its regulations could cost over $845 billion.
Opponents argue that these expenditures are fiscally irresponsible, especially when the benefits are speculative. For example, carbon capture technologies are still in early stages, with limited evidence of cost-effective scalability. Data centers, while economically valuable, primarily enrich tech giants rather than broadly benefiting rural communities. The redirection of public resources to private interests, without clear mechanisms for accountability, raises questions about the government’s priorities at a time when fiscal restraint is needed.
The Farm Bill’s shift toward GND priorities and Big Tech incentives has drawn criticism for neglecting core agricultural concerns. Farmers face rising input costs, supply chain disruptions, and extreme weather, yet the bill prioritizes climate goals over direct support for food production. Programs like SNAP (Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program), which typically account for a significant portion of Farm Bill funding, may see reduced allocations as climate initiatives take precedence, potentially undermining food security for vulnerable populations.
Moreover, the bill’s focus on corporate-friendly policies risks alienating rural communities, which rely on agriculture for their livelihoods. The Energy Freedom Act, introduced by Senator Mike Lee, seeks to repeal IRA subsidies, arguing they distort markets and burden taxpayers. This sentiment reflects broader concerns that the Farm Bill is being co-opted to advance ideological agendas rather than address the immediate needs of farmers and consumers.
The 2025 Farm Bill, with its heavy emphasis on Green New Deal priorities and Big Tech giveaways, represents a significant departure from traditional agricultural policy. Provisions for carbon capture, data centers, water allocation, and public land use for private interests threaten to increase inflation and the national debt while diverting resources from farmers. These policies, framed as climate solutions, risk prioritizing corporate interests over the needs of rural America, driving up costs for consumers and exacerbating fiscal challenges and risk water wars. As Congress prepares to vote, lawmakers must weigh the long-term economic consequences against the promised environmental benefits, ensuring that the Farm Bill serves its core constituency—farmers and the American public—rather than special interests.
Editorial comments expressed in this column are the sole opinion of the writer.
