(The Epoch Times)—For three generations, the Harris family farmed south Georgia-based White Oak Pastures the conventional way, relying heavily on chemicals, pesticides and antibiotics. In the mid-1990s, fourth generation farmer Will Harris started the transition to regenerative methods, which prioritize building and preserving healthy soils, avoiding synthetic fertilizers and pesticides, and minimal or no tilling.
Like many regenerative farmers and proponents, Harris intently listened to Agriculture Secretary Brooke Rollins’ Dec. 10 introduction of a Regenerative Pilot Program that will allocate $700 million to support regenerative agriculture.
“For the first time in my lifetime, the USDA is publicly showing an interest in this kind of production, and that is encouraging,” Harris said.
Harris told The Epoch Times that White Oak started transitioning to regenerative farming in 1995.
In 1976, he graduated from the University of Georgia with an animal science degree, returned to the farm, and ran it as an “industrial, conventional, monocultural cattle guy just as my father was.”
“We were heavily invested in all the tools, pesticides, chemical fertilizer, and antibiotics. We didn’t make a lot of money, but we were profitable,” said Harris, who is also the founder of the Center for Agricultural Resilience, an organization centered on education about the benefits of regenerative farming.
“All of those ways have negative unintended consequences—like degradation of the soil and water, and poor animal welfare. It’s hard on the land, the water, the environment, and all of the animal species,” he said.
Regenerative farming, Harris said, “respects the cycles of nature.”
Rollins made the announcement at a press conference Dec. 10, alongside Secretary of Heath and Human Services Robert F. Kennedy Jr., Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services Administrator Dr. Mehmet Oz, and regenerative farmers from California, Indiana, and Missouri.
“Protecting and improving the health of our soil is critical, not only for the future viability of farmland, but to the future success of American farmers,” Rollins said.
“In order to continue to be the most productive and most efficient growers in the world, we must protect our topsoil from unnecessary erosion and boost the microbiome of the soil,” she added.
The program will take funding from existing USDA conservation programs, including $400 million from the USDA’s Environmental Quality Incentives Program and $300 million from its Conservation Stewardship Program, according to a USDA press release.
It will be managed by the Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS).
Kennedy said the program will give farmers who are dependent on chemical and fertilizer inputs “an off-ramp” to help them transition to a model that emphasizes soil health.
“With soil health comes nutrient density,” Kennedy added.
The program aligns with the MAHA Commission’s focus on addressing the nation’s chronic disease epidemic by strengthening the nutrient density in food and decreasing reliance on chemicals, Kennedy said.
A regenerative farmer based in Mississippi, Allen Williams is cofounder of the Soil Health Academy and Understanding Ag, which help farmers, ranchers, and growers implement regenerative principles and practices.
Williams holds a doctorate in livestock genetics from Louisiana State University and pioneered many early regenerative grazing protocols and forage finishing techniques. He now teaches those principles to farmers globally.
“We’ve never had this kind of funding allocation earmarked for regenerative farming. This opens the door for future funding, and for shaping future agriculture policies on Capitol Hill because more legislators will be familiar with the benefits of regenerative farming methods,” Williams told The Epoch Times, adding that he is “cautiously optimistic.”
”It’s still government, still bureaucracy, but it’s absolutely a major step forward. It heightens public awareness and interest in what regenerative farming is all about, which is as important as the $700 million itself,” Williams said.
Williams defines regenerative agriculture as “farming and ranching in synchrony with nature to repair, rebuild, revitalize and restore ecosystem function.”
“The key part is the last sentence of that definition—starting with life within the soil, and then expanding the life above. That clearly distinguishes it from conventional farming because the conventional way is all about the chemistry of the soil, not the life in the soil,” Williams added.
American farming was decimated by the Dust Bowl in the 1930s. In response, Congress created the NRCS with the intention of improving the land and conserving America’s soil and water resources. Between 1948 and 2021, total U.S. farm production increased 190 percent, while total farm inputs—including land, labor, and water—decreased about 2 percent in the same period.
In a Dec. 10 press release, NRCS acknowledged that “current conservation programs at USDA have become overly burdensome and farmers are bogged down with red tape whenever they try to adopt soil health and regenerative agriculture practices.”
USDA data shows that farmers recently reported 25 percent of their acreage having water-driven erosion concerns and 16 percent of acreage having wind-driven erosion issues, according to the press release.
The pilot program addresses these challenges by reducing administrative burdens for producers, expanding access to new and beginning farmers, and boosting yields and long-term soil resilience across operations, the NRCS said.
Describing the program on its website, the NRCS added that “for too long” funding has “unintentionally encouraged isolated, practice-by-practice conservation, rather than holistic management.”
Through the pilot program, farmers can bundle multiple regenerative practices into one application, “streamlining the process and increasing flexibility for operations,” the NRCS press release said.
The program is designed for farmers who are “ready to take the next step in regenerative agriculture,” the NRCS added.
NRCS will also establish an advisory council composed of farmers, consumers, and private partners.
The council will include 15 members—nine regenerative farmers representing production systems, three corporate supply-chain or consumer packaged goods representatives, and three consumer or MAHA representatives, the NRCS reported.
Rick Clark, an Indiana-based regenerative farmer and co-founder of American Regeneration, an organization committed to advancing regenerative agriculture initiatives, called the pilot program “a victory for regeneration” and said it is “exactly what the farmer needs to start making changes on their farm.”
After the Dec. 10 announcement, Clark participated in a roundtable representing producers who are showing the viability of regenerative agriculture at scale.
“To see regenerative agriculture recognized at the highest levels of government is incredibly encouraging,” Clark said. “Being asked to represent farmers in this conversation shows that the USDA is finally listening to producers who have proven that regenerative systems work at scale.”
Angela Huffman is president of Farm Action, a regenerative farming organization. She said in a statement that “done right, this investment will help farmers lower their input costs, break free from the export-driven commodity overproduction treadmill, and move toward healthier, more resilient, and more profitable farming systems.”
Huffman urged the USDA to take steps to ensure that small, independent farms receive assistance.
“If the Trump administration wants this initiative to succeed, USDA must make sure the Natural Resources Conservation Service—after significant funding cuts—has enough staff to get these dollars out quickly and fairly, reaching farmers across America, not just the largest operations by default,” she said in a statement.
Two regenerative farmers, who spoke to The Epoch Times on the condition of anonymity, said that they are skeptical of the pilot program, citing their belief that NRCS practices are ecologically unfavorable and their doubts about the efficacy of government grants.
Some MAHA advocates have expressed their disapproval of EPA policies. Aubrey Bettencourt, Chief of the NRCS, on Dec. 10 said that her organization is in discussions with EPA Director Lee Zeldin and his staff.
“We’re very, very confident of his [Zeldin’s] commitment to make sure to reduce toxic exposures to the American people,” Bettencourt said.
The Small Business Administration (SBA) also indicated its backing of regenerative farming.
SBA Director of Rural Affairs Richard Kingan described the pilot program as “an initiative that reflects a forward-thinking commitment to healthier communities and a resilient food supply.”
“Family farmers are the original small business owners—and by cutting red tape for them, this administration is making it easier to continue producing nutritious and affordable foods that local communities rely on,” he said.
John Klar is an attorney turned regenerative cattle farmer in Vermont. He works with the nonprofit MAHA Action and is the author of “Small Farm Republic” and an upcoming book, “The War on Farmers: How Corporations, Activists, and Climate Alarmists Are Fueling a Global Food Crisis.”
Klar told The Epoch Times that he is encouraged by Bettencourt’s comments about Zeldin and by Kingan’s remarks.
“The MAHA movement needs multi-agency alliances to overcome the systemic problems plaguing Americans’ food supply,” Klar said. “The pilot program is an important first step in the right direction. Support from the SBA and the EPA is a welcome second.”
As part of the “Make Our Children Healthy Again“ strategy, released in September, HHS is also investing in research on the connection between regenerative agriculture and public health, developing public health messaging explaining this connection.
Williams told The Epoch Times he would like to see the government change its policies, subsidies, incentive programs, and crop insurance programs to encourage regenerative farming over conventional methods.
Regenerative farming methods can be more profitable than conventional methods because they require fewer subsidies, incur less debt, and generate crops that are not as susceptible to damage from fungal diseases and pests, Williams said.
“It’s important we educate our lenders, too, because a regenerative farmer is a significantly lower risk to the lender than a conventional farmer, but the vast majority of lenders do not recognize that yet,” he added.
Regenerative farmers are lower risks for lenders, Williams believes, because they have “more highly aggregated soil, therefore the soil is able to infiltrate water a lot better and retain that water.”
“Flooding and droughts are the two biggest weather-related events that cause crop failure, and that impacts crop insurance payments. Better soil aggregation and water infiltration and retention helps mitigate floods and droughts. Regenerative farming also has fewer issues with pests and focal pathogens,” Williams said. Focal pathogens are micro-organisms that can spread bacteria and toxins.
Harris said conventional farmers are “good people” who “farm the way their father and grandfather did, the way they were taught in college, and the way they are told by pesticide companies.”
Like Williams, Harris would like to see an investment from the USDA into education about the benefits of regenerative farming.
“I think a lot of that change will be made as the older conventional farmers retire and new farmers with a different perspective take over those pieces of land, and recognize that regenerative methods are [respectful of] the environment, and are more profitable and resilient,” he said.
“That’s why it’s so important that more awareness be brought about our way of farming. The pilot program is a positive start.”
Safeguarding Your American Dream: Discover the Power of America First Healthcare
In today’s economy, healthcare costs remain one of the biggest threats to financial stability and family security. Americans work hard to build a better life, yet rising medical expenses can quickly erode savings, force tough trade-offs, and even push families toward debt or bankruptcy. Medical bills continue to rank as the leading cause of personal bankruptcy in the United States, with millions facing underinsurance or unexpected out-of-pocket burdens that no one plans for. Many turn to government-run marketplace plans under the Affordable Care Act, hoping for relief, only to discover that what appears affordable on paper often delivers higher long-term costs, limited real protection, and coverage that may not align with personal values or family needs.
America First Healthcare stands out as a private insurance agency dedicated to helping conservatives and families secure better coverage and better rates through customized, values-aligned options. By conducting free insurance reviews, the agency uncovers hidden gaps in existing policies and connects clients with private alternatives that emphasize personal responsibility, small-government principles, and genuine affordability—often delivering up to 20% savings while providing stronger protection for the American Dream.
The allure of marketplace plans is easy to understand: open enrollment periods, premium tax credits for many households, and the promise of “comprehensive” benefits mandated by law. Yet recent data reveals a different reality, especially after the expiration of enhanced premium subsidies at the end of 2025. Enrollment for 2026 dropped by more than one million people compared to the prior year, with many shifting to lower-tier bronze plans to keep monthly premiums manageable.
These plans feature significantly higher deductibles—averaging around $7,500 nationally—and greater cost-sharing requirements. Families who once paid modest amounts after subsidies now face average premium increases of $65 or more per month, even as they accept plans that leave them responsible for thousands in upfront costs before meaningful coverage kicks in.
High deductibles create a dangerous barrier to care. Studies show that people in such plans are less likely to seek timely treatment for chronic conditions, attend preventive screenings, or fill necessary prescriptions. A seemingly minor illness or injury can balloon into major expenses when patients delay care until problems worsen. For a family of four, a single hospitalization, cancer diagnosis, or unexpected surgery can easily exceed the deductible, triggering coinsurance and out-of-pocket maximums that still leave substantial bills. One recent analysis noted that some proposed changes could push family deductibles toward $31,000 in future years, further exposing households to financial risk.
Beyond the numbers, marketplace plans often carry structural limitations. Coverage for certain critical services may include waiting periods or narrower networks that restrict access to preferred doctors and specialists. Preventive care is required to be covered without cost-sharing, but everything else—lab work, imaging, specialist visits, or ongoing treatment—typically waits until the deductible is met. This reactive model contrasts sharply with the proactive, holistic approach many families prefer, especially those focused on wellness, early intervention, and maintaining health to enjoy life rather than merely reacting to illness.
Values alignment represents another growing concern. Government-influenced plans operate within a framework shaped by federal mandates and political priorities that may not reflect conservative principles of limited government, personal freedom, and ethical stewardship. Families who want to direct their healthcare dollars toward providers and benefits that honor traditional values sometimes find marketplace options feel misaligned, forcing a compromise between affordability and conviction.
Private alternatives, by contrast, offer year-round flexibility without the restrictions of open enrollment windows. Independent agents can shop across a wider range of carriers to design plans tailored to specific family needs—whether that means lower deductibles for frequent medical users, broader provider networks, or add-ons that support wellness and preventive services from day one. Clients frequently report more stable premiums that do not automatically escalate each year, along with genuine cost savings once the full picture of deductibles, copays, and coverage depth is considered.
Take the experience of real families who made the switch. Amanda C. shared that her new plan felt “way better” than what she had through the marketplace. Johnny Y. noted his previous coverage kept increasing annually until he found a more stable private option. Sofia S. expressed delight with her plan and began recommending it to others. These stories echo a common theme: when families move beyond one-size-fits-all government marketplaces, they often discover customized protection that better safeguards both health and finances.
Founder Jordan Sarmiento’s own journey underscores the stakes. In 2021, a six-day hospitalization generated a $95,000 bill. Under a well-structured private “Conservative Care Coverage” plan, his out-of-pocket responsibility would have been just $500. That stark difference illustrates how thoughtful planning and private options can prevent a medical event from becoming a financial catastrophe.
Practical steps exist for anyone questioning their current coverage. Start with a no-obligation review of your existing policy to identify gaps—high deductibles, limited critical-care benefits, or escalating premiums. Compare total projected costs (premiums plus potential out-of-pocket expenses) rather than monthly premiums alone. Consider family health history, anticipated needs, and lifestyle priorities. Private agencies can present side-by-side options that include stronger wellness incentives, broader access, and plans built on shared values of self-reliance and freedom.
In an era when healthcare inflation continues to outpace general cost-of-living increases, relying solely on marketplace solutions carries growing risk. Families who proactively explore private alternatives frequently achieve meaningful savings while gaining peace of mind that their coverage truly works when needed most.
America First Healthcare makes this exploration straightforward through its free review process. Families and individuals receive personalized guidance to close coverage holes, reduce unnecessary expenses, and secure plans that align with conservative principles—protecting wallets, health, and the American Dream without government overreach. Many who complete a review discover they can enjoy better benefits for less, often saving up to 20% while gaining the customization and stability that marketplace plans struggle to deliver.
Ultimately, protecting your family’s future requires looking beyond the marketing of “affordable” government options. By understanding the long-term costs hidden in high deductibles, shifting coverage tiers, and values mismatches, Americans can make empowered choices. Private, values-driven insurance offers a smarter path—one that rewards diligence, supports wellness, and delivers real security. For those ready to move beyond the limitations of traditional marketplace plans, a simple review can reveal options designed to serve families, not bureaucracies. The American Dream thrives when individuals and families retain control over their healthcare decisions, and thoughtful private coverage plays a vital role in making that possible.