Emergency crop-loss payments for disasters

Summary#

The RAISE Act of 2026 would amend the Agricultural Act of 2014 by adding authority for emergency payments to producers of high-value crops. Its stated goal is to provide assistance for certain crop losses, but the bill does not require the program to be created or guarantee payments. It is an introduced bill referred to the House Agriculture Committee, so it is not law.

  • The Secretary of Agriculture may create a program to pay producers for revenue, quality, or production losses caused by listed events, including drought, wildfire, hurricanes, floods, excessive heat, smoke exposure, and freezes.
  • Citrus is specifically included, but the bill does not define “high value crops.”
  • If the Secretary creates the program, it may be carried out through block grants to states and territories. The bill does not require that approach.
  • The bill adds authority to the 2014 Act; it does not set payment amounts or require the Secretary to make payments.

What it means for you#

  • Crop producers: You would not automatically qualify for or receive money. The Secretary would first have to choose to run the program, and the bill leaves eligibility and payment rules to be determined.
  • States and territories: They could receive block grants if the Secretary uses that option. The bill does not say how grants would be allocated or what states and territories would have to do.
  • Taxpayers: The bill could lead to federal payments, but it does not state how much would be spent or where the money would come from.

Money#

No publicly available information on the program’s cost or funding source is included in the supplied material.

  • The bill authorizes, but does not require, a program that makes payments to producers.
  • It gives no payment formula, spending limit, or amount for block grants.

What is unclear#

  • “High value crops” is not defined.
  • The bill does not set rules for who qualifies, how losses would be measured, or how payments would be calculated.
  • It does not set an application process, decision deadlines, appeal rights, or reporting requirements.
  • It does not explain when the program would start, how it would be funded, or how it would relate to other assistance programs.

Case for#

  • A possible argument for the bill is that producers of high-value crops could face revenue, quality, or production losses from the listed disasters and weather events.
  • The Secretary could tailor a program to those losses without the bill requiring payments in every case.
  • Block grants could let states and territories help carry out the program if the Secretary chooses that method.

Case against#

  • The bill does not require the program to exist, so producers could not rely on it for assistance.
  • Eligibility and payment rules are left open, making it unclear who would receive help or how much.
  • The bill creates authority to make payments without specifying funding or a spending limit.