Skip to main content

Politicians make promises on their stump — we watch and hold them accountable.

Help keep the record honest →Create an account
PartialAgriculture / Trade & Conservation

Double funding for the farm bill's premier agricultural trade promotion programs and increase conservation title funding by more than 25% each year, under the Senate Republican farm bill framework.

Sources (click to view full provenance)

Propose an edit to this promise's details

Suggest a sourced correction to the promise text, topic, scope, significance, or dates. Changing the promise text requires a source. Your suggestion is reviewed before it changes the record.

Sign in and complete the Contributor Agreement to propose an edit.

Assessments

evidence-backed verdicts

These are sourced verdicts from fact-checkers or community evidence reviews — not opinions.

PartialFact-checker reviewConfidence: 80%

PARTIAL is correct for this two-part promise. Trade half: substantially delivered — the One Big Beautiful Bill Act (P.L. 119-21, signed July 4, 2025), whose ag/nutrition title Boozman led drafting as Senate Ag Chairman, created a new $285M/year permanent mandatory Supplemental Trade Promotion Program on top of unchanged MAP ($200M) and FMD ($34.5M), which AFBF characterizes as doubling USDA trade-program investment. Conservation half: NOT delivered — instead of a >25% annual increase, CBO scores a net reduction of $1.8B in conservation spending over the decade. One promised outcome achieved, the other reduced (the opposite of the pledge) = PARTIAL. Not FULL/CHAMPIONED because conservation failed and even the trade "doubling" was via an added program rather than doubling the premier programs themselves.

Your opinion on this assessment(clearly labeled opinion)

Sign in to vote.

Discussion

community opinions

Comments are user opinions — not verdicts. They do not affect the official assessment.

Sign in to join the discussion.

Propose a correction

community accountability

See an error in the promise text, status, significance, or missing source? Submit a sourced correction — a reviewer will evaluate and apply it if accurate. Your submission must cite evidence; unsourced changes are not accepted.

Sign in or create an account to propose a correction.

Debate

sourced community arguments

These are sourced community arguments — not StumpWatch assessments. Each cites a source and is community-contributed; it does not change the official status or rating above.

No arguments yet

Be the first to weigh in. Every argument cites a source and is reviewed before it publishes. Create an account to add one and help keep this promise honest.

Add a sourced argument

Cite a source for your point. Submissions are held for reviewer approval before they appear.

Sign in or create an account to add an argument.

StumpWatch is live, and the record is still growing. Many promises and positions aren’t tracked yet, and some features are still in beta. Add a sourced promise and help keep the record honest.

Help keep the record honest →