H-2A Expansion Threatens Farmworker Pay and Protections

House Agriculture Committee Chairman Glenn “GT” Thompson introduced the Securing Agriculture’s Workforce Act on June 30, a sweeping proposal to reshape how American agriculture recruits and deploys foreign workers. If passed, it would represent the first major statutory reform to the H-2A temporary agricultural worker visa program in four decades.

The bill has ignited a sharp divide. Growers and agribusiness groups say the reforms are essential to stay solvent as input costs climb and labor shortages deepend; farmworker advocates warn that expanding the program will drive down wages, enable wage theft, and displace domestic workers.

What the Bill Changes

The core shift: H-2A, created in 1986, was designed for seasonal farm work. Thompson’s bill removes that seasonal requirement, allowing dairy farms and year-round livestock operations to hire H-2A workers for the first time.

Other key reforms include:

• The “350-day rule”: Any H-2A contract under 350 days qualifies as “temporary,” even if the job is year-round. This opens dairy and livestock to visa workers previously excluded.
• Faster certifications: The Labor Department could issue H-2A labor certifications valid for up to three consecutive years, reducing red tape growers face annually.
• Legalization pathway: The bill contains a provision allowing existing unauthorized agricultural workers to transition into H-2A if they pass background checks and an in-person interview.
• Centralized portal: A single online system for all employer and government interactions.

The Demand

The numbers tell the pressure growers face. H-2A visa certifications have skyrocketed from fewer than 100,000 positions in 2013 to nearly 415,000 in 2025, as domestic farm workers remain scarce and aging.

That demand is mounting precisely when farmers are squeezed hardest. USDA forecasts net farm income at $153.4 billion in 2026, with sector-wide debt climbing to a record $624.7 billion, while interest expenses are expected to reach a record $33 billion. For dairy and livestock operators especially, labor costs can be the difference between staying in business and filing Chapter 12 bankruptcy.

The bill is backed by over 400 agricultural groups, including the American Farm Bureau Federation, Western Growers Association, and National Milk Producers Federation—a coalition broad enough to suggest serious congressional momentum.

The Warning

But labor advocacy groups are sounding alarms, arguing that H-2A expansion will suppress wages and enable abuse. State attorneys general have already challenged wage violations, signaling the stakes for enforcement under an expanded program.

The core risk is structural. H-2A workers are dependent on their employers for legal status, housing, and wages, a power imbalance that creates opportunities for wage theft and unsafe conditions. Farmworker advocates worry that removing the seasonal requirement will flood the market with workers who have no choice but to accept below-market pay—undercutting both immigrant and domestic workers. As state attorneys general have documented, wage theft and labor violations are endemic even under existing rules.

The legalization pathway, meant to formalize existing workers, could be a trap if employers use it to build a permanent dependent workforce, advocates argue.

The Broader Squeeze

The H-2A debate sits within a deeper crisis. State attorneys general have challenged wage theft and labor violations, yet growers often operate with minimal consequences. Expanding the program without strengthening enforcement could mean more workers in more precarious conditions.

For family farmers already grappling with April farm bankruptcies that surged 130 percent and input-cost squeezes, labor access feels like survival. For farmworkers, the expansion feels like a race to the bottom: more workers competing for the same work, less leverage to demand fair pay or safe conditions.

The bill is still in committee, but its bipartisan backing and the real economic desperation driving it suggest it has momentum. The fight over who bears the cost of American agriculture’s consolidation crisis—growers or workers—is just beginning.