The LAST ACRE Act of 2025 would amend the Rural Electrification Act of 1936 to create a new USDA-administered Last Acre Program focused on expanding broadband connectivity for agricultural producers on unserved and underserved farmland. The program would provide competitive grants and loans to broadband and wireless providers to deliver qualifying connectivity for precision agriculture and other on-farm uses, including equipment, irrigation systems, drones, sensors, livestock facilities, and farm offices. The bill defines key terms such as eligible land, covered producer, unserved, underserved, and limited resource farmer or rancher, and it sets minimum service standards of 100 Mbps download and 20 Mbps upload for qualifying connectivity.
The bill also establishes a bidding and challenge process. Covered providers could register with USDA, submit initial applications, and face competing bids from nearby providers; challenges could be filed if service is already available, can be installed quickly without extraordinary cost, or is already subject to an enforceable commitment. USDA would be required to adjudicate challenges on an expedited timeline, select the lowest-cost qualified applicant that can meet the farm’s connectivity needs, and may prioritize enhanced speeds where precision agriculture requires them. The bill includes buildout milestones, a maximum four-year deployment timeframe, penalties for noncompliance, annual reporting to Congress, and annual data sharing with the FCC for broadband maps.
In addition to the new program, the bill would repeal existing sections 602 and 603 of the Rural Electrification Act and authorize such sums as necessary for fiscal years 2025 through 2029. It would also direct USDA’s National Agricultural Statistics Service to expand agriculture surveys and the census of agriculture to collect more detailed data on farm broadband subscription, speeds, and uses, including precision agriculture. The bill further bars USDA from favoring or disfavoring applicants based on whether a State has a particular law, and it imposes cybersecurity requirements, including layered defense and a configuration management plan, as a condition of receiving assistance.
Overall sentiment appears supportive and bipartisan in concept, as reflected by the sponsors from both parties and the bill’s focus on rural infrastructure and agricultural productivity. There is no recorded committee debate or vote history in the provided materials, so no formal opposition is documented here. The structure of the bill suggests a policy consensus around improving rural broadband for agriculture, while also trying to protect competition, privacy, and cybersecurity.
Notable points of contention, based on the text itself, could include the competitive bidding process, the handling of proprietary information, and the scope of USDA discretion in determining eligibility and prioritizing projects. Potential concerns may also arise over the federal cost share, the use of federal funds for wireless infrastructure, the requirement to update broadband maps and collect farm-level broadband data, and the bill’s prohibition on considering state law in award decisions. The special 90 percent federal share for limited resource farmers and ranchers may also be a focal point for questions about targeting and program cost.
The bill would add a new Section 607 to the Rural Electrification Act of 1936, creating a permanent statutory framework for USDA grants and loans to extend broadband and wireless connectivity to agricultural land that is unserved or underserved. It would also repeal existing Sections 602 and 603 of that Act, shift USDA into a more active role in farm broadband deployment, and require new broadband-related data collection by the National Agricultural Statistics Service. The measure would affect broadband providers, agricultural producers, USDA, and the FCC by tying federal assistance to service standards, cybersecurity requirements, reporting, and broadband map updates.
The available record shows no committee transcript and no votes, so there is no documented floor or committee sentiment beyond the bill’s introduction and referral. Based on the bipartisan sponsorship and the bill’s stated purpose, the measure appears to have a generally favorable policy framing centered on rural connectivity, precision agriculture, and infrastructure access. There is no evidence in the provided materials of organized opposition or amendment debate.
The main potential points of contention are likely to be implementation details rather than the overall goal. These include how USDA will adjudicate service challenges, how much proprietary information applicants must disclose, whether the competitive bidding process will favor larger providers, and whether the 80 percent federal share is sufficient or too generous. Other possible concerns involve the cybersecurity mandates, the prohibition on considering state law in award decisions, the repeal of existing Rural Electrification Act provisions, and the accuracy and privacy implications of collecting more detailed farm broadband usage data.