In July 2025, the passage of the One Big Beautiful Bill Act (OBBB) sent ripples through the American landscape, promising sweeping changes to the nation’s tax code, agricultural sector, and social safety net. While the bill’s boosters tout its permanent tax cuts and expanded business incentives, critics warn that its reforms could deepen inequality and threaten the most vulnerable populations, especially in places like Greater Boston.
The OBBB, signed into law by President Trump, is a sprawling piece of legislation, the effects of which are only beginning to be understood by taxpayers and policy experts alike. According to an analysis by Brian Ravencraft, CPA, CGMA, and principal at Holbrook & Manter, the bill’s tax relief provisions are especially significant for the agricultural industry. “The bill makes permanent reduced individual tax rates and increased standard deductions, benefiting most farm households,” Ravencraft wrote in a recent article. For many in rural America, these changes are welcome news.
One of the biggest shifts comes in the form of a permanently increased deduction for qualified business income, now set at 23%. This move is expected to benefit pass-through entities, which are common in agriculture. With the estate tax exemption also permanently raised to $15 million per person (and indexed for inflation), family farms may find it easier to pass their land and operations to future generations. Ravencraft advises, “Farmers should revisit their estate and succession plans and understand the estate limits.”
The bill also raises the Section 179 expensing limit to $2.5 million, allowing farmers to deduct the full cost of eligible equipment and property placed in service within the year. In addition, 100% bonus depreciation is now restored and made permanent for purchases after January 19, 2025, enabling immediate deduction of farm equipment and irrigation system purchases. For those investing in innovation, immediate expensing for research and development (R&D) costs is also back—and made permanent. If certain requirements are met, farmers can even expense R&D costs from prior years on current returns.
Financing changes are also in play. Banks can now exclude 25% of interest received on new loans secured by agricultural land, a move that could lower borrowing costs for farmers. Meanwhile, new rules for farmland sales allow sellers to pay capital gains tax in four equal annual installments for transactions occurring after July 4, 2025. This flexibility is designed to keep farmland in farming and provide a more manageable tax burden for sellers.
But not all the bill’s agricultural impacts are positive—or evenly distributed. The removal of the “actively engaged in farming” requirement and increased payment caps in some federal programs may disproportionately benefit larger farms and absentee owners. Billions in additional funding are expected to flow toward agricultural subsidy programs, with large farms, particularly in the South, poised to reap the most rewards. Smaller farmers, on the other hand, may find themselves squeezed by this new dynamic. “The removal of the ‘actively engaged in farming’ requirement and increased payment caps may benefit larger farms and absentee owners, potentially contributing to consolidation and harming smaller farmers,” Ravencraft warns.
Changes to conservation funding are also raising eyebrows. While the Inflation Reduction Act (IRA) had bolstered programs like the Environmental Quality Incentives Program (EQIP) and Conservation Stewardship Program (CSP), the OBBB shifts priorities by terminating clean energy tax credits early and redirecting those funds. As a result, EQIP and CSP still exist but may face reduced funding, leaving the future of conservation efforts uncertain.
Farm safety net programs, however, are getting a boost. The Price Loss Coverage (PLC), Agricultural Risk Coverage (ARC), and Dairy Margin Coverage (DMC) programs have all been extended and enhanced through 2031, providing a measure of stability for producers facing volatile markets and unpredictable weather.
Yet, as the agricultural sector weighs its new opportunities and challenges, urban communities are facing a very different set of consequences from the same legislation. In Greater Boston, the OBBB’s reforms to safety-net programs are putting tens of thousands of low-income residents at risk of losing vital food and health assistance.
A new report released by Boston Indicator, a research center at the nonprofit Boston Foundation, highlights the local fallout from the federal law’s changes to the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP). According to the report, about 40,000 adult SNAP recipients in Greater Boston—roughly 7% of the area’s adult SNAP users—are at risk of losing their food assistance due to the new federal law. The impact is especially pronounced in cities like Lawrence and Brockton, where more than one-third of residents rely on SNAP benefits. Other cities, including Lowell, Lynn, Chelsea, Randolph, Wareham, Methuen, and Haverhill, report between 22% and 28% of residents receiving SNAP assistance. In Boston itself, approximately 21% of the population, or 138,523 clients, depend on these benefits.
The bill also tightens work and eligibility requirements for SNAP and Medicaid, and includes cuts and reforms to those safety-net programs. Particularly hard-hit are legally present immigrants: the report estimates that about 9,600 in Massachusetts may lose SNAP eligibility under the new rules. “In a state as wealthy as Massachusetts, no one should go hungry,” researchers wrote in the report. “Yet even here, many families struggle to afford healthy food. For decades, [SNAP] has helped close that gap. But the ‘One Big Beautiful Bill’ recently passed by Congress and signed by President Trump risks undercutting progress we have made in reducing food insecurity in Massachusetts.”
The OBBB doesn’t just affect benefit recipients—it also shifts the administrative burden to the states. As of July 2025, Greater Boston accounted for 56% of Massachusetts’ SNAP caseload, with 361,473 cases and 578,686 clients. Under the new rules, Massachusetts must now cover 75% of SNAP administration costs, up from 50%. For the state, this means an additional $58 million in fiscal year 2025, raising the total administrative cost to $175 million, according to Boston Indicator’s findings.
Supporters of the OBBB, especially in the agricultural sector, argue that the bill’s tax cuts, increased estate tax exemptions, and extended safety net programs for farmers will strengthen the industry and rural communities. The current administration maintains that these measures are essential for providing tax relief and support to the backbone of America’s food system. However, critics, including anti-poverty advocates and researchers, say the bill’s benefits are skewed toward higher-income households and large agribusinesses, while lower-income families and immigrants face heightened hardship, particularly in high-cost urban areas like Boston.
With such sweeping changes, the OBBB’s true legacy will likely take years to unfold. Tax professionals like Ravencraft urge everyone—farmers and city dwellers alike—to stay informed and proactive. “Tax planning is very important and needs to take place year-round,” he advises. As the dust settles, both the agriculture industry and advocates for vulnerable populations will be watching closely to see how the new law shapes America’s economic and social landscape.
For now, the story of the One Big Beautiful Bill Act is one of contrasts—of relief and risk, of opportunity and uncertainty—woven through fields and city streets from the heartland to the heart of Boston.
