One of the reasons why the United States of America (US) has high agricultural competitiveness is that it implements very effective agricultural policies through the periodically revised Farm Bill. Over the past 90 years since the enactment of the Agricultural Adjustment Act in 1933, the US has pursued price and income stabilization policies for basic agricultural products, which are the core of farm income. Particularly, one of the important characteristics of the recent 2018 Farm Bill, which forms the basis of US agricultural policies from 2018 to 2023, is the strengthening of the income safety net for farmers. The US farm income safety net policies could provide useful policy lessons and implications for small family farming-oriented countries such as China and the Republic of Korea. This paper examines the price and farm income stabilization policies of the 2018 US Farm Bill and analyzes the contents and characteristics of the three core pillars of US farm safety net policies, including Commodity Programs, Crop Insurance, and Disaster Assistance Programs. The review of the 2018 US Farm Bill shows that: 1) The US farm safety net is very robust and strong. Both small family farmers and large commercial farmers are protected through multiple income safety net and risk management policies; 2) Considering the characteristics of agriculture, which fluctuates in production and price by year due to climate conditions or pests and diseases, the US has a financial management system that allows the budget required for agricultural policy to be flexibly used and at the same time the policies prevent excessive financial burdens through sophisticated policy design; 3) Farmers who benefit from the policies are also required to comply with environmental conservation obligations; 4) Both the domestic agricultural environment and WTO rules on agricultural subsidy are taken into account in formulating agricultural policy; and 5) There is a responsible agency for each core policy with close communication and cooperation among different agencies. As for the implications for the Republic of Korea, this paper suggests: Establishing more strengthened farm income and risk management policing, expanding policy-targeted products, strengthening the coordination and linkage among policies, and introducing mandatory budget expenditure system. As for the implications for China, this paper suggests: establishing agricultural information system for data-based policy implementation, forming mid-term to long-term agricultural policy plan and consistent policy implementation according to the plan, securing sufficient financial resources for implementing farm safety net policy, developing a sound agricultural insurance system, and enhancing policy capability for making full use of existing WTO rules on agricultural subsidy and efforts to establish international rules reflecting China’s and other developing countries’ agricultural policy situation in the next WTO agricultural negotiations.