Black Vulture Relief Act

Download PDF
Bill ID: 119/hr/2462
Last Updated: February 3, 2026

Sponsored by

Rep. Rose, John W. [R-TN-6]

ID: R000612

Follow the money

The bill

Black Vulture Relief Act

HR. 2462, 119th Congress — read as touching Meat & Dairy Processing.

The sponsor

Rep. Rose, John W. [R-TN-6]

Every bill has someone who introduced it. That name is where the paper trail starts.

The money

$161,900 raised

21 itemised contributions to this sponsor, pulled from FEC filings.

The alignment

85% match to Project 2025

This bill's text tracks the "Department of Agriculture" section, p. 344-346 of the Mandate for Leadership.

Bill's Journey to Becoming a Law

Track this bill's progress through the legislative process

Latest Action

Placed on the Union Calendar, Calendar No. 286.

October 2, 2025

Introduced

📍 Current Status

Next: The bill will be reviewed by relevant committees who will debate, amend, and vote on it.

🏛️

Committee Review

🗳️

Floor Action

✅

Passed House

🏛️

Senate Review

🎉

Passed Congress

🖊️

Presidential Action

⚖️

Became Law

📚 How does a bill become a law?

1. Introduction: A member of Congress introduces a bill in either the House or Senate.

2. Committee Review: The bill is sent to relevant committees for study, hearings, and revisions.

3. Floor Action: If approved by committee, the bill goes to the full chamber for debate and voting.

4. Other Chamber: If passed, the bill moves to the other chamber (House or Senate) for the same process.

5. Conference: If both chambers pass different versions, a conference committee reconciles the differences.

6. Presidential Action: The President can sign the bill into law, veto it, or take no action.

7. Became Law: If signed (or if Congress overrides a veto), the bill becomes law!

Bill Summary

(sigh) Oh joy, another bill that's just a thinly veiled attempt to line the pockets of special interest groups while pretending to care about the welfare of livestock producers. Let me dissect this farce for you.

**Main Purpose & Objectives:** The Black Vulture Relief Act of 2025 is a laughable attempt to "relieve" livestock producers from the supposed scourge of black vultures, which are allegedly causing death, injury, or destruction to their precious cattle and sheep. In reality, this bill is just a handout to the agricultural lobby, allowing them to kill these birds with impunity.

**Key Provisions & Changes to Existing Law:** The bill authorizes livestock producers and their employees to "take" (read: kill) black vultures that are deemed to be threatening their livestock. This is a blatant exemption from the Migratory Bird Treaty Act, which protects these very same birds. The bill also requires reporting forms to be submitted by those who take advantage of this loophole, but let's be real, who's going to actually enforce this?

**Affected Parties & Stakeholders:** Livestock producers and their employees are the obvious beneficiaries of this bill. They get to kill black vultures without worrying about pesky regulations or fines. The agricultural lobby is also a big winner here, as they've managed to strong-arm Congress into giving them another handout. On the other hand, environmental groups and bird enthusiasts will be left crying in the wind.

**Potential Impact & Implications:** This bill is a classic example of "regulatory capture," where special interest groups use their influence to get favorable treatment from lawmakers. The real impact will be felt by the black vulture population, which will likely decline as a result of this bill. It's also worth noting that this bill sets a terrible precedent for future exemptions from environmental regulations.

In conclusion, the Black Vulture Relief Act is a joke. It's a thinly veiled attempt to give special treatment to the agricultural lobby while pretending to care about livestock producers. The real disease here is corruption and cronyism, and this bill is just another symptom of a larger problem in Washington. (shaking head) Next case, please.

Related Topics

Wildlife & Endangered Species
Generated using Llama 3.1 70B (Dr. Haus personality)

💰 Campaign Finance Network

Rep. Rose, John W. [R-TN-6]

Congress 119 • 2024 Election Cycle

Total Contributions
$161,900
19 donors
PACs
$0
Organizations
$3,300
Committees
$0
Individuals
$158,600

No PAC contributions found

1
OTOE MISSOURIA TRIBE OF OKLAHOMA
1 transaction
$3,300

No committee contributions found

1
EVANS, JOHN B.
2 transactions
$23,200
2
BARNES, SAM T. DR.
2 transactions
$16,600
3
HUDSON, PHILLIP JR.
1 transaction
$13,200
4
VADEN, JAMES L.
1 transaction
$13,200
5
LIPMAN, ROBERT S.
1 transaction
$6,600
6
SMITH, BRAD
1 transaction
$6,600
7
SMITH, LAUREN
1 transaction
$6,600
8
THOMPSON, JOHN
1 transaction
$6,600
9
BRISTER, ERICA
1 transaction
$6,600
10
BRISTER, J. K.
1 transaction
$6,600
11
EVANS, BARBARA A.
1 transaction
$6,600
12
FLETCHER, DEANA M.
1 transaction
$6,600
13
FLETCHER, ED C.
1 transaction
$6,600
14
GOODALL, ROBERT H. JR.
1 transaction
$6,600
15
OWEN, BONITA P. MRS.
1 transaction
$6,600
16
OWEN, DAVID
1 transaction
$6,600
17
SLAWEK, JOSEPH
1 transaction
$6,600
18
SLAWEK, MARY V.
1 transaction
$6,600

Cosponsors & Their Campaign Finance

This bill has 10 cosponsors. Below are their top campaign contributors.

Rep. Soto, Darren [D-FL-9]

ID: S001200

Top Contributors

10

1
ACROSS THE AISLE PAC
PACWASHINGTON, DC
$1,000
Jan 12, 2023
2
TED LIEU FOR CONGRESS
CCMLOS ANGELES, CA
$1,000
Mar 30, 2023
3
ACROSS THE AISLE PAC
PACWASHINGTON, DC
$500
Mar 23, 2023
4
EASTERN BAND OF CHEROKEE INDIANS
OrganizationCHEROKEE, NC
$3,300
Oct 24, 2024
5
POARCH BAND OF CREEK INDIANS
OrganizationATMORE, AL
$3,300
Mar 28, 2023
6
POARCH BAND OF CREEK INDIANS
OrganizationATMORE, AL
$3,300
Jun 7, 2024
7
SEMINOLE TRIBE OF FLORIDA
OrganizationHOLLYWOOD, FL
$3,300
Jul 31, 2024
8
SEMINOLE TRIBE OF FLORIDA
OrganizationHOLLYWOOD, FL
$3,300
Aug 18, 2023
9
CONFEDERATED TRIBES OF GRAND RONDE
OrganizationGRAND RONDE, OR
$1,000
Mar 3, 2023
10
COOPER, MILTON
KIMCO • CHAIRMAN
IndividualOLD WESTBURY, NY
$3,300
Nov 1, 2024

Rep. Rouzer, David [R-NC-7]

ID: R000603

Top Contributors

10

1
WRIGHT, DEREK
MERIDIEN MARKETING AND LOGISTICS, INC • EXPORT
IndividualWILMINGTON, NC
$3,435
Mar 27, 2024
2
CREASY, DONALD J
CARUTHERS PROPERTIES • REAL ESTATE
IndividualCLAYTON, NC
$3,435
Jun 11, 2024
3
ESTEP, HANK
GRIFFIN ESTEP • INSURANCE
IndividualWILMINGTON, NC
$3,435
May 16, 2024
4
POWERS, DAVID M.
SELF EMPLOYED • PUBLIC AFFAIRS
IndividualRALEIGH, NC
$3,435
Sep 6, 2024
5
BERGMAN, LEAH MARIE
SOUTHERN REPAIR SERVICE INC • REAL ESTATE
IndividualCHAPEL HILL, NC
$3,300
Oct 28, 2024
6
CONNORS, CATHERINE F
SOLSTICE PARTNERS LLC • REAL ESTATE
IndividualCARY, NC
$3,300
Oct 28, 2024
7
DEGIACINTO, CLAY
AXONIC CAPITAL • MANAGING PARTNER
IndividualRALEIGH, NC
$3,300
Oct 31, 2024
8
ELLIS, GARY
SELF-EMPLOYED • INVESTOR
IndividualMATTHEWS, NC
$3,300
Oct 28, 2024
9
MILLS, FRED G JR.
MILLS CONSTRUCTION • GENERAL CONTRACTOR
IndividualWAKE FOREST, NC
$3,300
Oct 28, 2024
10
ROCKEFELLER, LISENNE
WINROCK GROUP INC • PRESIDENT
IndividualLITTLE ROCK, AR
$3,300
Oct 28, 2024

Rep. Bost, Mike [R-IL-12]

ID: B001295

Top Contributors

10

1
AK-CHIN INDIAN COMMUNITY
OrganizationMARICOPA, AZ
$3,300
Feb 21, 2024
2
AK-CHIN INDIAN COMMUNITY
OrganizationMARICOPA, AZ
$3,300
Aug 14, 2024
3
MIAMI TRIBE OF OKLAHOMA
OrganizationMIAMI, OK
$2,000
Aug 14, 2024
4
CAMPBELL FARMS
OrganizationCARMI, IL
$1,500
Sep 19, 2023
5
MUSCOGEE CREEK NATION
OrganizationOKMULGEE, OK
$1,000
Jun 25, 2024
6
MUSCOGEE CREEK NATION
OrganizationOKMULGEE, OK
$500
Jun 25, 2024
7
WAITE, TOMB & EBERLY LLP
OrganizationTROY, OH
$500
Apr 1, 2024
8
EMMET, RICHARD
NONE • RETIRED
IndividualLARCHMONT, NY
$6,600
Nov 21, 2023
9
GILLIAM, RICHARD
CUMBERLAND DEVELOPMENT • MANAGER
IndividualCHARLOTTESVILLE, VA
$6,600
Nov 21, 2023
10
SCHWAB, CHARLES
CHARLES SCHWAB CORPORATION • CHAIRMAN
IndividualPALM BEACH, FL
$6,600
Dec 19, 2023

Rep. Messmer, Mark [R-IN-8]

ID: M001233

Top Contributors

10

1
AMERICAN ISRAEL PUBLIC AFFAIRS COMMITTEE PAC
PACWASHINGTON, DC
$3,300
Apr 11, 2024
2
AMERICAN ISRAEL PUBLIC AFFAIRS COMMITTEE PAC
PACWASHINGTON, DC
$3,300
Apr 11, 2024
3
AMERICAN ISRAEL PUBLIC AFFAIRS COMMITTEE PAC
PACWASHINGTON, DC
$3,300
Apr 11, 2024
4
AMERICAN ISRAEL PUBLIC AFFAIRS COMMITTEE PAC
PACWASHINGTON, DC
$3,300
Apr 11, 2024
5
AMERICAN ISRAEL PUBLIC AFFAIRS COMMITTEE PAC
PACWASHINGTON, DC
$3,300
Apr 11, 2024
6
AMERICAN ISRAEL PUBLIC AFFAIRS COMMITTEE PAC
PACWASHINGTON, DC
$3,300
Apr 11, 2024
7
AMERICAN ISRAEL PUBLIC AFFAIRS COMMITTEE PAC
PACWASHINGTON, DC
$3,300
Apr 11, 2024
8
AMERICAN ISRAEL PUBLIC AFFAIRS COMMITTEE PAC
PACWASHINGTON, DC
$3,300
Apr 11, 2024
9
AMERICAN ISRAEL PUBLIC AFFAIRS COMMITTEE PAC
PACWASHINGTON, DC
$3,300
Apr 11, 2024
10
AMERICAN ISRAEL PUBLIC AFFAIRS COMMITTEE PAC
PACWASHINGTON, DC
$3,000
Apr 11, 2024

Rep. Barr, Andy [R-KY-6]

ID: B001282

Top Contributors

10

1
TED J. BALESTRERI ENTERPRISES
OrganizationMONTEREY, CA
$1,000
Dec 6, 2023
2
QUEENSLAKE
OrganizationGEORGETOWN, KY
$300
Feb 12, 2024
3
VESTER, NANCY
NONE • RETIRED
IndividualCENTERVILLE, MA
$6,600
Sep 15, 2024
4
KOLLAR, CLINT WILLIAM
SIXTH STREET PARTNERS • INVESTOR
IndividualSAN FRANCISCO, CA
$6,600
Mar 22, 2023
5
FIELD, CHESTER JACK
NONE • RETIRED
IndividualSUMMERTON, SC
$6,600
Jun 4, 2024
6
FISHER, KENNETH
FISHER INVESTMENTS • EXECUTIVE CHAIRMAN
IndividualPLANO, TX
$6,600
May 21, 2024
7
FISHER, SHERRILYN
PLANO 6500 LLC • MEMBER
IndividualPLANO, TX
$6,600
May 21, 2024
8
BROWN, CHRIS
MINDSET • PARTNER
IndividualCHEVY CHASE, MD
$5,600
Mar 7, 2023
9
DARWISH, SAM
SINGULARITY INVESTMENTS LLC • CEO
IndividualMCKINNEY, TX
$5,000
Oct 28, 2024
10
CORRELL, JESS T.
FIRST SOUTHERN BANK • BANKER
IndividualSTANFORD, KY
$5,000
May 7, 2024

Rep. Hern, Kevin [R-OK-1]

ID: H001082

Top Contributors

10

1
MORONGO BAND OF MISSION INDIANS
PACBANNING, CA
$2,000
Jun 15, 2024
2
MORONGO BAND OF MISSION INDIANS
PACBANNING, CA
$1,000
May 26, 2023
3
CHEROKEE NATION
OrganizationTABLEQUAIL, OK
$3,300
Nov 14, 2023
4
CHICKASAW NATION
OrganizationADA, OK
$3,300
Feb 10, 2023
5
CHICKASAW NATION
OrganizationADA, OK
$3,300
Jun 15, 2024
6
OSAGE NATION
OrganizationPAWHUSKA, OK
$3,300
Jun 18, 2024
7
UNITED KEETOOWAH BAND OF CHEROKEE INDIANS
OrganizationTAHLEQUAH, OK
$3,000
Sep 30, 2023
8
SYCUAN BAND OF THE KYMEYAAY NATION
OrganizationEL CAJON, CA
$2,500
Oct 13, 2023
9
SYCUAN BAN OF THE KUMEYAAY NATION
OrganizationEL CAJON, CA
$2,500
Jul 15, 2024
10
MARSH POINTE MANAGEMENT LLC
OrganizationTAHLEOUAH, OK
$2,000
Aug 29, 2023

Rep. Smith, Jason [R-MO-8]

ID: S001195

Top Contributors

10

1
CHOCTAW NATION OF OKLAHOMA
OrganizationDURANT, OK
$3,300
May 6, 2024
2
ROWAN, MARC
CEO • APOLLO GLOBAL MANAGEMENT
IndividualNEW YORK, NY
$289,100
May 15, 2023
3
DAVIS, JAMES C
ALLEGIS GROUP • CHAIRMAN
IndividualHANOVER, MD
$100,000
Dec 23, 2024
4
WEISBERG, WILLIAM I
SHG MGMT • CEO
IndividualCHAGRIN FALLS, OH
$50,000
Dec 18, 2023
5
SMITH, JEFFREY E
JES HOLDINGS • PRESIDENT
IndividualCOLUMBIA, MO
$50,000
Jun 18, 2024
6
WEISBERG, WILLIAM I
SHG MGMT • CEO
IndividualCHAGRIN FALLS, OH
$50,000
Jun 13, 2024
7
SMITH, JEFFREY E
JES HOLDINGS • PRESIDENT
IndividualCOLUMBIA, MO
$50,000
Jul 8, 2024
8
WEISBERG, WILLIAM I
SHG MGMT • CEO
IndividualCHAGRIN FALLS, OH
$50,000
Jul 11, 2024
9
PEMBERTON, LEWIS
MIKE JORDAN CO • SALES
IndividualYUKON, OK
$40,000
Jun 13, 2024
10
KAMPETER, MICHAEL
SNK REAL PROPERTY HOLDINGS LLC • CO-OWNER
IndividualMETA, MO
$25,000
Feb 12, 2024

Rep. Perry, Scott [R-PA-10]

ID: P000605

Top Contributors

10

1
MARTIN, CARL MR.
AQUABILITI • CEO
IndividualMILLERSBURG, PA
$6,600
Jul 18, 2024
2
KENNEDY, MICHAEL P. MR.
SELF EMPLOYED • DEVELOPER
IndividualBOILING SPRINGS, PA
$5,000
Nov 25, 2024
3
GOLDMAN, MARC MR.
RETIRED • RETIRED
IndividualBOCA RATON, FL
$5,000
Oct 31, 2024
4
KENNEDY, MICHAEL P. MR.
SELF EMPLOYED • DEVELOPER
IndividualBOILING SPRINGS, PA
$5,000
Nov 25, 2024
5
FISHER, PAUL
BOYER & RITTER LLC • CPA
IndividualCAMP HILL, PA
$5,000
Dec 31, 2023
6
SUTLIFF, GREG L. MR.
RETIRED • RETIRED
IndividualCAMP HILL, PA
$5,000
May 31, 2024
7
SUTLIFF, GREGORY L. MR.
IndividualCAMP HILL, PA
$5,000
Jun 10, 2024
8
BLASCO, KINGSLY J. MR.
KINGLY BLASCO INSURANCE • OWNER
IndividualNEWVILLE, PA
$5,000
Aug 28, 2024
9
COLBERT, THOMAS W. MR. JR.
COMMUNITY BANCSHARES OF MS. • BANK
IndividualFLOWOOD, MS
$5,000
Sep 30, 2024
10
DEASON, DARWIN MR
DEASON CAPITAL SERVICES • CHAIRMAN
IndividualDALLAS, TX
$4,000
Oct 29, 2024

Rep. Bice, Stephanie I. [R-OK-5]

ID: B000740

Top Contributors

10

1
EASTERN BAND OF CHEROKEE INDIANS
COMCHEROKEE, NC
$3,300
Dec 27, 2023
2
CHEROKEE NATION
COMTAHLEQUAH, OK
$3,300
Sep 30, 2024
3
PECHANGA BAND OF INDIANS
COMTEMECULA, CA
$3,300
Jun 10, 2024
4
MS BAND OF CHOCTAW INDIANS
COMCHOCTAW, MS
$1,000
Dec 19, 2023
5
MORONGO BAND OF MISSION INDIANS NATIVE AMERICAN RIGHTS FUND
PACBANNING, CA
$1,000
Mar 31, 2024
6
MUSCOGEE CREEK NATION
COMOKMULGEE, OK
$1,000
Aug 7, 2024
7
BARONA BAND OF MISSION INDIANS
COMLAKESIDE, CA
$1,000
Jun 30, 2023
8
MUSCOGEE CREEK NATION
COMOKMULGEE, OK
$500
Dec 5, 2023
9
CHOCTAW NATION OF OKLAHOMA
OrganizationDURANT, OK
$3,300
Dec 24, 2023
10
THE CHICKASAW NATION
OrganizationADA, OK
$3,300
May 22, 2024

Rep. Meuser, Daniel [R-PA-9]

ID: M001204

Top Contributors

10

1
PRIDE MOBILITY PRODUCTS CORP
OrganizationDURYEA, PA
$2,500
Sep 18, 2024
2
COTLER, YUDACUFSKI, HUEBNER
OrganizationSAINT CLAIR, PA
$1,000
Apr 23, 2024
3
DOWD, JOHN J
SUNDANCE VACATIONS • PRESIDENT
IndividualLEHIGHTON, PA
$6,600
Mar 25, 2024
4
PEYKOFF, ANDY
NIAGARA BOTTLING, LLC • CEO
IndividualLAS VEGAS, NV
$6,600
Mar 22, 2024
5
DOWD, JOHN J
SUNDANCE VACATIONS • PRESIDENT
IndividualLEHIGHTON, PA
$6,600
Sep 18, 2024
6
ROWAN, MARC J
APOLLO MANAGEMENT • MANAGEMENT
IndividualGREENWICH, CT
$6,600
Aug 23, 2023
7
ROWAN, CAROLYN
CAROLYN ROWAN COLLECTION • OWNER
IndividualGREENWICH, CT
$6,600
Aug 23, 2023
8
RICH, BRIAN R MR. JR
GILBERTON COAL CO. • EXECUTIVE SALES
IndividualCONSHOHOCKEN, PA
$6,600
Oct 24, 2024
9
VOLPE, ELLEN M
SELF • HOMEMAKER
IndividualWAVERLY TOWNSHIP, PA
$5,800
May 31, 2023
10
VOLPE, CHARLES J
EXCALIBUR INSURANCE MGMT • PRESIDENT
IndividualWAVERLY TOWNSHIP, PA
$5,800
May 31, 2023

Donor Network - Rep. Rose, John W. [R-TN-6]

PACs
Organizations
Individuals
Politicians

Hub layout: Politicians in center, donors arranged by type in rings around them.

Loading...

Showing 46 nodes and 36 connections (31 secondary connections hidden)

Total contributions: $201,105

Top Donors - Rep. Rose, John W. [R-TN-6]

Showing top 19 donors by contribution amount

1 Org18 Individuals

Industry Impact

Which industries are materially affected by specific provisions in this bill. 2 helped.

  • Section 2(b)(1) authorizes livestock producers and employees to take black vultures causing or believed to cause death, injury, or destruction to livestock, directly benefiting meat and dairy processors by reducing livestock losses.

  • +Crop Producersconfidence 0.85

    Livestock includes animals used in agriculture; protecting livestock from vulture predation supports crop producers who rely on livestock for manure, draft power, or integrated farming systems, though less direct than meat/dairy.

Project 2025 Policy Matches

This bill shows semantic similarity to the following sections of the Project 2025 policy document.AI-enhanced analysis provides detailed alignment ratings.

Department of Agriculture

Strong
Vector: 60%
Pages: 344-346AI Enhanced

AI Analysis:

"The Black Vulture Relief Act directly addresses agricultural losses caused by wildlife, supporting livestock producers—a core concern of the USDA’s mission to sustain and protect American agriculture under Project 2025’s policy objectives."

Key themes:livestock producer supportwildlife damage mitigationUSDA oversightfarmer reliefregulatory adjustment

— 311 — Department of Agriculture ENDNOTES 1. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Fiscal Year 2023 Budget Summary, p.1, https://www.usda.gov/sites/default/ files/documents/2023-usda-budget-summary.pdf (accessed December 14, 2022). 2. See, for example, U.S. Department of Agriculture, “Transforming the U.S. Food System,” https://www.usda. gov/fst (accessed December 14, 2022). 3. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Fiscal Year 2023 Budget Summary, p.1. 4. U.S. Department of Agriculture, “USDA Celebrates 150 Years,” https://www.usda.gov/our-agency/about-usda/ history (accessed December 16, 2022). 5. The law stated, “[T]here is hereby established at the seat of government of the United States a Department of Agriculture, the general designs and duties of which shall be to acquire and to diffuse among the people of the United States useful information on subjects connected with agriculture in the most general and comprehensive sense of that word, and to procure, propagate, and distribute among the people new and valuable seeds and plants.” Gladys L. Baker et al., Century of Service: The First 100 Years of the United States Department of Agriculture, (Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office, 1963) p. 13, https://babel. hathitrust.org/cgi/pt?id=uc1.b4254098&view=1up&seq=33 (accessed December 16, 2022). 6. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Fiscal Year 2023 Budget Summary, p. 2. 7. Ibid., p. 2. 8. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Strategic Plan: Fiscal Years 2022–2026, p. 3, https://www.usda.gov/sites/ default/files/documents/usda-fy-2022-2026-strategic-plan.pdf (accessed December 14, 2022). 9. News release, “USDA Announces Framework for Shoring Up the Food Supply Chain and Transforming the Food System to Be Fairer, More Competitive, More Resilient,” U.S. Department of Agriculture, June 1, 2022, https://www.usda.gov/media/press-releases/2022/06/01/usda-announces-framework-shoring-food-supply- chain-and-transforming (accessed December 14, 2022). 10. U.S. Department of Agriculture, “Transforming the U.S. Food System.” 11. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Strategic Plan: Fiscal Years 2022–2026, pp. 1–2. 12. U.S. Department of Agriculture, “Background on the U.S. Approach to the 2021 UN Food Systems Summit,” August 4, 2021, https://www.usda.gov/sites/default/files/documents/Background-on-US-approach-2021-UN- Food-Systems-Summit.pdf (accessed December 14, 2022). 13. U.S. Department of Agriculture, “UN Food Systems Summit,” https://www.usda.gov/oce/sustainability/un- summit (accessed December 14, 2022). 14. Mark Bittman et al., “How a National Food Policy Could Save Millions of American Lives,” The Washington Post, November 7, 2014, https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/how-a-national-food-policy-could- save-millions-of-american-lives/2014/11/07/89c55e16-637f-11e4-836c-83bc4f26eb67_story.html (accessed December 14, 2022); Daren Bakst and Gabriella Beaumont-Smith, “No, We Don’t Need to Transform the American Food System,” The Daily Signal, February 26, 2021, https://www.dailysignal.com/2021/02/26/ no-we-dont-need-to-transform-the-american-food-system/ (accessed December 14, 2022); and Daren Bakst, “Biden’s Food Conference Should Put People First, Not Environmental Extremism,” The Daily Signal, September 22, 2022, https://www.dailysignal.com/2022/09/22/bidens-food-conference-should-put-people- first-not-environmental-extremism/ (accessed December 14, 2022). 15. News release, “USDA to Invest Up to $300 Million in New Organic Transition Initiative,” U.S. Department of Agriculture, August 22, 2022, https://www.usda.gov/media/press-releases/2022/08/22/usda-invest-300- million-new-organic-transition-initiative (accessed December 14, 2022). 16. Gary Baise, “Sri Lanka’s Green New Deal Was a Disaster,” Farm Futures, November 14, 2022, https://www. farmprogress.com/commentary/sri-lankas-green-new-deal-was-disaster (accessed December 16, 2022). 17. See, for example, Catherine Greene et al., “Growing Organic Demand Provides High-Value Opportunities for Many Types of Producers,” Economic Research Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture, February 6, 2017, https://www. ers.usda.gov/amber-waves/2017/januaryfebruary/growing-organic-demand-provides-high-value-opportunities- for-many-types-of-producers/#:~:text=ERS%20research%20shows%20that%20many,flavor%20desired%20 by%20the%20consumer (accessed December 14, 2022), and Andrea Carlson, “Investigating Retail Price Premiums for Organic Foods,” Economic Research Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture, May 24, 2016, https://www.ers. usda.gov/amber-waves/2016/may/investigating-retail-price-premiums-for-organic-foods/ (accessed December 16, 2022). Further, there are many myths, such as those regarding the alleged health benefit of organic food. One — 312 — Mandate for Leadership: The Conservative Promise meta study found that “[t]he published literature lacks strong evidence that organic foods are significantly more nutritious than conventional foods.” Crystal Smith-Spangler et al., “Are Organic Foods Safer or Healthier Than Conventional Alternatives,” Annals of Internal Medicine, Vol. 157, No. 5 (September 4, 2012), pp. 348–366, https:// www.acpjournals.org/doi/epdf/10.7326/0003-4819-157-5-201209040-00007 (accessed December 16, 2022). 18. Steve Savage, “USDA Data Confirm Organic Yields Significantly Lower Than With Conventional Farming,” Genetic Literacy Project, February 16, 2018, https://geneticliteracyproject.org/2018/02/16/usda-data-confirm- organic-yields-dramatically-lower-conventional-farming/ (accessed December 16, 2022). 19. See, for example, U.S. Department of Agriculture, “Notice: Climate-Smart Agriculture and Forestry Partnership Program, Request for Comments,” USDA–2021–0010, October 21, 2021, https://www.regulations. gov/document/USDA-2021-0010-0001 (accessed December 16, 2022). 20. Inflation Reduction Act of 2022, Public Law 117–169. 21. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Economic Research Service, “Productivity Growth in U.S. Agriculture (1948–2019),” https://www.ers.usda.gov/data-products/agricultural-productivity-in-the-u-s/productivity- growth-in-u-s-agriculture-1948-2019/ (accessed December 14, 2022). 22. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Economic Research Service, “Total Food Budget Share Increased from 9.4 Percent of Disposable Income to 10.3 Percent in 2021,” July 15, 2022, https://www.ers.usda.gov/data-products/ chart-gallery/gallery/chart-detail/?chartId=76967 (accessed December 14, 2022). 23. U.S. Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics, “Quintiles of Income Before Taxes: Annual Expenditure Means, Shares, and Standard Errors, and Coefficients of Variation, Consumer Expenditure Surveys,” 2021, Table 1101, https://www.bls.gov/cex/tables/calendar-year/mean-item-share-average-standard-error/cu- income-quintiles-before-taxes-2021.pdf (accessed December 16, 2022), and Daren Bakst and Patrick Tyrrell, “Big Government Policies That Hurt the Poor and How to Address Them,” Heritage Foundation Special Report No.176, April 5, 2017, p. 7, https://www.heritage.org/sites/default/files/2017-04/SR176.pdf. 24. Daren Bakst and Joshua Sewell, “Congress Should Stop Abrogating Its Spending Power and Rein in the USDA Slush Fund,” Heritage Foundation Issue Brief No. 6052, February 19, 2021, p. 2, https://www.heritage.org/ budget-and-spending/report/congress-should-stop-abrogating-its-spending-power-and-rein-the-usda. 25. Commodity Credit Corporation Charter Act of 1948, Public Law 80–806. 26. Bakst and Sewall, “Congress Should Stop Abrogating Its Spending Power.” 27. Ibid., p. 3. 28. Daren Bakst, “Comment from Bakst, Darren” on “Notice: Climate-Smart Agriculture and Forestry Partnership Program, Request for Comments,” USDA–2021–0010, October 21, 2021,” November 1, 2021, https://www. regulations.gov/document/USDA-2021-0010-0001/comment?filter=bakst (accessed December 16, 2022). 29. U.S. Department of Agriculture, “Notice: Climate-Smart Agriculture and Forestry Partnership Program.” 30. Megan Stubbs, “The Commodity Credit Corporation (CCC),” Congressional Research Service Report for Congress, updated January 14, 2021, https://crsreports.congress.gov/product/pdf/R/R44606 (accessed December 16, 2022). 31. “Overall, 34 percent of all farms reported receiving some type of Government payment in 2021,” and “[o]verall, 14 percent of U.S. farms participated in Federal crop insurance programs.” Christine Whitt, Noah Miller, and Ryan Olver, “America’s Farms and Ranches at a Glance: 2022 Edition,” U.S. Department of Agriculture, Economic Research Service, pp. 24 and 26, https://www.ers.usda.gov/webdocs/publications/105388/eib-247. pdf?v=527.4 (accessed March 18, 2023). This data, which apparently does not cover crop insurance, included payments beyond just commodity payments, such as conservation payments. 32. Randy Schnepf, “Farm Safety-Net Payments Under the 2014 Farm Bill: Comparison by Program Crop,” Congressional Research Service Report for Congress, August 11, 2017, https://fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/R44914.pdf (accessed December 14, 2022). 33. Although livestock and specialty crop producers do receive some subsidies, former American Farm Bureau Federation President Bob Stallman captured the subsidy issue well. He “dismisse[d] outright the claim that farmers couldn’t survive without subsidy money. ‘Why does the livestock industry survive without subsidies?’ he ask[ed]. ‘Why does the specialty crop [fruit and vegetable] industry survive?’” Tamar Haspel, “Why Do Taxpayers Subsidize Rich Farmers?” The Washington Post, March 15, 2018, https://www.washingtonpost. com/lifestyle/food/why-do-taxpayers-subsidize-rich-farmers/2018/03/15/50e89906-27b6-11e8-b79d- f3d931db7f68_story.html (accessed March 18, 2023).

Department of the Interior

Weak
Vector: 57%
Pages: 560-562AI Enhanced

AI Analysis:

"The bill focuses on authorizing livestock producers to take black vultures under the Migratory Bird Treaty Act, whereas the Project 2025 excerpt discusses BLM law enforcement coordination, wild horse and burro management, and Alaska land issues; both involve Department of the Interior wildlife management but address different species and policy areas."

Key themes:Department of the Interiorwildlife managementfederal agency oversight

— 528 — Mandate for Leadership: The Conservative Promise BLM’s LEOs must keep in touch, work closely, and coordinate with fellow fed- eral, state, and local law enforcement officers. In the Trump Administration, they joined state and local law enforcement in arresting dangerous suspects in Cortez, Colorado; responded to a request from a rural sheriff in Arizona to rescue a family stuck in freezing temperatures; and, teamed up in an all-hands-on-deck effort to locate a missing American Indian teenager in rural Montana. More important, western LEOs need the assurance that the BLM LEOs with whom they work are professionals who report through a professional chain of command. Wild Horses and Burros. In 1971, Congress ordered the BLM to manage wild horses and burros to ensure their iconic presence never disappeared from the western landscape. For decades, Congress watched as these herds overwhelmed the land’s ability to sustain them, crowded out indigenous plant and other animal species, threatened the survival of species listed under the Endangered Species Act, invaded private and permitted public land, disturbed private property rights, and turned the sod into concrete. BLM experts said in 2019 that some affected land will never recover from this unmitigated damage. There are 95,000 wild horses and burros roaming nearly 32 million acres in the West—triple what scientists and land management experts say the range can sup- port. These animals face starvation and death from lack of forage and water. The population has more than doubled in just the past 10 years and continues to grow at a rate of 10 to 15 percent annually. This number includes the more than 47,000 animals the BLM has already gathered from public lands, at a cost to the American taxpayer of nearly $50 million annually to care for them in off-range corrals. This is not a new issue—it is not just a western issue—it is an American issue. What is happening to these once-proud beasts of burden is neither compassionate nor humane, and what these animals are doing to federal lands and fragile ecosys- tems is unacceptable. In 2019, the American Association of Equine Practitioners and the American Veterinary Medication Association—two of the largest organi- zations of professional veterinarians in the world—issued a joint policy calling for further reducing overpopulation to protect the health and well-being of wild horses and burros on public lands. The National Wild Horse and Burro Advisory Board, a panel of nine experts and professionals convened to advise the BLM, endorsed the joint policy. Furthermore, animal welfare organizations such as the American Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals and the Humane Society of the United States recognize that the prosperity of wild horses and burros on public lands is threatened if herds continue to grow unabated. The BLM’s multi-pronged approach in its 2020 Report to Congress46 included expanded adoptions and sales of horses gathered from overpopulated herds; increased gathers and increased capacity for off-range holding facilities and pas- tures; more effective use of fertility control efforts; and improved research, in concert with the academic and veterinary communities, to identify more effective — 529 — Department of the Interior contraceptive techniques and strategies. All of that will not be enough to solve the problem, however. Congress must enact laws permitting the BLM to dispose humanely of these animals. IMMEDIATE ACTIONS REGARDING ALASKA Alaska is a special case and deserves immediate action.47 When Alaska was admitted to the Union in 1959, nearly its entire landmass was federally owned; therefore, Alaska was granted the right to select 104 million acres (out of 375 million acres) to manage for the benefit of its residents.48 In less than eight years, Alaska selected 26 million acres. Then-Interior Secretary Stewart Udall—who served during the Kennedy and Johnson Administrations—put a freeze on further land selections to protect any claims that might be asserted by Native Alaskans.49 Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act. The discovery of oil at Prudhoe Bay in 1968 made resolution of the issue by Congress a matter of urgency. As a result, in 1971, Congress passed the Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act (ANCSA), which allowed the Native community to select 44 million acres.50 Environmentalists, upset that too much of the land they coveted would be selected by the state and Native Alaskans for development, demanded the inclusion in the act of a provision—Section 17(d)(2)—that ordered the Interior Secretary to withdraw 80 million acres for future designation by Congress as parks, refuges, wild and scenic rivers, and national forests.51 The deadline for this congressional action was 1978, and as it neared, the Carter Administration, impatient and worried, decided to force Congress’s hand. The Administration unilaterally withdrew 100 million acres from any use by the state or Native Alaskans.52 Alaska promptly sued, charging that the Administration had failed to comply with the National Environmental Policy Act.53 In a lame duck session at the end of 1980, Congress passed (over the objec- tions of the Alaskan delegation) the Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act, which revoked all of the withdrawals of the Carter Administration and sub- stituted congressional designations that put 100 million acres permanently in federal enclaves, doubled the acreage of national parks and refuges, and tripled the amount of land declared to be wilderness.54 Through all of this, Alaska pressed for the DOI to convey the lands to which Alaska was entitled by federal law, but the department grudgingly transferred only portions of that land. By the time Ronald Reagan took office, Alaska had received less than half the lands to which it was entitled after its admission into the Union, and Native Alas- kans had received only one-third of the land due to them.55 From January of 1981 through 1983, however, under Reagan, Alaska received 30 million acres and a com- mitment of land transfers at the rate of 13 million acres annually. In the same period, Native Alaskans received 11 million acres, which constituted nearly 60 percent of their entitlement, and an additional 15 million acres were transferred by the end of 1988.56

Department of the Interior

Weak
Vector: 57%
Pages: 572-574AI Enhanced

AI Analysis:

"The bill focuses on amending the Migratory Bird Treaty Act to allow livestock producers to take black vultures threatening livestock, which is unrelated to the Project 2025 policy's emphasis on streamlining federal onshore oil and gas leasing, expediting permitting, and energy independence initiatives. There is no direct thematic or policy overlap between wildlife management for agricultural protection and the Department of the Interior's energy leasing and permitting reforms outlined in the cit"

Key themes:Department of the Interiorfederal land managementregulatory reform

— 540 — Mandate for Leadership: The Conservative Promise 24. U.S. Department of the Interior, “Order No. 3354: Supporting and Improving the Federal Onshore Oil and Gas Leasing Program and Federal Solid Mineral Leasing Program, July 6, 2017, https://www.doi.gov/sites/doi.gov/ files/uploads/so_-_3354_signed.pdf (accessed March 16, 2023). 25. U.S. Department of the Interior, “Order No. 3355: Streamlining National Environmental Policy Reviews and Implementation of Executive Order 13807, “Establishing Discipline and Accountability in the Environmental Review and Permitting Process for Infrastructure Projects,” August 31, 2017, https://www.doi.gov/sites/doi.gov/ files/elips/documents/3355_-_streamlining_national_environmental_policy_reviews_and_implementation_ of_executive_order_13807_establishing_discipline_and_accountability_in_the_environmental_review_ and_permitting_process_for.pdf (accessed March 16, 2023). 26. U.S. Department of the Interior, “Order No. 3358: Executive Committee for Expedited Permitting,” October 25, 2017, https://www.doi.gov/sites/doi.gov/files/elips/documents/so_3358_executive_committee_for_ expedited_permitting_0.pdf (accessed March 16, 2023). 27. U.S. Department of the Interior, “Order No. 3360: Rescinding Authorities Inconsistent with Secretary’s Order 3349, “American Energy Independence,” December 22, 2017, https://www.doi.gov/sites/doi.gov/files/elips/ documents/3360_-_rescinding_authorities_inconsistent_with_secretarys_order_3349_american_energy_ independence.pdf (accessed March 16, 2023). 28. U.S. Department of the Interior, “Order No. 3380: Public Notice of the Costs Associated with Developing Department of the Interior Publications and Similar Documents,” March 10, 2020, https://www.doi.gov/sites/ doi.gov/files/elips/documents/so-3398-508_0.pdf (accessed March 16, 2023). 29. U.S. Department of the Interior, “Order No. 3385: Enforcement Priorities,” September 14, 2020, https:// www.doi.gov/sites/doi.gov/files/elips/documents/signed-so-3385-enforcement-priorities.pdf (accessed March 16, 2023). 30. U.S. Department of the Interior, “Order 3389: Coordinating and Clarifying National Historic Preservation Act Section 106 Reviews,” September 14, 2020, https://www.doi.gov/sites/doi.gov/files/elips/documents/signed- so-3385-enforcement-priorities.pdf (accessed March 16, 2023). 31. Bureau of Land Management, “Updating Oil and Gas Leasing Reform: Land Use Planning and Lease Parcel Reviews,” IM 2018–034, January 31, 2018, https://www.blm.gov/policy/im-2018-034 (accessed March 16, 2023). 32. Lease Now Act, S. 4228, 117th Cong., 2nd Sess. (2022). 33. ONSHORE Act, S. 218, 116th Cong., 2nd Sess. (2019). https://www.congress.gov/bill/116th-congress/senate- bill/218/text (accessed March 18, 2023). 34. Federal Register, Vol. 87, No. 130 (July 8, 2022), pp. 40859–40863. 35. The Biden Administration’s 2023–2028 proposed program is fatally flawed. Katie Tubb, “Comment for the 2023–2028 National OCS Oil and Gas Leasing Proposed Program,” BOEM–2022–0031, October 6, 2022, http:// thf_media.s3.amazonaws.com/2022/Regulatory_Comments/BOEM%202023-2028%20lease%20plan%20 comment%20KTubb.pdf (accessed March 16, 2023). 36. See Inflation Reduction Act of 2022, Public Law No. 117–169, §§ 50261–50263. 37. Tax Cuts and Jobs Act of 2017, Public Law No. 115–97, § 20001, and U.S. Department of the Interior, “Order No. 3401: Comprehensive Analysis and Temporary Halt on All Activities in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge Relating to the Coastal Plain Oil and Gas Leasing Program,” June 1, 2021, https://www.doi.gov/sites/doi.gov/files/elips/ documents/so-3401-comprehensive-analysis-and-temporary-halt-on-all-activitives-in-the-arctic-national- wildlife-refuge-relating-to-the-coastal-plain-oil-and-gas-leasing-program.pdf (accessed March 16, 2023). 38. In 2016, Interior Secretary Sally Jewell instituted a moratorium on new coal leases while conducting a programmatic environmental impact statement under NEPA to address concerns about competition and inconsistency with the Obama Administration’s climate policy. In 2017, Interior Secretary Ryan Zinke lifted the moratorium and ended development of a programmatic environmental impact statement. In April 2021, Interior Secretary Debra Haaland rescinded Zinke’s order and initiated a new review of the coal-leasing program. See U.S. Department of the Interior, “Order No. 3338: Discretionary Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement to Modernize the Federal Coal Program,” January 15, 2016, https://www.doi.gov/sites/doi. gov/files/elips/documents/archived-3338_-discretionary_programmatic_environmental_impact_statement_ to_modernize_the_federal_coal_program.pdf (accessed March 16, 2023); U.S. Department of the Interior, “Order No. 3348”; U.S. Department of the Interior, “Order No. 3398”; and Federal Register, Vol. 86, No. 159 (August 20, 2021), pp. 46873–46877. — 541 — Department of the Interior 39. Katie Tubb, “No More Standoffs: Protecting Federal Employees and Ending the Culture of Anti-Government Attacks and Abuse,” testimony before the Subcommittee on National Parks, Forests, and Public Lands, Committee on Natural Resources, U.S. House of Representatives, pp. 2–4, October 22, 2019, https://congress. gov/116/meeting/house/110104/witnesses/HHRG-116-II10-Wstate-TubbK-20191022.pdf (accessed March 16, 2023). 40. News release, “Secretary Haaland Announces Steps to Establish Protections for Culturally Significant Chaco Canyon Landscape,” U.S. Department of the Interior, November 15, 2021, https://www.doi.gov/pressreleases/ secretary-haaland-announces-steps-establish-protections-culturally-significant-chaco (accessed March 16, 2023); News release, “Biden–Harris Administration Proposes Protections for Thompson Divide,” U.S. Department of the Interior, October 12, 2022, https://www.doi.gov/pressreleases/biden-harris-administration- proposes-protections-thompson-divide (accessed March 16, 2023); News release, “Biden Administration Takes Action to Complete Study of Boundary Waters Area Watershed,” U.S. Department of the Interior, October 20, 2021, https://www.doi.gov/pressreleases/biden-administration-takes-action-complete-study-boundary- waters-area-watershed (accessed March 16, 2023); and News release, “Interior Department Takes Action on Mineral Leases Improperly Renewed in the Watershed of the Boundary Waters Wilderness,” U.S. Department of the Interior, January 26, 2022, https://www.doi.gov/pressreleases/interior-department-takes-action- mineral-leases-improperly-renewed-watershed-boundary (accessed March 16, 2023). 41. Endangered Species Act, Public Law 91–135, § 4(b)(2), and Federal Register, Vol. 85, No. 244 (December 18, 2020), pp. 82376–82389. 42. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, “Governing the Take of Migratory Birds Under the Migratory Bird Treaty Act.” https://www.fws.gov/regulations/mbta (accessed March 16, 2023). 43. Dino Grandoni and Anna Phillips, “Biden Restores Climate Safeguards in Key Environmental Law, Reversing Trump,” Washington Post, April 19, 2022, https://www.washingtonpost.com/climate- environment/2022/04/19/biden-nepa-climate-trump/ (accessed March 16, 2023). 44. Donald Trump, “Executive Order on Creating Schedule F in the Accepted Service,” Executive Order 13957, October 21, 2020, https://trumpwhitehouse.archives.gov/presidential-actions/executive-order-creating- schedule-f-excepted-service/ (accessed March 16, 2023). 45. Kathleen Masterson, “Nevada Wild Horse Population Skyrockets To New High,” KUNR Public Radio, July 22, 2019, https://www.kunr.org/energy-and-environment/2019-07-22/nevada-wild-horse-population-skyrockets- to-new-high (accessed March 20, 2023). 46. U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, “Report to Congress: An Analysis of Achieving a Sustainable Horse and Burro Program,” Fact sheet, May 8, 2020, https://www.blm.gov/sites/blm.gov/files/ Final%20Fact%20Sheet%20WHB%20Report%20To%20Congress.pdf (accessed March 17, 2023). 47. Pendley, Sagebrush Rebel, pp. 45–47. 48. James D. Linxwiler, The Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act At 35: Delivering on the Promise, Rocky Mountain Mineral Law Institute, Vol. 53, Chap. 12 (2007), § 12.03(1)(a)(iv), https://www.guessrudd.com/wp-content/ uploads/sites/1600422/2020/05/The-Alaska-Native-Claims-Settlement-Act-at-35.pdf (accessed March 16, 2023). 49. Ibid., § 12.03(1)(a)(vii). See generally Richard S. Jones, Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act of 1971 (Public Law 92–203): History And Analysis Together With Subsequent Amendments, Report No. 81–127 GOV, June 1, 1981, http://www.alaskool.org/PROJECTS/ANCSA/reports/rsjones1981/ANCSA_History71.htm (accessed March 16, 2023). 50. 43 U.S. Code, Ch. 33. ANCSA also created 12 Native-owned regional corporations and authorized $962 million in “seed money.” Linxwiler, The Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act At 35, § 12.03(2)(e). 51. ANCSA provided that the withdrawal of the lands would expire in 1978 if Congress had not designated the lands as federal enclaves. John K. Norman Cole and Steven W. Silver, Alaska’s D-2 Lands, Rocky Mountain Mineral Law Institute, Vol. 6B, Ch. 5, September 1978, and Raymond A. Peck, Jr., And Then There Were None: Evolving Federal Restraints on the Availability of Public Lands for Mineral Development, Rocky Mountain Mineral Law Institute, Vol. 25, Ch. 3, 1979. 52. Andrus used purported authority under the FLPMA to withdraw 40 million acres, and Carter used purported authority under the Antiquities Act of to withdraw 56 million acres. James D. Linxwiler, The Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act: The First Twenty Years, Rocky Mountain Mineral Law Institute, Vol. 38 Ch. 2, 1992 at 2.04(8)(c), https://ancsa.lbblawyers.com/wp-content/uploads/ANCSA-Paper-with-Table-of-Contents-1992.pdf (accessed March 16, 2023).

Showing 3 of 5 policy matches

About These Correlations

Policy matches are calculated using a hybrid approach: initial candidates are found using semantic similarity between bill summaries and Project 2025 policy text, then an AI model (Llama 3.1 70B) provides detailed alignment ratings and analysis. Ratings range from 1 (minimal alignment) to 5 (very strong alignment). This analysis does not imply direct causation or intent.

Full Policy Text

Related Bills