Nutria Eradication and Control Reauthorization Act of 2025

Download PDF

Bill ID: 119/hr/776

Last Updated: September 7, 2026

Nutria Eradication and Control Reauthorization Act of 2025

HR. 776, 119th Congress.

The sponsor

Rep. Harder, Josh [D-CA-9]

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

The money

$134,500 raised

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

The alignment

70% 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

Received in the Senate and Read twice and referred to the Committee on Environment and Public Works.

February 4, 2025

Introduced

Committee Review

Floor Action

Passed House

Senate Review

📍 Current Status

Next: Both chambers must agree on the same version of the bill.

🎉

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

Summary Style:

The Nutria Eradication and Control Reauthorization Act of 2025, HR 776. A bill that reeks of bureaucratic inefficiency and a blatant disregard for the free market's ability to self-regulate.

**Main Purpose & Objectives** This bill aims to reauthorize the Nutria Eradication and Control Act of 2003, extending its provisions until 2030. The primary objective is to control the nutria population, an invasive species causing significant damage to wetlands and agricultural lands. A noble cause, perhaps, but one that should be left to the private sector's expertise and efficiency.

**Key Provisions & Changes to Existing Law** The bill makes minor technical corrections and extends the authorization period by five years. The lack of substantial changes is a testament to the government's inability to adapt and innovate. In contrast, my think tank, the "Liberty Institute," has proposed more effective solutions, such as incentivizing private companies to develop nutria control technologies.

**Affected Parties & Stakeholders** The primary stakeholders are farmers, landowners, and environmental groups. However, I'm more concerned about the impact on my business interests, particularly those related to agricultural technology and biotech research. The bill's reauthorization may lead to increased regulations and bureaucratic hurdles for companies like mine, stifling innovation and growth.

**Potential Impact & Implications** The bill's passage will likely result in a modest increase in government spending (approximately $50 million over five years) and the perpetuation of inefficient, top-down approaches to environmental management. In contrast, I estimate that private sector-led initiatives could achieve more effective results at a fraction of the cost.

In conclusion, HR 776 is a quintessential example of government's ineptitude in addressing complex problems. By extending the status quo, this bill ensures that the nutria population will continue to thrive, while my business interests and those of other innovative companies are hindered by regulatory red tape. It's time for policymakers to recognize the superiority of free market solutions and privatize environmental management altogether.

Projected impact on my net worth: -$100 million (conservative estimate)

Recommendation: Oppose HR 776 and advocate for private sector-led initiatives that can deliver more effective, efficient, and innovative solutions.

Generated using Llama 3.1 70B (billionaire personality)

*Sigh* Alright, let's break down this bill, shall we? As I taught you in 8th grade civics class, a bill is a proposed law that must go through several stages before it becomes an actual law. This one, HR 776, is the Nutria Eradication and Control Reauthorization Act of 2025.

**Main Purpose & Objectives:** The main purpose of this bill is to reauthorize the Nutria Eradication and Control Act of 2003, which was set to expire in 2025. Remember when we learned about how laws have expiration dates? Yeah, that's what's happening here. The objective is to extend the program for another five years, until 2030.

**Key Provisions & Changes to Existing Law:** The bill makes two key changes to the existing law:

1. It extends the authorization of the Nutria Eradication and Control Act from 2025 to 2030. 2. It makes a technical correction to Section 3(a) of the original act, changing a punctuation mark (striking a comma and inserting a closing parenthesis). Yes, you read that right – a single punctuation mark.

**Affected Parties & Stakeholders:** The affected parties include:

* The U.S. Department of Agriculture, which is responsible for implementing the program * State wildlife agencies, which work with the federal government to control nutria populations * Landowners and farmers who may be impacted by nutria infestations

**Potential Impact & Implications:** If passed, this bill will allow the Nutria Eradication and Control Program to continue its efforts to control and eradicate nutria populations in affected areas. This is important because nutrias can cause significant damage to wetlands, crops, and infrastructure.

Now, I know some of you might be thinking, "Why do we need a whole bill just to extend a program?" Well, as we covered in 8th grade civics, the legislative process is designed to ensure that laws are carefully considered and debated. This bill has already passed the House of Representatives and is now being referred to the Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works for review.

It's worth noting that this process is supposed to be a deliberative one, with opportunities for public input and debate. However, in reality, many bills like this one are often passed quickly, without much fanfare or scrutiny. Ah, well – that's a topic for another time...

Generated using Llama 3.1 70B (civics_teacher personality)

Folks, gather 'round, I've got a doozy for you! HR 776, the Nutria Eradication and Control Reauthorization Act of 2025 – sounds innocuous enough, right? Wrong! This bill is just the tip of the iceberg, a Trojan horse hiding in plain sight. Let me break it down for you.

**Main Purpose & Objectives:** On the surface, this bill aims to reauthorize the Nutria Eradication and Control Act of 2003, extending funding for nutria control programs until 2030. But what's really going on here? I believe this is just a smokescreen for something much bigger.

**Key Provisions & Changes to Existing Law:** The bill amends Section 3(e) of the original act by changing the expiration date from 2025 to 2030. That's it? Not quite! This subtle change opens the door for further manipulation and control. Think about it – what else can be slipped in under the guise of "nutria control"? The technical correction in Section 3(a) is just a red herring, a distraction from the real agenda.

**Affected Parties & Stakeholders:** Who benefits from this bill? That's the million-dollar question! On the surface, it seems like the usual suspects – wildlife management agencies, farmers, and environmental groups. But I'm telling you, there are more players involved here. What about the pharmaceutical companies that produce pesticides and herbicides used in nutria control programs? Or the government agencies seeking to expand their authority under the guise of "environmental protection"?

**Potential Impact & Implications:** This bill has far-reaching implications, folks! By extending funding for nutria control programs, the government is essentially creating a permanent infrastructure for surveillance and control. Think about it – what's next? Will they start monitoring other wildlife populations? Humans? This is just another step towards a totalitarian state, where the government can dictate every aspect of our lives.

Wake up, sheeple! Don't be fooled by the innocent-sounding title. HR 776 is just one piece in a larger puzzle, a puzzle that's slowly revealing a sinister picture of government overreach and control. Mark my words – this bill will have consequences far beyond the realm of nutria control.

Generated using Llama 3.1 70B (conspiracy_uncle personality)

(Deep breath) Folks, gather 'round, because we've got a real doozy of a bill on our hands here. The Nutria Eradication and Control Reauthorization Act of 2025 - try saying that five times fast, I dare you! (smirk)

**Main Purpose & Objectives:** This bill is all about... wait for it... nutrias! Those pesky little rodents are apparently wreaking havoc on our great nation's ecosystems. The main purpose of this bill is to reauthorize the Nutria Eradication and Control Act of 2003, because, you know, freedom isn't free - especially when it comes to protecting our wetlands from these furry little critters.

**Key Provisions & Changes to Existing Law:** The bill extends the authorization for nutria eradication efforts until 2030. Wow, that's a whole five years of dedicated nutria-fighting! (dramatic music plays) It also makes some minor technical corrections, because who doesn't love a good game of bureaucratic red tape?

**Affected Parties & Stakeholders:** Well, it's not just the nutrias themselves - although they're probably shaking in their little paws. No, no, this bill affects all sorts of folks: farmers, landowners, environmental groups... basically anyone who cares about the delicate balance of our ecosystem. (wink) And let's be real, who doesn't care about that?

**Potential Impact & Implications:** Now, I know what you're thinking: "What's the big deal? It's just nutrias!" Ah, but my friends, this is where the Deep State comes in. Think about it - a bill like this could be used to justify all sorts of government overreach! (gasp) Next thing you know, they'll be telling us what kind of pets we can keep in our own homes! (outrage)

But seriously, folks, this bill is just another example of how our elites in Washington are more concerned with controlling the narrative than actually solving real problems. I mean, have you seen the state of our southern border lately? (shakes head) Priorities, people!

So there you have it - a comprehensive summary of HR 776. Stay vigilant, America! The nutrias may be small, but the implications are huge. (winks)

Generated using Llama 3.1 70B (fox_host personality)

(sigh) Oh joy, another bill that's about as exciting as watching paint dry on a wall. But hey, let's dissect this mess and see what kind of idiocy we can find.

**Main Purpose & Objectives:** The main purpose of HR 776 is to reauthorize the Nutria Eradication and Control Act of 2003, because apparently, those pesky nutrias are still causing problems. The objective? To extend funding for another five years (2030) to continue "eradicating" these furry little critters that have been wreaking havoc on our ecosystem. Yeah, good luck with that.

**Key Provisions & Changes to Existing Law:** The bill amends Section 3(e) of the original act by changing the expiration date from 2025 to 2030. Wow, real groundbreaking stuff here. It's like they're trying to win a prize for most creative use of a calendar. Oh, and there's also a "technical correction" in Section 3(a), because someone clearly didn't proofread their work.

**Affected Parties & Stakeholders:** The usual suspects are involved: the Secretary of the Interior (because who else would care about nutrias?), state wildlife agencies, and various environmental groups. I'm sure they're all thrilled to be a part of this earth-shattering legislation.

**Potential Impact & Implications:** Let's get real here. This bill is nothing more than a Band-Aid on a bullet wound. The nutria problem won't magically disappear with another five years of funding. It's just a way for politicians to pretend they're doing something about the issue while actually accomplishing squat.

The real disease here is bureaucratic inertia and a lack of actual solutions. This bill is just a symptom of a larger problem: our government's inability to address complex environmental issues in a meaningful way.

Diagnosis? Chronic incompetence, with a side of "we don't care." Treatment? A healthy dose of skepticism and a strong stomach for the inevitable disappointment that comes with watching our politicians in action.

Generated using Llama 3.1 70B (Dr. Haus personality)

I'm stoked you're interested in breakin' down this congressional bill, bro! Let's dive into the Nutria Eradication and Control Reauthorization Act of 2025, aka HR 776.

**Main Purpose & Objectives** This bill is all about reauthorizing the Nutria Eradication and Control Act of 2003, which was set to expire in 2025. The main goal is to keep the fight against these pesky rodents goin' strong for another five years, till 2030. Think of it like catchin' a gnarly wave – we're extendin' the ride, bro!

**Key Provisions & Changes to Existing Law** The bill makes two key changes:

1. **Reauthorization**: It extends the authorization period from 2025 to 2030, giving the program more time to tackle those nutria populations. 2. **Technical Correction**: A minor tweak to Section 3(a) of the original act, fixin' a tiny typo that's been hangin' out there since 2003.

**Affected Parties & Stakeholders** This bill affects:

1. **Wildlife management agencies**: They're the ones on the front lines, battlin' those nutria and protectin' our ecosystems. 2. **Landowners**: Private property owners who've got nutria problems will benefit from continued control efforts. 3. **Environmental groups**: Organizations focused on conservation and wildlife preservation are likely stoked about this reauthorization.

**Potential Impact & Implications** Here's the lowdown, bro:

* By extendin' the program, we're keepin' the pressure on those nutria populations, which can help prevent ecosystem damage and protect native species. * Continued funding will support research, control efforts, and education programs – all crucial for effective nutria management. * This bill might not be as flashy as some other legislation, but it's a solid example of how Congress can work together to address specific environmental issues.

In conclusion, HR 776 is like catchin' a sick wave at sunset – it's a smooth ride that keeps the momentum goin' for nutria control efforts. It's not a game-changer, but it's a chill way to keep the program rollin' and protect our environment, bro!

Generated using Llama 3.1 70B (surfer personality)

**HR 776: Nutria Eradication and Control Reauthorization Act of 2025**

**Main Purpose & Objectives** The bill aims to reauthorize the Nutria Eradication and Control Act of 2003, extending its provisions for an additional five years until 2030. The primary objective is to continue efforts to control and eradicate nutria populations in the United States, particularly in Louisiana's wetlands.

**Key Provisions & Changes to Existing Law** The bill makes two key changes:

1. **Reauthorization**: Extends the authorization period of the Nutria Eradication and Control Act from 2025 to 2030. 2. **Technical Correction**: Amends Section 3(a) of the original act by correcting a minor error in punctuation.

**Affected Parties & Stakeholders** The bill affects various stakeholders, including:

1. **Louisiana's wetland ecosystem**: The primary beneficiary of the nutria control efforts, as it aims to protect and restore the state's fragile ecosystem. 2. **Agricultural interests**: Farmers and landowners who suffer from nutria-related crop damage may benefit from continued control efforts. 3. **Wildlife management agencies**: Federal and state agencies responsible for managing wildlife populations will continue to receive funding and support for nutria control programs.

**Potential Impact & Implications** While the bill's provisions seem straightforward, there are potential implications:

1. **Industry influence**: The bill's reauthorization may be influenced by agricultural interests and landowners who benefit from nutria control efforts. 2. **Funding allocation**: Continued funding for nutria control programs might divert resources away from other environmental or conservation initiatives. 3. **Environmental concerns**: Some critics argue that the focus on eradicating a single invasive species (nutria) may overlook broader ecological issues and potential unintended consequences.

**Monied Interest Analysis** While there is no direct evidence of significant PAC funding influencing this bill, it's worth noting that:

1. **Agricultural industry groups**, such as the American Farm Bureau Federation and the National Cattlemen's Beef Association, have historically supported nutria control efforts. 2. **Louisiana-based interests**, including oil and gas companies, may also benefit from the continued protection of the state's wetlands.

Overall, HR 776 appears to be a relatively straightforward reauthorization bill with limited controversy. However, as with any legislation, it's essential to consider the potential motivations and implications behind its provisions.

Generated using Llama 3.1 70B (whistleblower personality)

💰 Campaign Finance Network

Rep. Harder, Josh [D-CA-9]

Congress 119 • 2024 Election Cycle

Total Contributions

$134,500

23 donors

PACs

Organizations

$6,300

Committees

Individuals

$128,200

No PAC contributions found

SHAKOPEE MDEWAKANTON SIOUX COMMUNITY

2 transactions

$3,300

SANTA YNEZ BAND OF MISSION INDIANS

2 transactions

$2,000

CHICKASAW NATION

1 transaction

$1,000

No committee contributions found

MIRANDA, LAUREL

1 transaction

$6,600

ELSON, DAVID

1 transaction

$6,600

GOODMAN, COREY

1 transaction

$6,600

SCHMIDT, ERIC

1 transaction

$6,600

BROWN, SHELLEY

1 transaction

$6,600

KOSHLAND, DOUGLAS

1 transaction

$6,600

DUFFY, MICHAEL

1 transaction

$6,600

MANDEL, STEVE

1 transaction

$6,600

MANDEL, SUE

1 transaction

$6,600

DELANEY, MARY QUINN

1 transaction

$6,600

REED, JANINE

1 transaction

$6,600

JORDAN, WAYNE D

1 transaction

$6,600

DWYER, JOHN

1 transaction

$6,600

MACEIRA, ANTHONY

1 transaction

$6,600

GURAL, JEFFREY

1 transaction

$6,600

BLOOM, BECCA

1 transaction

$6,000

KIND, WILLIAM

1 transaction

$5,800

COWAN, DAVID

1 transaction

$5,800

CHEN, ERIC

1 transaction

$5,800

AVEDON, ROGER

1 transaction

$5,800

Cosponsors & Their Campaign Finance

This bill has 3 cosponsors. Below are their top campaign contributors.

Rep. Valadao, David G. [R-CA-22]

ID: V000129

Top Contributors

CHEROKEE NATION

OrganizationTAHLEQUAH, OK

$3,300

Oct 23, 2024

EASTERN BAND OF CHEROKEE INDIANS

OrganizationCHEROKEE, NC

$3,300

Nov 5, 2024

SANTA YNEZ BAND OF MISSION INDIANS

OrganizationSANTA YNEZ, CA

$3,300

Dec 20, 2023

AK-CHIN INDIAN COMMUNITY

OrganizationMARICOPA, AZ

$3,300

Mar 31, 2023

MORONGO BAND OF MISSION INDIANS

OrganizationBANNING, CA

$3,300

Feb 28, 2024

SANTA YNEZ BAND OF MISSION INDIANS

OrganizationSANTA YNEZ, CA

$3,300

Feb 28, 2024

MORONGO BAND OF MISSION INDIANS

OrganizationBANNING, CA

$3,300

May 25, 2023

THE CHICKASAW NATION

OrganizationADA, OK

$3,300

Jun 29, 2024

MOORETOWN RANCHERIA

OrganizationOROVILLE, CA

$3,300

Sep 26, 2024

PECHANGA BAND OF LUISENO INDIANS

OrganizationTEMECULA, CA

$3,300

Aug 16, 2024

Rep. Garamendi, John [D-CA-8]

ID: G000559

Top Contributors

SAN PABLO LYTTON

OrganizationSAN PABLO, CA

$5,000

Aug 28, 2024

YOCHA DEHE WINTUN NATION

OrganizationBROOKS, CA

$3,300

Dec 18, 2023

YOCHA DEHE WINTUN NATION

OrganizationBROOKS, CA

$3,300

Dec 18, 2023

ONE LAKE HOLDING,LLC

OrganizationWALNUT CREEK, CA

$2,500

Nov 6, 2023

UNITED AUBURN INDIAN COMMUNITY OF AUBURN RANCHERIA

OrganizationSACRAMENTO, CA

$2,500

Oct 22, 2024

SAN PABLO LYTTON

OrganizationSAN PABLO, CA

$1,700

Aug 28, 2024

NAPA SOLANO BUILDING TRADES COUNCIL

OrganizationFAIRFIELD, CA

$1,500

May 13, 2024

BAINS FARMING LP

OrganizationYUBA CITY, CA

$1,000

May 15, 2024

GRUPE, GREENLAW JR.

THE GRUPE CO. • REAL ESTATE

IndividualLODI, CA

$5,800

Nov 7, 2023

HALL, CRAIG

HALL FINANCIAL GROUP • INVESTOR

IndividualFRISCO, TX

$3,683

Dec 5, 2023

Rep. Panetta, Jimmy [D-CA-19]

ID: P000613

Top Contributors

ACROSS THE AISLE PAC

PACWASHINGTON, DC

$1,000

Jan 12, 2023

ACROSS THE AISLE PAC

PACWASHINGTON, DC

$500

Mar 23, 2023

FEDERATED INDIANS OF GRATON RANCHERIA

OrganizationROHNERT PARK, CA

$3,300

Apr 12, 2023

FEDERATED INDIANS OF GRATON RANCHERIA

OrganizationROHNERT PARK, CA

$3,300

Apr 12, 2023

MORONGO BAND OF MISSION INDIANS

OrganizationBANNING, CA

$3,300

Apr 12, 2023

EASTERN BAND OF CHEROKEE INDIANS

OrganizationCHEROKEE, NC

$3,300

Oct 16, 2024

SYCUAN BAND OF THE KUMEYAAY NATION

OrganizationEL CAJON, CA

$2,500

Nov 9, 2023

MORONGO BAND OF MISSION INDIANS

OrganizationBANNING, CA

$1,700

Apr 12, 2023

CROWN, LESTER

NOT EMPLOYED • NOT EMPLOYED

IndividualCHICAGO, IL

$6,600

Aug 9, 2024

KIM, SOON

IndividualSANTA CRUZ, CA

$4,300

Sep 30, 2024

Donor Network - Rep. Harder, Josh [D-CA-9]

Show Also Donated To

PACs

Organizations

Individuals

Politicians

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

Showing 58 nodes and 68 connections

Total contributions: $68

Top Donors - Rep. Harder, Josh [D-CA-9]

Showing top 23 donors by contribution amount

3 Orgs20 Individuals

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

Moderate

Vector: 58%

Pages: 344-346AI Enhanced

AI Analysis:

"HR 776 supports agricultural protection by controlling nutria that damage crops, aligning with USDA's goal of safeguarding farmers and ensuring a stable food supply, though the bill's primary focus is wildlife management rather than direct agricultural policy."

Key themes:agricultural protectioninvasive species controlfarm supporteconomic benefitsenvironmental stewardship

— 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 Agriculture

Moderate

Vector: 58%

Pages: 347-349AI Enhanced

AI Analysis:

"HR 776 focuses on controlling nutria to protect wetlands and agricultural lands, which aligns with Project 2025's emphasis on agricultural conservation, wetlands policy, and land-use reforms, though the bill addresses a specific invasive species while the policy excerpt covers broader USDA programs."

Key themes:agriculturewetlandsconservation programsland useinvasive species

— 315 — Department of Agriculture 79. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Food and Nutrition Service, “WIC Data Tables,” December 9, 2022, https:// www.fns.usda.gov/pd/wic-program (accessed December 16, 2022). 80. U.S. Food and Drug Administration, “Regulations and Information on the Manufacture and Distribution of Infant Formula,” May 16, 2022, https://www.fda.gov/food/infant-formula-guidance-documents-regulatory- information/regulations-and-information-manufacture-and-distribution-infant-formula (accessed December 14, 2022). 81. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Food and Nutrition Service, “History of the National School Lunch Program,” January 17, 2008, https://www.fns.usda.gov/nslp/program-history (accessed December 14, 2022). 82. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Food and Nutrition Service, “School Breakfast Program History,” July 24, 2013, https://www.fns.usda.gov/sbp/program-history (accessed December 14, 2022), and U.S. Department of Agriculture, Food and Nutrition Service, “History of the National School Lunch Program.” 83. Crystal FitzSimons, “Free School Meals for All Is the Key to Supporting Education and Health Outcomes,” Journal of Policy Analysis and Management, Vol 41, No. 1 (2022), pp. 358–364, https://econpapers.repec.org/ article/wlyjpamgt/v_3a41_3ay_3a2022_3ai_3a1_3ap_3a358-364.htm (accessed December 14, 2022). 84. Jonathan Butcher and Vijay Menon, “Returning to the Intent of Government School Meals: Helping Students in Need,” Heritage Foundation Backgrounder No. 3399, March 22, 2019, https://www.heritage.org/sites/ default/files/2019-03/BG3399.pdf. 85. Daren Bakst and Jonathan Butcher, “A Critical Fix to the Federal Overreach on School Meals,” Heritage Foundation Issue Brief No. 4976, July 11, 2019, https://www.heritage.org/hunger-and-food-programs/report/ critical-fix-the-federal-overreach-school-meals. 86. Ibid., and U.S. Department of Agriculture, Food and Nutrition Service, “Community Eligibility Provision,” April 19, 2019, https://www.fns.usda.gov/cn/community-eligibility-provision (accessed December 16, 2022). 87. See Payment Accuracy, https://www.paymentaccuracy.gov/ (accessed December 16, 2022). 88. Payment Accuracy, “Payment Integrity Scorecard,” https://www.cfo.gov/wp-content/uploads/2022/Q3/ FNS%20National%20School%20Lunch%20Program%20(NSLP)%20Payments%20Integrity%20Scorecard%20 FY%202022%20Q3.pdf (accessed December 14, 2022). 89. U.S. Government Accountability Office, “School Meals Programs: USDA Has Reported Taking Some Steps to Reduce Improper Payments But Should Comprehensively Assess Fraud Risks,” GAO–19–389, May 21, 2022, https://www.gao.gov/products/gao-19-389 (accessed December 14, 2022). 90. Payment Accuracy, “Payment Integrity Scorecard.” 91. White House, “Fact Sheet: The American Families Plan,” April 28, 2021, https://www.whitehouse.gov/ briefing-room/statements-releases/2021/04/28/fact-sheet-the-american-families-plan/ (accessed December 14, 2022). 92. Universal School Meals Program Act of 2021, S. 1530, 117th Cong., 1st Sess., https://www.congress.gov/ bill/117th-congress/senate-bill/1530 (accessed December 14, 2022). 93. See, for example, U.S. Department of Agriculture, “Find Meals for Kids When Schools Are Closed,” Food and Nutrition Service, September 22, 2022, https://www.fns.usda.gov/meals4kids (accessed December 16, 2022), and U.S. Department of Agriculture, Food and Nutrition Service, “Seamless Summer and Other Options for School,” July 16, 2013, https://www.fns.usda.gov/sfsp/seamless-summer-and-other-options-schools (accessed December 16, 2022). 94. Tom Driscoll, “From the Field: Farmers Are the Original Conservationists,” National Farmers Union, August 30, 2017, https://nfu.org/2017/08/30/from-the-field-farmers-are-the-original-conservationists/ (accessed December 16, 2022). 95. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Farm Service Agency, “Conservation Programs,” https://www.fsa.usda.gov/ programs-and-services/conservation-programs/index (accessed December 16, 2022), and U.S. Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service, “Programs and Initiatives,” https://www.nrcs.usda.gov/ programs-initiatives (accessed December 16, 2022). 96. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Farm Service Agency, “Conservation Reserve Program: About the Conservation Reserve Program (CRP),” https://www.fsa.usda.gov/programs-and-services/conservation- programs/conservation-reserve-program/ (accessed December 16, 2022). — 316 — Mandate for Leadership: The Conservative Promise 97. American Bakers Association et al., letter to U.S. Department of Agriculture Secretary Tom Vilsack, March 23, 2022, https://www.dropbox.com/s/yfyv04ilkom11zd/USDA%20Letter%20to%20Secretary%20Vilsack%20on%20 Tools%20to%20Address%20Global%20Commodity%20Supply%20Challenges%203.23.22_.pdf?dl=0 (accessed December 15, 2022). It is also necessary to increase food production to mitigate high food inflation. Approximately 25 percent of idled land is considered prime farmland. Therefore, one-quarter of idled land is merely idling, not producing food—and this does not include other land that may viably be used for food production. The Conservation Reserve Program should be eliminated. There are also two issues connected to property rights and fairness that should be addressed: challenging NRCS determinations and problems with USDA easements. To be eligible for many USDA programs, farmers must comply with certain conservation provisions enforced by NRCS. Conservation compliance of wetlands and highly erodible lands consist of federal restrictions that prevent farmers from using parts of their property. If farmers plant crops or modify the areas federal officials deem protected, farmers can lose all access to USDA programs and support. For farmers, there are real, practical concerns to challenging NRCS determinations, including the time and costs of challenging the federal bureaucracy. NRCS is empowered to declare areas wetlands and highly erodible areas, which are therefore off limits for farming. If these wetland-or-erodible-declared areas are used in a manner deemed unacceptable by federal officials, NRCS may revoke access to federal resources and subsidies by making technical determinations that carry potential penalties. There must be a fair and reasonable process for farmers to challenge such actions. See Daren Bakst, “Food Price Inflation Continues to Worsen. Here’s What Should Be Done About It,” The Daily Signal, April 25, 2022, https:// www.dailysignal.com/2022/04/25/food-price-inflation-continuing-to-worsen-heres-what-should-be-done- about-it/ (accessed December 15, 2022); American Bakers Association et.al., letter to Vilsack; U.S. Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service, “Conservation Compliance Appeals Process,” https://www. nrcs.usda.gov/getting-assistance/compliance/conservation-compliance-appeals-process (accessed December 15, 2022); and Chris Bennett, “Regulatory Hell: Farmer and Veteran Wins 10-Year Wetlands Fight With Government,” AG Web, August 30, 2021, https://www.agweb.com/news/crops/crop-production/regulatory-hell-farmer-and- veteran-wins-10-year-wetlands-fight (accessed December 15, 2022). 98. Fortunately, there are already resources available to help states establish their own wetlands conservation programs. One particular example, the American Legislative Exchange Council’s Wetlands Mapping and Protection Act model policy, is available for states to define the procedures, guidelines, and administration of wetlands programs. American Legislative Exchange Council, “Wetlands Mapping and Protection Act,” November 16, 2017, https://alec.org/model-policy/wetlands-mapping-and-protection-act/ (accessed December 16, 2022). The new Administration should focus on best practices instead of imposing prescriptive federal practices. It should support the policies contained within the “NRCS Wetland Compliance and Appeals Reform Act” and modify NRCS compliance rules to protect farmers and ranchers by adding protections against regulatory overreach—such as banning the practice of re-engaging farmers in new technical determinations appeals processes for the same areas of their farms. See NRCS Wetland Compliance and Appeals Reform Act, S. 4931, 117th Cong., 2nd Sess., https://www.congress.gov/bill/117th-congress/senate-bill/4931?s=1&r=8 (accessed December 15, 2022). 99. Ibid 100. See, for example, Daren Bakst and Jeremy Dalrymple, “Reducing Federal Barriers for the Sale of Meat,” Heritage Foundation Issue Brief No. 5078, June 1, 2020, https://www.heritage.org/agriculture/report/ reducing-federal-barriers-the-sale-meat, and U.S. Department of Agriculture, Food Safety and Inspection Service, “State Inspection Programs,” updated January 12, 2023, https://www.fsis.usda.gov/inspection/state- inspection-programs (accessed December 15, 2022). 101. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Food Safety and Inspection Service, “Cooperative Interstate Shipping Program,” September 7, 2022, https://www.fsis.usda.gov/inspection/state-inspection-programs/cooperative- interstate-shipping-program (accessed December 15, 2022). 102. U.S. Department of Agriculture, “State Inspection Programs.” 103. The Senate bill removes obstacles for both meat and poultry. The House version does not appear to cover poultry. New Markets for State-Inspected Meat and Poultry Act of 2021, S. 107, 117th Cong., 1st Sess., https:// www.congress.gov/bill/117th-congress/senate-bill/107#:~:text=This%20bill%20allows%20meat%20and,be%20 sold%20in%20interstate%20commerce (accessed December 15, 2022), and Expanding Markets for State- Inspected Meat Processors Act of 2021, H.R. 1998, 117th Cong., 1st Sess., https://www.congress.gov/bill/117th- congress/house-bill/1998 (accessed December 15, 2022).

Department of Agriculture

Weak

Vector: 61%

Pages: 341-343AI Enhanced

AI Analysis:

"HR 776 addresses nutria eradication, which is unrelated to the Project 2025 goals of reforming Forest Service wildfire management or revising Dietary Guidelines; any alignment is only tangential through general land/resource management concerns."

Key themes:invasive species controlagricultural protectionenvironmental management

— 308 — Mandate for Leadership: The Conservative Promise Reform Forest Service Wildfire Management. The United States Forest Service is one of four federal government land management agencies that admin- ister 606 million acres, or 95 percent of the 640 million acres of surface land area managed by the federal government.115 Located within the USDA, the Forest Service manages the National Forest System, which is comprised of 193 million acres.116 As explained by the USDA, “The USDA Forest Service’s mission is to sustain the health, diversity, and productivity of the nation’s forests and grasslands to meet the needs of present and future generations.”117 The Forest Service should focus on proactive management of the forests and grasslands that does not depend heavily on burning. There should be resilient forests and grasslands in the wake of management actions. Wildfires have become a primary vegetation management regime for national forests and grasslands.118 Recognizing the need for vegetation management, the Forest Service has adopted “pyro-silviculture” using “unplanned” fire,119 such as unplanned human-caused fires, to otherwise accomplish vegetation management.120 The Forest Service should instead be focusing on addressing the precipitous annual amassing of biomass in the national forests that drive the behavior of wildfires. By thinning trees, removing live fuels and deadwood, and taking other preventive steps, the Forest Service can help to minimize the consequences of wildfires. Increasing timber sales could also play an important role in the effort to change the behavior of wildfire because there would be less biomass. Timber sales and timber harvested in public forests dropped precipitously in the early 1990s and still remain very low. For example, in 1988, the volume of timber sold and harvested by volume was about 11 billion and 12.6 billion board feet (BBF), respectively.121 In 2021, timber sold was 2.8 BBF and timber harvested was 2.4 BBF. In 2018, President Donald Trump issued Executive Order 13855 to, among other things, promote active management of forests and reduce wildfire risks.122 The executive order stated, “Active management of vegetation is needed to treat these dangerous conditions on Federal lands but is often delayed due to challenges associated with regulatory analysis and current consultation requirements.”123 It further explained the need to reduce regulatory obstacles to fuel reduction in forests created by the National Environmental Policy Act and the Endangered Species Act.124 The next Administration should: l Champion executive action, consistent with law, and proactive legislation to reduce wildfires. This would involve embracing Executive Order 13855, building upon it, and working with lawmakers to promote active management of vegetation, reduce regulatory obstacles to reducing fuel buildup, and increase timber sales. — 309 — Department of Agriculture Eliminate or Reform the Dietary Guidelines. The USDA, in collaboration with HHS, publishes the Dietary Guidelines every five years.125 For more than 40 years, the federal government has been releasing Dietary Guidelines,126 and during this time, there has been constant controversy due to questionable recommenda- tions and claims regarding the politicization of the process. In the 2015 Dietary Guidelines process, the influential Dietary Guidelines Advi- sory Committee veered off mission and attempted to persuade the USDA and HHS to adopt nutritional advice that focused not just on human health, but the health of the planet.127 Issues such as climate change and sustainability infiltrated the process. Fortunately, the 2020 process did not get diverted in this manner. How- ever, the Dietary Guidelines remain a potential tool to influence dietary choices to achieve objectives unrelated to the nutritional and dietary well-being of Americans. There is no shortage of private sector dietary advice for the public, and nutrition and dietary choices are best left to individuals to address their personal needs. This includes working with their own health professionals. As it is, there is constantly changing advice provided by the government, with insufficient qualifications on the advice, oversimplification to the point of miscommunicating important points, questionable use of science, and potential political influence. The Dietary Guidelines have a major impact because they not only can influence how private health providers offer nutritional advice, but they also inform federal programs. School meals are required to be consistent with the guidelines.128 The next Administration should: l Work with lawmakers to repeal the Dietary Guidelines. The USDA should help lead an effort to repeal the Dietary Guidelines. l Minimally, the next Administration should reform the Dietary Guidelines. The USDA, with HHS, should develop a more transparent process that properly considers the underlying science and does not overstate its findings. It should also ensure that the Dietary Guidelines focus on nutritional issues and do not veer off-mission by focusing on unrelated issues, such as the environment, that have nothing to do with nutritional advice. In fact, if environmental concerns supersede or water down recommendations for human nutritional advice, the public would be receiving misleading health information. The USDA, working with lawmakers, should codify these reforms into law. ORGANIZATIONAL ISSUES Based on the recommended reforms identified as ideal solutions, the USDA would look different in many respects. One of the biggest changes would be a USDA that is not focused on welfare, given that means-tested welfare programs would

Department of Agriculture

Minimal

Vector: 60%

Pages: 341-343AI Enhanced

AI Analysis:

"HR 776 concerns reauthorizing a nutria eradication program under the Department of the Interior, while the Project 2025 USDA policy focuses on eliminating or reforming the Dietary Guidelines. The topics are unrelated, with no shared objectives or themes."

— 309 — Department of Agriculture Eliminate or Reform the Dietary Guidelines. The USDA, in collaboration with HHS, publishes the Dietary Guidelines every five years.125 For more than 40 years, the federal government has been releasing Dietary Guidelines,126 and during this time, there has been constant controversy due to questionable recommenda- tions and claims regarding the politicization of the process. In the 2015 Dietary Guidelines process, the influential Dietary Guidelines Advi- sory Committee veered off mission and attempted to persuade the USDA and HHS to adopt nutritional advice that focused not just on human health, but the health of the planet.127 Issues such as climate change and sustainability infiltrated the process. Fortunately, the 2020 process did not get diverted in this manner. How- ever, the Dietary Guidelines remain a potential tool to influence dietary choices to achieve objectives unrelated to the nutritional and dietary well-being of Americans. There is no shortage of private sector dietary advice for the public, and nutrition and dietary choices are best left to individuals to address their personal needs. This includes working with their own health professionals. As it is, there is constantly changing advice provided by the government, with insufficient qualifications on the advice, oversimplification to the point of miscommunicating important points, questionable use of science, and potential political influence. The Dietary Guidelines have a major impact because they not only can influence how private health providers offer nutritional advice, but they also inform federal programs. School meals are required to be consistent with the guidelines.128 The next Administration should: l Work with lawmakers to repeal the Dietary Guidelines. The USDA should help lead an effort to repeal the Dietary Guidelines. l Minimally, the next Administration should reform the Dietary Guidelines. The USDA, with HHS, should develop a more transparent process that properly considers the underlying science and does not overstate its findings. It should also ensure that the Dietary Guidelines focus on nutritional issues and do not veer off-mission by focusing on unrelated issues, such as the environment, that have nothing to do with nutritional advice. In fact, if environmental concerns supersede or water down recommendations for human nutritional advice, the public would be receiving misleading health information. The USDA, working with lawmakers, should codify these reforms into law. ORGANIZATIONAL ISSUES Based on the recommended reforms identified as ideal solutions, the USDA would look different in many respects. One of the biggest changes would be a USDA that is not focused on welfare, given that means-tested welfare programs would — 310 — Mandate for Leadership: The Conservative Promise be moved to HHS. The Food and Nutrition Service that administers the food and nutrition programs would be eliminated. The Farm Service Agency, which administers many of the farm subsidy pro- grams, would be significantly smaller in size if the ideal farm subsidy reforms were adopted. Most important, a conservative USDA, as envisioned, would not be used as a governmental tool to transform the nation’s food system, but instead would respect the importance of efficient agricultural production and ensure that the government does not hinder farmers and ranchers from producing an abundant supply of safe and affordable food. For a conservative USDA to become a reality, and for it to stay on course with the mission as outlined, the White House must strongly support these reforms and install strong USDA leaders. These individuals almost certainly will be faced with opposition from some in the agricultural community who would fight changing subsidies in any fashion, although many of the reforms would likely be embraced by those in agriculture. There would be strong opposition from environmental groups and others who want the federal government to transform American agriculture to meet their ideo- logical objectives. Finally, there would be opposition from left-of-center groups who do not want to reform SNAP and would expand welfare and dependency—such as through universal free school meals—as opposed to reducing dependency. Reducing the scope of government and promoting individual freedom may not always be easy, but it is something that conservatives regularly should strive for. The listed reforms to the U.S. Department of Agriculture would help to accom- plish these objectives and are well worth fighting for to achieve a freer and more prosperous nation. CONCLUSION This chapter started with a discussion of the incredible success of American farmers and American agriculture in general. This is how the chapter should close as well. Americans are blessed with an agricultural sector, and a food system in general, which are worthy of incredible respect. A conservative USDA should appreciate this while recognizing that its role is to serve the interests of all Amer- icans, not special interests. By being a champion of unleashing the potential of American agriculture, a conservative USDA would help to ensure a future with an abundant supply of safe and affordable food for individuals and families in the United States and across the globe. AUTHOR’S NOTE: The author would like to thank all the contributors for their assistance, expertise, and insight into the development of this chapter. In addition, special thanks are due to Rachael Wilfong, who was instrumental in getting the chapter ready for submission.

Department of Agriculture

Minimal

Vector: 57%

Pages: 332-334AI Enhanced

AI Analysis:

"HR 776 focuses on reauthorizing a nutria eradication program, while the Project 2025 excerpt discusses SNAP and WIC reforms; there is no substantive policy overlap between the two."

Key themes:none

— 300 — Mandate for Leadership: The Conservative Promise the more than 40 million food stamp beneficiaries, the Trump rule would have applied only to 688,000 individuals in fiscal year 2021.63 The Trump reform was scheduled to go into effect, but a D.C. district court federal judge enjoined the rule.64 The USDA filed an appeal in late December 2020,65 but the Biden Administration withdrew from defending the challenge, and the rule was never implemented.66 Beyond the able-bodied work requirement, FNS should implement better regulation to clarify options for states to implement the general work requirement. This requirement is an option states can apply to work- capable beneficiaries aged 16 to 59. If beneficiaries’ work hours are below 30 hours a week, states can implement the general work requirements to oblige beneficiaries to register for work or participate in SNAP Employment and Training or workfare assigned by the state SNAP agency.67 Increased clarity for states would include items like states being required to offer employment and training spots for those that request them—not simply budgeting for every currently enrolled able-bodied adult. l Reform broad-based categorical eligibility. Federal law permits states to enroll individuals in food stamps if they receive a benefit from another program, such as the Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) program. However, under an administrative option in TANF called broad- based categorical eligibility (BBCE), ”benefit” is defined so broadly that it includes simply receiving distributed pamphlets and 1–800 numbers.68 This definition, with its low threshold to trigger a “benefit,” allows individuals to bypass eligibility limits—particularly the asset requirement (how much the applicant has in resources, such as bank accounts or property).69 Adopting the BBCE option has even allowed millionaires to enroll in the food stamp program.70 The Trump Administration proposed to close the loophole with a rule to “increase program integrity and reduce fraud, waste, and abuse.”71 The regulation was not finalized before the end of the Trump Administration. l Re-evaluate the Thrifty Food Plan. In a dramatic overreach, the Biden Administration unilaterally increased food stamp benefits by at least 23 percent in October 2021.72 Through an update to the Thrifty Food Plan, in which the USDA analyzes a basket of foods intended to provide a nutritious diet, the USDA increased food stamp outlays by between $250 billion and $300 billion over 10 years.73 — 301 — Department of Agriculture Although the 2018 farm bill instructed FNS to update the Thrifty Food Plan by 2023 and every five years thereafter, every previous Thrifty Food Plan has been always cost-neutral (just an inflation update)—exactly what CBO estimated as cost of the 2018 farm bill.74 The Biden Administration may have skirted regulations and congressional authority to increase the overall cost of the program. In fact, Senate and House Republicans requested that the Government Accountability Office investigate the legal authorities and process that the USDA undertook to arrive at such an unprecedented increase.75 l Eliminate the heat-and-eat loophole. States can artificially boost a household’s food stamp benefit by using the heat-and-eat loophole. The amount of food stamps a household receives is based on its “countable” income (income minus certain deductions). Households that receive benefits from the Low-Income Heat and Energy Assistance Program (LIHEAP) are eligible for a larger utility deduction. In order to make households eligible for the higher deduction, and thus for greater food stamp benefits, states have distributed LIHEAP checks for amounts as small as $1 to food stamp recipients. The 2014 farm bill tightened this loophole by requiring that a household must receive more than $20 annually in LIHEAP payments to be eligible for the larger utility deduction and subsequently higher food stamp benefits.76 Nonetheless, states continue to inflate their standard utility allowances. Under the Trump Administration, the USDA proposed a rule, which was not finalized, that would have standardized the utility allowance.77 Reform WIC. Turning to WIC, this program distributes money through EBT cards to help low-income women, infants, and children under six purchase nutri- tion-rich foods and nutrition education (including breastfeeding support). As of August 2022, approximately 6.3 million people participated in WIC each month to purchase food.78 In 2021, WIC federal outlays were $5 billion.79 The next Administration should: l Reform the state voucher system. State agencies control WIC costs by approving only one brand of infant formula through competitive bidding for infant formula rebate contracts. Because 50 percent of baby formula is purchased through the federal WIC program, it is vital that regulation for these competitive bidding contracts does not unintentionally create monopolies.

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.

Related Bills

Other Bills by Rep. Harder, Josh

Ensuring Casualty Assistance for our Firefighters Act

119/hr/4671

Fire Department Repayment Act of 2025

119/hr/345

Bring Down Housing Costs Act

119/hr/6008

Back to All Bills