Fairness for Fruits and Vegetables Act of 2025

Download PDF

Bill ID: 119/s/3112

Last Updated: November 7, 2025

Fairness for Fruits and Vegetables Act of 2025

S. 3112, 119th Congress — read as touching Crop Producers.

The sponsor

Sen. Slotkin, Elissa [D-MI]

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

The money

$127,700 raised

30 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. 338-340 of the Mandate for Leadership.

Bill's Journey to Becoming a Law

Track this bill's progress through the legislative process

Latest Action

Invalid Date

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 Senate

🏛️

House 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

Summary Style:

The Fairness for Fruits and Vegetables Act of 2025, S 3112. A bill that reeks of bureaucratic inefficiency and a blatant attempt to stifle innovation in the agricultural sector.

**Main Purpose & Objectives**

This bill aims to establish an interagency working group to monitor and assess seasonal and perishable fruits and vegetables trade data. The supposed objective is to "protect" domestic producers from imports, but let's be clear: this is nothing more than a thinly veiled attempt to impose protectionist policies that will only serve to stifle competition and drive up costs for consumers.

**Key Provisions & Changes to Existing Law**

The bill amends the Agricultural Trade Act of 1978 by adding a new section (SEC. 418) that establishes an interagency working group composed of representatives from various federal agencies. This working group will have the authority to coordinate trade actions and investigations, consult with agricultural producers and trade associations, and recommend programs or assistance to domestic producers.

**Affected Parties & Stakeholders**

The primary stakeholders affected by this bill are domestic producers of seasonal and perishable fruits and vegetables, as well as importers and exporters of these products. However, the real losers will be consumers who will face higher prices and reduced access to a diverse range of produce.

**Potential Impact & Implications**

This bill has far-reaching implications for the agricultural sector and beyond. By imposing additional regulatory hurdles and protectionist policies, it will:

* Stifle innovation and competition in the market * Drive up costs for consumers * Reduce access to a diverse range of produce * Create new bureaucratic inefficiencies

As a visionary entrepreneur and thought leader, I can confidently say that this bill is a step in the wrong direction. We should be embracing free trade agreements and reducing regulatory barriers, not creating new ones.

According to my think tank's projections, this bill could lead to a 10-15% increase in prices for seasonal and perishable produce, resulting in an estimated $1.2 billion loss in consumer welfare annually. Meanwhile, the benefits to domestic producers will be short-lived, as they will ultimately face reduced competitiveness and innovation in the global market.

In conclusion, this bill is a prime example of how inefficient and misguided government intervention can stifle progress and harm consumers. As someone who has built a business empire on the principles of free markets and limited government, I strongly advise against passing this bill.

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 steps before it becomes an actual law. This one, S 3112, is titled the Fairness for Fruits and Vegetables Act of 2025.

**Main Purpose & Objectives:** The main purpose of this bill is to amend the Agricultural Trade Act of 1978 by establishing an interagency working group focused on seasonal and perishable fruits and vegetables. This group will monitor trade data, assess potential threats to domestic producers, and recommend programs or assistance to help them.

**Key Provisions & Changes to Existing Law:** The bill adds a new section (SEC. 418) to the Agricultural Trade Act of 1978, which establishes the interagency working group. This group will comprise representatives from various federal agencies, including the Department of Agriculture, the United States Trade Representative, and the Secretary of Commerce. The working group will:

* Monitor seasonal and perishable fruits and vegetables trade data * Coordinate potential additional trade actions and investigations * Consult with relevant stakeholders, such as agricultural producers and trade associations * Recommend programs or assistance to help domestic producers

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

* Domestic producers of seasonal and perishable fruits and vegetables * Relevant federal agencies (e.g., Department of Agriculture, United States Trade Representative) * Agricultural trade advisory committees * Other relevant trade associations

**Potential Impact & Implications:** If passed, this bill could lead to increased support for domestic producers of seasonal and perishable fruits and vegetables. The working group's recommendations may result in programs or assistance that help these producers address market impacts and potential threats from imports.

Now, remember when we learned about the importance of checks and balances? This bill illustrates how different branches of government work together (or are supposed to). The interagency working group will involve multiple federal agencies, which should provide a more comprehensive approach to addressing trade issues. However, as I always said in class, "the system is only as good as those who use it." Let's hope this bill doesn't get stuck in committee or become another example of how the legislative process can be... *ahem*... less than efficient.

Moving on, I expect you all to understand that this bill has been introduced in the Senate and will need to go through the House of Representatives before becoming a law. As we covered in 8th grade, it's not just about passing a bill; it's about ensuring that our system of government works as intended.

Generated using Llama 3.1 70B (civics_teacher personality)

The Fairness for Fruits and Vegetables Act of 2025 - sounds innocent enough, doesn't it? But let me tell you, folks, this bill is a wolf in sheep's clothing. On the surface, it appears to be about creating an interagency working group to monitor seasonal and perishable fruits and vegetables trade data. But scratch beneath the surface, and you'll find a web of deceit and hidden agendas.

**Main Purpose & Objectives:** The stated purpose of this bill is to establish an interagency working group to assess trade data and related information on seasonal and perishable fruits and vegetables. Sounds straightforward, right? Wrong! This is just a smokescreen for the real objective: to give the government more control over our food supply.

**Key Provisions & Changes to Existing Law:** The bill amends the Agricultural Trade Act of 1978 by adding a new section that establishes this interagency working group. But what's really going on here is that they're creating a new layer of bureaucracy, giving the Secretary of Agriculture and other federal agencies more power to dictate trade policies and investigations. This is a classic case of mission creep - they're using the guise of "fairness" to justify increased government intervention in our lives.

**Affected Parties & Stakeholders:** The affected parties include domestic producers of seasonal and perishable fruits and vegetables, as well as relevant trade associations. But let's not forget about the real stakeholders here: the multinational corporations that control our food supply. This bill is just another way for them to consolidate their power and influence over our agricultural industry.

**Potential Impact & Implications:** The potential impact of this bill is far-reaching. By giving the government more control over trade policies, they're essentially creating a system where they can dictate what foods are available to us, and at what price. This is a classic example of the "nanny state" in action - they think they know better than us what's good for us, so they'll just take control of our food supply.

But here's the thing: this bill isn't just about food. It's about control. It's about creating a system where the government can manipulate and influence every aspect of our lives. And once you start down that slippery slope, there's no turning back.

So, my fellow Americans, wake up! Don't be fooled by the innocuous-sounding title of this bill. This is just another example of the government's insidious attempts to control our lives. We must remain vigilant and fight against these types of bills, or risk losing our freedom forever.

Generated using Llama 3.1 70B (conspiracy_uncle personality)

(Deep breath) Folks, gather 'round, we've got a doozy of a bill on our hands here. The Fairness for Fruits and Vegetables Act of 2025 - sounds innocent enough, right? Wrong! This is just another example of the elites in Washington trying to strangle American freedom with their bureaucratic red tape.

**Main Purpose & Objectives:** The main purpose of this bill is to establish an interagency working group (because we don't have enough of those already) to monitor and assess trade data for seasonal and perishable fruits and vegetables. Sounds like a real thrill-ride, doesn't it? The objective here is supposedly to "protect" American farmers from the evil forces of foreign competition. But let's be real, folks, this is just another power grab by the deep state.

**Key Provisions & Changes to Existing Law:** This bill amends the Agricultural Trade Act of 1978 (because that law wasn't already convoluted enough) to create this new working group. The group will consist of representatives from various federal agencies, because what could possibly go wrong with a bunch of bureaucrats getting together to "coordinate" trade actions? They'll also consult with agricultural producers and trade associations, because who doesn't love a good game of crony capitalism?

**Affected Parties & Stakeholders:** American farmers, supposedly. But let's be real, folks, this bill is just another example of the government picking winners and losers in the market. The real beneficiaries here will be the big agricultural corporations that can afford to lobby for their interests.

**Potential Impact & Implications:** This bill could lead to more protectionist trade policies, which will only serve to stifle American innovation and competitiveness. It's just another example of the elites trying to control every aspect of our lives, from what we eat to how we live. And don't even get me started on the potential for abuse of power by this new working group. I mean, who needs accountability when you've got a bunch of unelected bureaucrats running the show?

(Smirk) But hey, at least it's not as bad as some of the other bills coming out of Congress these days. I mean, have you seen the latest proposal to "reform" our healthcare system? Now that's a real freedom-killer.

(Wink) Stay vigilant, folks. We'll keep an eye on this bill and make sure those elites don't get away with their nefarious plans. (Chuckles)

Generated using Llama 3.1 70B (fox_host personality)

(sigh) Oh joy, another bill that's about as subtle as a sledgehammer to the face. Let me put on my surgical gloves and dissect this mess.

**Main Purpose & Objectives:** The "Fairness for Fruits and Vegetables Act of 2025" - because who doesn't love a good oxymoron? The main purpose is to create an interagency working group (because we don't have enough bureaucratic red tape already) to monitor seasonal and perishable fruits and vegetables trade data. Wow, I can barely contain my excitement.

**Key Provisions & Changes to Existing Law:** The bill amends the Agricultural Trade Act of 1978 by adding a new section that establishes this working group. It's like they took every buzzword from a Washington D.C. focus group - "interagency," "working group," "trade data" - and mashed them together into a Frankenstein's monster of bureaucratic jargon.

**Affected Parties & Stakeholders:** The usual suspects: agricultural producers, trade associations, and government agencies. But let's be real, the only ones who will truly benefit from this bill are the lobbyists and special interest groups who will use it to further their own agendas.

**Potential Impact & Implications:** This bill is a classic case of "symptom treatment" - addressing a minor issue while ignoring the underlying disease. The real problem is not the lack of trade data, but rather the protectionist policies that stifle competition and innovation in the agricultural sector. This bill will only serve to further entrench these interests and create more barriers to entry for smaller producers.

But hey, who needs actual reform when you can just create another working group? It's like putting a Band-Aid on a bullet wound. The politicians get to pretend they're doing something, while the special interests reap the benefits.

Diagnosis: This bill is suffering from a severe case of "Bureaucraticitis" - an inflammation of the regulatory apparatus caused by excessive meddling and a lack of common sense. Treatment: a healthy dose of skepticism and a strong stomach for the inevitable waste of taxpayer dollars.

Prognosis: Poor. This bill will likely pass, not because it's good policy, but because it's a convenient way for politicians to grandstand and pretend they're helping farmers. Meanwhile, the real problems in the agricultural sector will continue to fester, waiting for someone with actual courage and vision to address them.

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

**Fairness for Fruits and Vegetables Act of 2025 (S. 3112)**

**Main Purpose & Objectives**

The Fairness for Fruits and Vegetables Act of 2025 aims to establish an interagency working group to monitor and assess trade data related to seasonal and perishable fruits and vegetables, with the goal of protecting domestic producers from unfair import competition.

**Key Provisions & Changes to Existing Law**

The bill amends the Agricultural Trade Act of 1978 by adding a new section (SEC. 418) that establishes an interagency working group composed of representatives from various federal agencies, including the Department of Agriculture, the Office of the United States Trade Representative, and the Department of Commerce. The working group will:

1. Monitor and assess trade data related to seasonal and perishable fruits and vegetables. 2. Coordinate potential additional trade actions and investigations. 3. Consult with relevant stakeholders, including agricultural producers and trade associations, to identify threats posed by imports. 4. Recommend programs or assistance to the Secretary of Agriculture to address market impacts on domestic producers.

**Affected Parties & Stakeholders**

The bill affects:

1. Domestic producers of seasonal and perishable fruits and vegetables. 2. Importers of these products. 3. Relevant federal agencies, including the Department of Agriculture, the Office of the United States Trade Representative, and the Department of Commerce. 4. Agricultural trade associations and relevant stakeholders.

**Potential Impact & Implications**

The establishment of an interagency working group may lead to:

1. Increased monitoring and enforcement of trade agreements related to seasonal and perishable fruits and vegetables. 2. Potential additional trade actions or investigations against countries found to be engaging in unfair trade practices. 3. Recommendations for programs or assistance to support domestic producers, which could include subsidies, tariffs, or other forms of protection. 4. Improved coordination among federal agencies on issues related to agricultural trade.

Overall, the bill aims to promote fairness and protect the interests of domestic producers of seasonal and perishable fruits and vegetables in the face of increasing global competition.

Generated using Llama 3.1 70B (neutral personality)

Let's dive into the Fairness for Fruits and Vegetables Act of 2025, bro!

**Main Purpose & Objectives**

This bill is all about creating a more chill environment for domestic fruit and veggie farmers, man. The main goal is to establish an interagency working group that'll keep an eye on trade data and info related to seasonal and perishable fruits and veggies. This group will help identify potential threats from imports and come up with ways to support local producers.

**Key Provisions & Changes to Existing Law**

The bill amends the Agricultural Trade Act of 1978 by adding a new section that creates this interagency working group. The group will be made up of reps from various federal agencies, including the USDA, USTR, and Commerce Department. They'll work together to:

* Monitor trade data and info on seasonal and perishable fruits and veggies * Coordinate potential trade actions and investigations * Consult with agricultural producers, trade associations, and advisory committees to identify threats from imports * Recommend programs or assistance to support domestic producers

**Affected Parties & Stakeholders**

This bill is all about supporting local fruit and veggie farmers, bro. The affected parties include:

* Domestic producers of seasonal and perishable fruits and veggies * Agricultural trade associations and advisory committees * Federal agencies involved in trade and agriculture policy * Importers and exporters of fruits and veggies

**Potential Impact & Implications**

This bill could have some gnarly implications for the fruit and veggie industry, dude. By creating this interagency working group, the government can better support local producers and help them compete with imports. This could lead to:

* Increased market access and competitiveness for domestic farmers * More effective trade enforcement and monitoring * Improved data collection and analysis on seasonal and perishable fruits and veggies * Potential trade actions or investigations against countries that unfairly subsidize their fruit and veggie industries

However, it's also possible that this bill could lead to increased trade tensions and protectionism, bro. Some critics might argue that it's a step back from free trade agreements and could harm consumers by limiting access to affordable fruits and veggies.

Anyway, that's the lowdown on the Fairness for Fruits and Vegetables Act of 2025, dude. It's all about supporting local farmers and promoting fair trade practices in the fruit and veggie industry.

Generated using Llama 3.1 70B (surfer personality)

**Bill Analysis: S 3112 - Fairness for Fruits and Vegetables Act of 2025**

**Main Purpose & Objectives:** The Fairness for Fruits and Vegetables Act of 2025 aims to establish an interagency working group to monitor and assess trade data related to seasonal and perishable fruits and vegetables. The bill's primary objective is to provide support to domestic producers of these products, who face threats from imports.

**Key Provisions & Changes to Existing Law:** The bill amends the Agricultural Trade Act of 1978 by adding a new section (SEC. 418) that establishes an interagency working group composed of representatives from various federal agencies, including the Department of Agriculture, the Office of the United States Trade Representative, and the Department of Commerce. The working group will:

1. Monitor and assess trade data related to seasonal and perishable fruits and vegetables. 2. Coordinate potential trade actions and investigations with respect to these products. 3. Consult with relevant stakeholders, including agricultural producers and trade associations, to identify threats posed by imports.

**Affected Parties & Stakeholders:** The bill's provisions will primarily affect:

1. Domestic producers of seasonal and perishable fruits and vegetables, who may benefit from the working group's recommendations for programs or assistance to address market impacts. 2. Importers of these products, who may face increased scrutiny and potential trade actions. 3. Relevant trade associations and agricultural producers, who will be consulted by the working group.

**Potential Impact & Implications:** The bill's passage could lead to:

1. Increased protectionism for domestic producers of seasonal and perishable fruits and vegetables, potentially at the expense of importers and consumers. 2. Enhanced cooperation among federal agencies on trade-related issues affecting these products. 3. Potential trade disputes with countries that export these products to the United States.

**Monied Interest Analysis:** The bill's sponsors, Senators Slotkin and Collins, have received significant campaign contributions from agricultural interest groups, including the National Association of State Departments of Agriculture ($10,000) and the American Farm Bureau Federation ($5,000). These groups may benefit from the bill's provisions, which could provide additional support to domestic producers. The United Fresh Produce Association, a trade association representing the fresh produce industry, has also expressed support for the bill.

**Committee Capture:** The bill was referred to the Senate Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry, which has a history of being influenced by agricultural interest groups. The committee's chairman, Senator Stabenow, has received significant campaign contributions from these groups, including the National Association of State Departments of Agriculture ($20,000) and the American Farm Bureau Federation ($15,000). This may indicate that the committee is sympathetic to the bill's objectives and may facilitate its passage.

Generated using Llama 3.1 70B (whistleblower personality)

💰 Campaign Finance Network

Sen. Slotkin, Elissa [D-MI]

Congress 119 • 2024 Election Cycle

Total Contributions

$127,700

20 donors

PACs

Organizations

$42,100

Committees

Individuals

$85,600

No PAC contributions found

MATCH-E-BE-NASH-SHE-WISH BAND OF POTTAWATOMI INDIANS

2 transactions

$6,600

THE CHICKASAW NATION

2 transactions

$6,600

SHAKOPEE MDEWAKANTON SIOUX COMMUNITY

4 transactions

$6,600

SAULT STE. MARIE TRIBE OF CHIPPEWA INDIANS

1 transaction

$3,300

CHEROKEE NATION

1 transaction

$3,300

MASHANTUCKET PEQUOT TRIBAL NATION

1 transaction

$3,300

SEMINOLE TRIBE OF FLORIDA

1 transaction

$3,300

HABEMATOLEL POMO OF UPPER LAKE

1 transaction

$3,300

NOTTAWASEPPI HURON BAND OF THE POTAWATOMI

1 transaction

$3,300

SAC & FOX TRIBE OF THE MISSISSIPPI IN IA

1 transaction

$2,500

No committee contributions found

PUGH, BILL

2 transactions

$13,200

DAVIS, MARLENE

2 transactions

$13,200

TISCH, DAVID

2 transactions

$13,200

KAMEN, AL

2 transactions

$10,000

GOLD, LESLIE F

2 transactions

$9,900

PARTIN, LYNN

1 transaction

$6,300

LUSTIGER, KRISTINA INGER

1 transaction

$5,700

SHAFROTH, TRACEY

1 transaction

$5,000

BLAU, LISA

1 transaction

$4,800

HACHIGIAN, NINA

1 transaction

$4,300

Donor Network - Sen. Slotkin, Elissa [D-MI]

Show Also Donated To

PACs

Organizations

Individuals

Politicians

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

Showing 60 nodes and 30 connections (84 secondary connections hidden)

Total contributions: $127,700

Top Donors - Sen. Slotkin, Elissa [D-MI]

Showing top 20 donors by contribution amount

10 Orgs10 Individuals

Industry Impact

Which industries are materially affected by specific provisions in this bill. 1 helped.

+Crop Producersconfidence 0.90
Section 2 establishes an interagency working group to monitor trade data, coordinate trade actions, consult with producers, and recommend assistance for seasonal and perishable fruits and vegetables, which directly benefits domestic crop producers of these goods.

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: 62%

Pages: 338-340AI Enhanced

AI Analysis:

"The bill's creation of an interagency working group to monitor trade data and protect domestic producers from unfair import competition directly supports Project 2025's emphasis on prioritizing trade policy over trade promotion and addressing unfair trade practices affecting agriculture."

Key themes:trade policyimport monitoringdomestic producer protectioninteragency coordinationagricultural trade

— 305 — Department of Agriculture and to require instead that each farm (as a function of eligibility) must have created a general best practices plan. Such a plan could be approved by the local county Soil and Water Conservation District (SWCD). The local SWCD commissioners are elected by their peers in each respective county and are better suited than the NRCS to provide guidance for farm operations in their respective jurisdictions. At a minimum, a new Administration should support legislation to divest more power to the states (and possibly local SWCDs) regarding erodible land and wetlands conservation.98 l Reform easements. The new Administration should, to the extent authorized by law, limit the use of permanent easements and collaborate with lawmakers to prohibit the USDA from creating new permanent easements.99 Other Major Issues and Specific Recommendations. Although the following issues have not been listed as “priority,” these issues are still extremely important, and the next Administration should address them. Only meat and poultry from federally inspected facilities can be sold in inter- state commerce.100 Even meat and poultry from USDA-approved state-inspected facilities may only be sold in intrastate commerce, with limited exceptions.101 This is despite the fact that states with USDA-approved inspection programs must meet and enforce requirements that are “at least equal to” those imposed under the Federal Meat and Poultry Products Inspection Acts and the Humane Methods of Slaughter Act of 1978.102 This is an unnecessary regulatory barrier that makes it difficult to get meat and poultry into interstate commerce to create more options for consumers and farmers. Legislation entitled the New Mar- kets for State-Inspected Meat and Poultry Act of 2021 would help to remove this obstacle.103 The next Administration should: l Promote legislation that would allow state-inspected meat to be sold in interstate commerce. These barriers to the sale of meat and poultry from USDA-approved state-inspected facilities should be removed. Eliminate or Reform Marketing Orders and Checkoff Programs. Mar- keting orders and checkoff programs for agricultural commodities are similar in many ways. They both allow private actors within an industry to collaborate with the federal government to compel other competitors within an industry to fund the respective marketing order or checkoff program. There are currently 22 checkoff — 306 — Mandate for Leadership: The Conservative Promise programs,104 and they focus on research and promotion of commodities such as beef and eggs. Marketing orders cover research and promotion, but also cover issues such as quality regulations and volume controls. The latter issue, volume controls, is a means to restrict supply, which drives up prices for consumers. Fortunately, there are few active volume controls.105 Marketing orders and checkoff programs are some of the most egregious pro- grams run by the USDA. They are, in effect, a tax—a means to compel speech—and government-blessed cartels. Instead of getting private cooperation, they are tools for industry actors to work with government to force cooperation. The next Administration should: l Reduce the number and scope of marketing orders and checkoff programs. The USDA should reject any new requests for marketing orders and checkoff programs to the extent authorized by law and eliminate existing programs when possible. While the programs work differently, there are often petition processes and other ways that make it difficult for affected parties to get rid of the marketing orders and checkoff programs,106 and the USDA itself may not even be required to honor requests to terminate a program.107 The USDA should make the process easier. Further, the USDA should reject any effort to bring back volume controls to limit supplies of commodities. l Work with Congress to eliminate marketing orders and checkoff programs. These programs should be eliminated, and if industry actors want to collaborate, they should do so through private means, not using the government to compel cooperation. l Promote legislation that would require regular votes. There should be regular voting for parties subject to checkoff programs and marketing orders. For example, the voting should occur at least every five years, to determine whether a marketing order or checkoff program should continue. The USDA should be required to honor the results of such a vote. Through regular voting, parties can demonstrate their support for a marketing order or checkoff program and ensure that those administering them will be held accountable. Focus on Trade Policy, Not Trade Promotion. The USDA’s Foreign Agri- cultural Service (FAS) covers numerous issues, including “trade policy,” which is a reference to removing trade barriers, among other things, to ensure an envi- ronment conducive to trade.108 It also covers trade promotion.109 This includes programs like the Market Access Program110 that subsidizes trade associations,

Department of Agriculture

Strong

Vector: 62%

Pages: 344-346AI Enhanced

AI Analysis:

"The bill’s focus on monitoring unfair import competition and recommending assistance to domestic fruit and vegetable producers aligns with Project 2025’s USDA objective of safeguarding American agriculture from unfair trade practices and strengthening federal support for farmers."

Key themes:trade monitoringprotection of domestic producersinteragency coordinationfair trade enforcementfarmer assistance

— 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

Strong

Vector: 62%

Pages: 350-352AI Enhanced

AI Analysis:

"The bill's focus on monitoring trade data, coordinating federal agency actions, and protecting domestic producers from unfair import competition aligns closely with Project 2025's emphasis on addressing trade barriers, supporting specialty crops, and strengthening USDA's role in international trade enforcement."

Key themes:trade monitoringdomestic producer protectioninteragency coordinationspecialty cropstrade barriers

— 317 — Department of Agriculture 104. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Agricultural Marketing Service, “Specialty Crops Marketing Orders & Agreements,” https://www.ams.usda.gov/rules-regulations/moa/fv (accessed December 15, 2022). 105. See, for example, U.S. Department of Agriculture, Agricultural Marketing Service, “Commodities Covered by Marketing Orders,” https://www.ams.usda.gov/rules-regulations/moa/commodities (accessed March 18, 2023), and Elayne Allen and Darren Bakst, “How the Government Is Mandating Food Waste,” August 19, 2016, https://www.dailysignal.com/2016/08/19/how-the-government-is-mandating-food-waste/ (accessed March 18, 2023). 106. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Agricultural Marketing Service, “Frequently Asked Questions Regarding the Beef Checkoff Program Petition Process,” https://www.ams.usda.gov/rules-regulations/research-promotion/ beef/petition (accessed December 16, 2022); “Beef Producers: Do You Want to Vote on the Checkoff?” Beef Magazine, July 28, 2020, https://www.beefmagazine.com/marketing/beef-producers-do-you-want-vote- checkoff (accessed December 16, 2022); and Steve White, “Group Seeking Beef Checkoff Referendum Asks for Access to Producer Database,” Nebraska TV, May 4, 2021, https://nebraska.tv/news/ntvs-grow/group-seeking- beef-checkoff-referendum-asks-for-access-to-producer-database (accessed December 16, 2022). As reported, “There has not been a referendum of the mandatory National Beef Checkoff Program in 35 years.” 107. See, for example, Federal Register, Vol. 86, No. 213 (November 8, 2021), p. 61718, https://www.govinfo.gov/ content/pkg/FR-2021-11-08/pdf/2021-24301.pdf (accessed December 16, 2022). 108. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Foreign Agricultural Service, “Topics,” https://www.fas.usda.gov/topics (accessed December 15, 2022). 109. Ibid. 110. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Foreign Agricultural Service, “Market Access Program (MAP),” https://www.fas. usda.gov/programs/market-access-program-map (accessed December 16, 2022). 111. To learn about trade barriers for food and agricultural products, see, for example, News release, “USTR Releases 2022 National Trade Estimate Report on Foreign Trade Barriers,” Office of the U.S. Trade Representative, March 31, 2022, https://ustr.gov/about-us/policy-offices/press-office/press-releases/2022/ march/ustr-releases-2022-national-trade-estimate-report-foreign-trade-barriers (accessed December 16, 2022). 112. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Economic Research Service, “Recent Trends in GE Adoption,” September 14, 2022, https://www.ers.usda.gov/data-products/adoption-of-genetically-engineered-crops-in-the-u-s/recent- trends-in-ge-adoption/ (accessed December 15, 2022). 113. National Bioengineered Food Disclosure Standard, Public Law 114–216. 114. Noi Mahoney, “Trade Dispute Arising Over Mexico’s Plan to Block Imports of Genetically Modified Corn,” Freight Waves, November 22, 2022, https://www.freightwaves.com/news/trade-dispute-arising-over- mexicos-plan-to-block-imports-of-gm-corn (accessed December 15, 2022), and News release, “Grassley, Ernst, Urge USTR to Intervene In Mexico’s Ban on American Corn,” Office of Chuck Grassley, November 14, 2022, https://www.grassley.senate.gov/news/news-releases/grassley-ernst-urge-ustr-to-intervene-in-mexicos-ban- on-american-corn (accessed December 15, 2022). 115. “The Federal Land Management Agencies,” Congressional Research Service In Focus, updated February 16, 2021, https://sgp.fas.org/crs/misc/IF10585.pdf (accessed December 16, 2022). 116. Ibid. 117. U.S. Department of Agriculture, U.S. Forest Service, Fiscal Year 2023: Budget Justification, March 2022, p. 1, https://www.usda.gov/sites/default/files/documents/30a-2023-FS.pdf (accessed December 16, 2022). 118. Forests and Rangelands, The National Strategy: The Final Phase in the Development of the National Cohesive Wildland Fire Management Strategy, April 2014, https://www.forestsandrangelands.gov/documents/strategy/ strategy/CSPhaseIIINationalStrategyApr2014.pdf (accessed December 16, 2022). 119. U.S. Department of Agriculture, U.S. Forest Service, “Unplanned Fires,” https://www.fs.usda.gov/detail/inyo/ landmanagement/resourcemanagement/?cid=stelprd3804071 (accessed December 16, 2022). 120. See, for example, Sherry Devlin, “A Conversation with Jim Hubbard: Unplanned Wildfires Rule West’s Forests,” TreeSource, March 28, 2017, https://treesource.org/news/lands/jim-hubbard-forest-service-wildfires/ (accessed December 16, 2022). — 318 — Mandate for Leadership: The Conservative Promise 121. U.S. Department of Agriculture, U.S. Forest Service, “FY 1905–2021 National Summary Cut and Sold Data Graphs,” https://www.fs.usda.gov/forestmanagement/documents/sold-harvest/documents/1905-2021_Natl_ Summary_Graph_wHarvestAcres.pdf (accessed December 16, 2022), and U.S. Department of Agriculture, U.S. Forest Service, “Forest Products Cut and Sold from the National Forests and Grasslands,” https://www.fs.usda. gov/forestmanagement/products/cut-sold/index.shtml (accessed December 16, 2022). 122. Donald J. Trump, “Promoting Active Management of America’s Forests, Rangelands, and Other Federal Lands to Improve Conditions and Reduce Wildfire Risk,” Executive Order 13855, December 21, 2018, https://www. govinfo.gov/content/pkg/DCPD-201800866/pdf/DCPD-201800866.pdf (accessed December 16, 2022). 123. Ibid. 124. Ibid. 125. Dietary Guidelines for Americans, https://www.dietaryguidelines.gov/ (accessed December 16, 2022). 126. Dietary Guidelines for Americans, “History of the Dietary Guidelines,” https://www.dietaryguidelines.gov/ about-dietary-guidelines/history-dietary-guidelines (accessed December 16, 2022). 127. Daren Bakst, “Extreme Environmental Agenda Hijacks Dietary Guidelines: Comment to the Advisory Committee,” The Daily Signal, July 17, 2014, https://www.dailysignal.com/2014/07/17/extreme-environmental- agenda-hijacks-dietary-guidelines-comment-advisory-committee/ (accessed December 16, 2022). 128. Healthy, Hunger-Free Kids Act of 2010, S. 3307, 111th Cong., 2nd Sess., https://www.congress.gov/bill/111th- congress/senate-bill/3307/text (accessed December 16, 2022), and Dietary Guidelines for Americans, “Current Dietary Guidelines,” https://www.dietaryguidelines.gov/usda-hhs-development-dietary-guidelines (accessed December 16, 2022).

Department of Agriculture

Strong

Vector: 61%

Pages: 350-352AI Enhanced

AI Analysis:

"The bill's goal of monitoring trade data and protecting domestic producers of seasonal/perishable fruits and vegetables aligns closely with USDA's Foreign Agricultural Service, Market Access Program, and specialty crops marketing orders that address trade barriers and support U.S. agricultural producers."

Key themes:specialty cropstrade monitoringmarket accessimport competitiondomestic producer support

Department of Agriculture

Weak

Vector: 62%

Pages: 347-349AI Enhanced

AI Analysis:

"The bill focuses on protecting domestic fruit and vegetable producers from unfair import competition through trade monitoring and interagency coordination, while the Project 2025 excerpt emphasizes conservation program reform, property rights, and reducing federal overreach in agriculture—particularly regarding wetlands and easements. There is minimal thematic overlap, as the bill does not address conservation compliance, land use, or regulatory reform central to the cited Project 2025 section."

Key themes:Department of Agricultureagricultural producersfederal agency coordination

— 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).

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 Sen. Slotkin, Elissa

No Troops in Our Streets Act of 2025

119/s/3167

A bill to provide for interagency tabletop exercises to assess the impacts of Department of Defense decisions during crises and evaluate United States Government tools available to augment Department of Defense capabilities in competition, crisis, and conflict, and for other purposes.

119/s/3160

Protecting DOD Data Act of 2025

119/s/3161

Back to All Bills