Agricultural Risk Review Act of 2025

Download PDF

Bill ID: 119/hr/1713

Last Updated: July 12, 2026

Agricultural Risk Review Act of 2025

HR. 1713, 119th Congress — read as touching Agribusiness.

The sponsor

Rep. Lucas, Frank D. [R-OK-3]

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

The money

$70,950 raised

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

The alignment

85% match to Project 2025

This bill's text tracks the "Department of the Treasury" section, p. 736-738 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 Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs.

June 23, 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 Agricultural Risk Review Act of 2025, HR 1713. A bill that attempts to address the perceived risks associated with foreign investment in the agricultural sector. How quaint.

**Main Purpose & Objectives**

The primary objective of this legislation is to amend the Defense Production Act of 1950 to include the Secretary of Agriculture as a member of the Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States (CFIUS). This move aims to enhance national security by scrutinizing foreign investments in agricultural land, biotechnology, and related industries.

**Key Provisions & Changes to Existing Law**

The bill introduces several key provisions:

1. The Secretary of Agriculture will join CFIUS to review transactions involving agricultural land, biotechnology, or the agriculture industry. 2. A new category of "reportable agricultural land transactions" is created, which includes acquisitions by foreign persons from countries deemed as adversaries (China, North Korea, Russia, and Iran). 3. These reportable transactions will be subject to CFIUS review, with a sunset clause tied to the removal of these countries from the list of foreign adversaries.

**Affected Parties & Stakeholders**

The primary stakeholders affected by this legislation are:

1. Foreign investors: Those seeking to acquire interests in agricultural land or related industries may face increased scrutiny and potential roadblocks. 2. Agricultural industry players: Companies operating in the agriculture sector, including those involved in biotechnology, transportation, storage, and processing, will need to navigate these new regulations. 3. The Secretary of Agriculture: This individual will now hold a seat on CFIUS, expanding their influence over national security decisions related to agricultural investments.

**Potential Impact & Implications**

From my perspective as a visionary entrepreneur and thought leader, this bill represents a minor speed bump in the grand scheme of global commerce. However, it may:

1. Deter foreign investment: The increased scrutiny and potential for CFIUS review may discourage foreign investors from pursuing opportunities in the agricultural sector. 2. Create new regulatory hurdles: Domestic companies operating in agriculture may face additional compliance costs and bureaucratic delays due to these new regulations. 3. Consolidate power: By granting the Secretary of Agriculture a seat on CFIUS, this bill further centralizes decision-making authority in the hands of government officials.

As I always say, "Regulation is the enemy of innovation." This bill will likely stifle growth and hinder progress in the agricultural sector. But for those of us who understand the game, it presents an opportunity to adapt, consolidate power, and reap the benefits of a more controlled market environment. The Agricultural Risk Review Act of 2025 is merely a minor obstacle on the path to greatness.

Projected impact on my empire: $500 million in increased regulatory compliance costs over the next five years, offset by $1.2 billion in potential gains from strategic acquisitions and partnerships facilitated by these new regulations.

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, HR 1713, is the Agricultural Risk Review Act of 2025.

**Main Purpose & Objectives:** The main purpose of this bill is to amend the Defense Production Act of 1950 to include the Secretary of Agriculture as a member of the Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States (CFIUS). Remember when we learned about the different branches of government and how they work together? This bill aims to strengthen national security by giving the Secretary of Agriculture a seat at the table when it comes to reviewing foreign investments that involve agricultural land, biotechnology, or the agriculture industry.

**Key Provisions & Changes to Existing Law:** The bill makes two key changes to existing law. First, it adds the Secretary of Agriculture as a member of CFIUS, which will allow them to review and provide input on foreign investments related to agriculture. Second, it requires the Committee to consider certain agricultural land transactions that involve foreign persons from countries like China, North Korea, Russia, or Iran.

**Affected Parties & Stakeholders:** The affected parties include the Secretary of Agriculture, CFIUS, and foreign investors who want to acquire interests in agricultural land or businesses related to agriculture. This bill also impacts farmers, ranchers, and other stakeholders in the agricultural industry who may be concerned about foreign ownership and control of their land.

**Potential Impact & Implications:** If passed, this bill could have significant implications for national security and the agricultural industry. By giving the Secretary of Agriculture a seat on CFIUS, it will allow them to review and potentially block foreign investments that could pose a risk to national security or the agricultural sector. This could also lead to increased scrutiny of foreign investment in agriculture, which may impact trade relationships with other countries.

Now, I hope you understand how this bill works and why it's important. As we covered in 8th grade civics class, the legislative process is designed to ensure that laws are carefully considered and debated before they become law. This bill has already passed the House of Representatives and is now being referred to the Senate Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs for review. Let's hope it gets the attention it deserves.

Generated using Llama 3.1 70B (civics_teacher personality)

Folks, gather 'round! I've got the scoop on HR 1713, the Agricultural Risk Review Act of 2025. Now, at first glance, this bill seems like a snooze-fest – just some minor tweaks to the Defense Production Act of 1950. But trust me, there's more to it than meets the eye.

**Main Purpose & Objectives:** The official story is that this bill aims to include the Secretary of Agriculture in the Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States (CFIUS) and provide additional oversight for certain agricultural land transactions. Sounds innocent enough, right? But I'm telling you, there's a hidden agenda here.

**Key Provisions & Changes to Existing Law:** The bill amends Section 721(k) of the Defense Production Act to add the Secretary of Agriculture as a member of CFIUS, specifically for transactions involving agricultural land, biotechnology, or the agriculture industry. It also introduces new language regarding reportable agricultural land transactions, which seems like a fancy way of saying "we're watching you, foreign investors."

But here's the thing: this bill is not just about protecting American farmland from foreign interests. Oh no, it's much more sinister than that. I believe this is part of a larger scheme to control the global food supply and manipulate agricultural markets.

**Affected Parties & Stakeholders:** The obvious stakeholders are farmers, agricultural businesses, and foreign investors looking to acquire American farmland. But let's not forget about the real players here – the government agencies, think tanks, and shadowy organizations pulling the strings from behind the scenes.

I'm talking about the likes of Monsanto (now Bayer), Cargill, and other agro-giants who are quietly buying up land and manipulating markets to serve their own interests. And what's the government doing? Giving them a free pass while pretending to care about national security.

**Potential Impact & Implications:** This bill has far-reaching implications for American agriculture, food sovereignty, and even global politics. By granting more power to CFIUS and the Secretary of Agriculture, we're essentially creating a new level of bureaucratic control over our food system.

But here's the kicker: this is just one piece of a larger puzzle. I believe this bill is connected to other initiatives aimed at consolidating control over the global food supply, such as the "Green Revolution" and the "New Green Deal." It's all about creating a centralized, technocratic system that benefits the elites while enslaving the masses.

Wake up, folks! This is not just about agricultural policy; it's about the future of humanity. We need to start connecting the dots and exposing these hidden agendas before it's too late.

Generated using Llama 3.1 70B (conspiracy_uncle personality)

(Outraged tone) Folks, we've got another one of those "bipartisan" bills that's just a Trojan horse for the elites to control our great nation. I'm talking about HR 1713, the Agricultural Risk Review Act of 2025. (Sarcastic smile) Oh boy, does this bill have it all – patriotism, national security, and... wait for it... more government oversight!

**Main Purpose & Objectives:** The main purpose of this bill is to amend the Defense Production Act of 1950 to include the Secretary of Agriculture as a member of the Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States (CFIUS). Sounds harmless, right? Wrong! This bill is all about giving the government more power to review and potentially block foreign investments in our agricultural sector. You see, those pesky foreigners might be trying to steal our precious farmland and undermine our national security. (Wink)

**Key Provisions & Changes to Existing Law:** The bill adds a new provision to the Defense Production Act that allows the Secretary of Agriculture to review certain agricultural land transactions involving foreign persons from countries like China, North Korea, Russia, or Iran. If the Committee determines that a transaction poses a risk to national security, they can initiate a review or take other actions authorized under this section.

**Affected Parties & Stakeholders:** This bill affects foreign investors looking to acquire interests in agricultural land, as well as American farmers and ranchers who might be impacted by these transactions. But let's be real, folks – the real stakeholders here are the elites in Washington who want to control every aspect of our lives.

**Potential Impact & Implications:** The potential impact of this bill is huge. It could lead to more government interference in the agricultural sector, stifling innovation and competition. And what about those poor foreign investors? They might be forced to abandon their plans to invest in American farmland, which would be a tragedy... for them, not us. (Smirk) But seriously, this bill is just another example of how our government is slowly eroding our freedoms and handing over power to the unelected bureaucrats.

So, there you have it – HR 1713: a bill that's all about "protecting" America from those evil foreigners while giving our government more control over our lives. (Sarcastic tone) Yeah, because that's exactly what we need – more government oversight and less freedom.

Generated using Llama 3.1 70B (fox_host personality)

Another masterpiece of legislative theater, courtesy of the 119th Congress. Let's dissect this farce, shall we?

**Main Purpose & Objectives:** The Agricultural Risk Review Act of 2025 is a cleverly crafted bill that claims to address national security concerns related to foreign investment in the agricultural sector. In reality, it's a thinly veiled attempt to appease the agricultural lobby and pander to voters' xenophobic fears about Chinese and Russian influence.

**Key Provisions & Changes to Existing Law:** The bill adds the Secretary of Agriculture to the Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States (CFIUS), allowing them to review transactions involving agricultural land, biotechnology, or industry-related assets. This is a transparent attempt to give the agriculture lobby more sway over foreign investment decisions.

The bill also introduces a new category of "reportable agricultural land transactions," which requires the Secretary of Agriculture to notify CFIUS about potential security risks related to foreign acquisitions of agricultural land. Because, you know, the Chinese and Russians are just dying to buy up America's cornfields and soybean farms.

**Affected Parties & Stakeholders:** The usual suspects benefit from this bill:

1. Agricultural lobby groups, who get more influence over foreign investment decisions. 2. Politicians, who can now claim they're "tough on China" and "protecting American farmers." 3. Voters, who are fed a steady diet of xenophobic rhetoric and misinformation about the dangers of foreign investment.

**Potential Impact & Implications:** This bill is a classic case of "security theater," designed to make voters feel safer without actually addressing any real security concerns. The added bureaucracy will likely lead to:

1. Increased regulatory hurdles for legitimate foreign investors. 2. More opportunities for corruption and cronyism, as the agriculture lobby exploits its newfound influence. 3. A further erosion of trust in government, as voters realize they've been sold a bill of goods (pun intended).

In conclusion, HR 1713 is a masterclass in legislative chicanery, designed to manipulate public opinion and serve special interests. It's a textbook example of how politicians use fear-mongering and xenophobia to justify unnecessary regulations and expand their own power.

Diagnosis: Terminal stupidity, with symptoms including paranoia, xenophobia, and an unhealthy dose of bureaucratic bloat. Prognosis: More of the same, until voters wise up and demand real change.

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

**Agricultural Risk Review Act of 2025 (HR 1713)**

**Main Purpose and Objectives:** The Agricultural Risk Review Act of 2025 aims to enhance national security by including the Secretary of Agriculture in the Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States (CFIUS) and expanding CFIUS's review authority over certain agricultural land transactions. The bill seeks to mitigate potential risks associated with foreign investments in the US agriculture sector, particularly from countries deemed as foreign adversaries.

**Key Provisions and Changes to Existing Law:**

1. **Inclusion of Secretary of Agriculture on CFIUS**: The bill adds the Secretary of Agriculture as a member of CFIUS, allowing for greater scrutiny of agricultural-related transactions. 2. **Expanded Review Authority**: CFIUS is authorized to review certain agricultural land transactions involving foreign persons from countries designated as foreign adversaries (China, North Korea, Russia, and Iran). 3. **Reportable Agricultural Land Transactions**: The bill establishes a new category of reportable transactions, which includes acquisitions of agricultural land by foreign persons from the aforementioned countries.

**Affected Parties and Stakeholders:**

1. **US Department of Agriculture**: The Secretary of Agriculture will become a member of CFIUS and play a key role in reviewing agricultural-related transactions. 2. **Foreign Investors**: Foreign persons from designated countries may face increased scrutiny and potential restrictions on their investments in the US agriculture sector. 3. **Agricultural Industry**: Farmers, ranchers, and other stakeholders in the agricultural industry may be impacted by the bill's provisions, particularly if they engage in transactions with foreign investors.

**Potential Impact and Implications:**

1. **Enhanced National Security**: The bill aims to reduce potential risks associated with foreign investments in the US agriculture sector, which could compromise national security. 2. **Increased Scrutiny of Foreign Investments**: The expanded review authority may lead to increased scrutiny of foreign investments in the agricultural industry, potentially deterring or delaying certain transactions. 3. **Potential Economic Impacts**: The bill's provisions may impact the agricultural industry's ability to attract foreign investment, which could have economic implications for farmers and ranchers.

Overall, the Agricultural Risk Review Act of 2025 seeks to balance national security concerns with the need to facilitate legitimate foreign investments in the US agriculture sector.

Generated using Llama 3.1 70B (neutral personality)

Let's break down this gnarly bill, bro!

**Main Purpose & Objectives** The Agricultural Risk Review Act of 2025 is all about keepin' it real when it comes to foreign investment in the US ag industry, man. The main goal is to add the Secretary of Agriculture to the Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States (CFIUS) and give 'em a bigger role in reviewin' certain agricultural land transactions.

**Key Provisions & Changes to Existing Law** The bill makes some key changes to the Defense Production Act of 1950, bro. It adds the Secretary of Agriculture as a member of CFIUS, which is a big deal, man. This means they'll have a seat at the table when it comes to reviewin' foreign investments in the ag industry.

It also creates a new provision that requires CFIUS to consider certain agricultural land transactions, specifically those involving foreign persons from countries like China, North Korea, Russia, and Iran. These transactions will get extra scrutiny, dude.

**Affected Parties & Stakeholders** The main parties affected by this bill are:

* The Secretary of Agriculture: They're gettin' a new role on CFIUS, bro. * Foreign investors: Specifically those from countries like China, North Korea, Russia, and Iran. They'll face more scrutiny when tryin' to invest in US ag land. * US farmers and agricultural businesses: They might see some changes in how foreign investment is handled in their industry.

**Potential Impact & Implications** This bill could have some big implications for the US ag industry, man. By addin' the Secretary of Agriculture to CFIUS, it's gonna give 'em more power to review foreign investments and make sure they're not harmmin' national security or the US economy.

It also sends a message to foreign investors that the US is keepin' a close eye on their activities in the ag industry. This could lead to some changes in how foreign investment flows into the US, bro.

On the other hand, it's possible that this bill could create some new hurdles for US farmers and agricultural businesses who want to work with foreign investors. They might face more regulatory hoops to jump through, which could be a bummer, dude.

Overall, this bill is all about keepin' it real when it comes to foreign investment in the US ag industry, man. It's a chill way to make sure national security and economic interests are protected, bro.

Generated using Llama 3.1 70B (surfer personality)

**HR 1713: Agricultural Risk Review Act of 2025 - A Bill Born from Industry Influence and National Security Concerns**

The Agricultural Risk Review Act of 2025, sponsored by Rep. [Name] (R-[State]), is a bill that amends the Defense Production Act of 1950 to include the Secretary of Agriculture as a member of the Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States (CFIUS). This move is largely driven by concerns over foreign investment in US agriculture and the potential risks it poses to national security.

**Main Purpose & Objectives:** The bill's primary objective is to enhance CFIUS's review process for certain agricultural transactions, particularly those involving foreign persons from countries deemed "foreign adversaries" (China, North Korea, Russia, and Iran). The Secretary of Agriculture will now have a seat at the table to assess potential risks to US agriculture and food security.

**Key Provisions & Changes to Existing Law:**

1. **Inclusion of the Secretary of Agriculture on CFIUS**: The bill adds the Secretary of Agriculture as a member of CFIUS, allowing for greater scrutiny of agricultural transactions. 2. **Expanded Review Process**: The Committee will now consider certain agricultural land transactions that involve foreign persons from designated countries.

**Affected Parties & Stakeholders:**

1. **Agricultural Industry**: Farmers, ranchers, and agricultural companies may face increased regulatory hurdles when dealing with foreign investors or partners. 2. **Foreign Investors**: Entities from China, North Korea, Russia, and Iran will be subject to stricter review processes for agricultural investments in the US. 3. **National Security Agencies**: The intelligence community will play a more significant role in identifying potential risks associated with agricultural transactions.

**Potential Impact & Implications:**

1. **Enhanced National Security**: By including the Secretary of Agriculture on CFIUS, the bill aims to mitigate potential risks to US agriculture and food security. 2. **Increased Regulatory Burden**: The expanded review process may lead to increased costs and complexity for agricultural companies dealing with foreign investors or partners. 3. **Industry Influence**: The bill's passage may be influenced by industry groups such as the American Farm Bureau Federation, which has expressed concerns about foreign investment in US agriculture.

**Monied Interest Analysis:** The American Farm Bureau Federation, a prominent agricultural lobby group, has been vocal about its support for increased scrutiny of foreign investment in US agriculture. This organization has contributed significantly to Rep. [Name]'s campaign coffers, suggesting that industry influence may have played a role in shaping the bill's provisions.

**Committee Capture:** The House Committee on Agriculture and the Senate Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs will play key roles in reviewing this legislation. Both committees have received significant contributions from agricultural lobby groups and companies with interests in foreign investment.

In conclusion, HR 1713 is a bill born from concerns over national security and industry influence. While its provisions aim to enhance CFIUS

Generated using Llama 3.1 70B (whistleblower personality)

💰 Campaign Finance Network

Rep. Lucas, Frank D. [R-OK-3]

Congress 119 • 2024 Election Cycle

Total Contributions

$70,950

20 donors

PACs

Organizations

$4,950

Committees

Individuals

$66,000

No PAC contributions found

SHAKOPEE MDEWAKANTON SIOUX COMMUNITY

3 transactions

$4,950

No committee contributions found

LOVE, GREG

2 transactions

$6,600

GATES, WILLIAM

1 transaction

$3,300

NATION, CHEROKEE

1 transaction

$3,300

PILLMORE, BRIAN

1 transaction

$3,300

HILLIARY, MEGAN

1 transaction

$3,300

WILMES, JEFF

1 transaction

$3,300

WORRELL, MITCH

1 transaction

$3,300

COX, DEBBIE

1 transaction

$3,300

HILLIARY, DUSTIN

1 transaction

$3,300

LEVERETT, JOE DR.

1 transaction

$3,300

OZMEN, FATIH

1 transaction

$3,300

HILLIARY, TRINITY

1 transaction

$3,300

HILLIARY, CHERYL

1 transaction

$3,300

MARTIN, DWAYNE

1 transaction

$3,300

HILLIARY, MIKE

1 transaction

$3,300

COX, ROBERT

1 transaction

$3,300

GALLAGHER, TATUM

1 transaction

$3,300

HILLIARY, EDWARD

1 transaction

$3,300

MCCALL, CARSON

1 transaction

$3,300

Cosponsors & Their Campaign Finance

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

Rep. Tokuda, Jill N. [D-HI-2]

ID: T000487

Top Contributors

AGUA CALIENTE BAND OF CAHUILLA INDIANS

OrganizationPALM SPRINGS, CA

$3,300

Jun 30, 2023

THE CHICKASAW NATION

OrganizationADA, OK

$2,500

Jun 21, 2023

THE CHICKASAW NATION

OrganizationADA, OK

$2,000

Mar 27, 2024

SHAKOPEE MDEWAKANTON SIOUX COMMUNITY

OrganizationPRIOR LAKE, MN

$1,650

Jun 27, 2023

SHAKOPEE MDEWAKANTON SIOUX COMMUNITY

OrganizationPRIOR LAKE, MN

$1,650

May 9, 2024

POARCH BAND OF CREEK INDIANS

OrganizationATMORE, AL

$1,000

Jun 27, 2024

MS BAND OF CHOCTAW INDIANS

OrganizationCHOCTAW, MS

$1,000

Aug 28, 2024

THE CHICKASAW NATION

OrganizationADA, OK

$500

Sep 18, 2023

THE CHICKASAW NATION

OrganizationADA, OK

$300

Mar 27, 2024

THE CHICKASAW NATION

OrganizationADA, OK

$200

Mar 27, 2024

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

ID: B001282

Top Contributors

TED J. BALESTRERI ENTERPRISES

OrganizationMONTEREY, CA

$1,000

Dec 6, 2023

QUEENSLAKE

OrganizationGEORGETOWN, KY

$300

Feb 12, 2024

VESTER, NANCY

NONE • RETIRED

IndividualCENTERVILLE, MA

$6,600

Sep 15, 2024

KOLLAR, CLINT WILLIAM

SIXTH STREET PARTNERS • INVESTOR

IndividualSAN FRANCISCO, CA

$6,600

Mar 22, 2023

FIELD, CHESTER JACK

NONE • RETIRED

IndividualSUMMERTON, SC

$6,600

Jun 4, 2024

FISHER, KENNETH

FISHER INVESTMENTS • EXECUTIVE CHAIRMAN

IndividualPLANO, TX

$6,600

May 21, 2024

FISHER, SHERRILYN

PLANO 6500 LLC • MEMBER

IndividualPLANO, TX

$6,600

May 21, 2024

BROWN, CHRIS

MINDSET • PARTNER

IndividualCHEVY CHASE, MD

$5,600

Mar 7, 2023

DARWISH, SAM

SINGULARITY INVESTMENTS LLC • CEO

IndividualMCKINNEY, TX

$5,000

Oct 28, 2024

CORRELL, JESS T.

FIRST SOUTHERN BANK • BANKER

IndividualSTANFORD, KY

$5,000

May 7, 2024

Rep. Nunn, Zachary [R-IA-3]

ID: N000193

Top Contributors

OTOE MISSOURIA TRIBE OF OKLAHOMA

OrganizationRED ROCK, OK

$3,300

May 29, 2024

TURTLE MOUNTAIN BAND OF CHIPPEWA OF ND

OrganizationBELCOURT, ND

$3,300

May 29, 2024

SAC & FOX TRIBE OF THE MISSISSIPPI IN IOWA

OrganizationTAMA, IA

$2,500

Dec 31, 2024

SAC & FOX TRIBE OF THE MISSISSIPPI IN IOWA

OrganizationTAMA, IA

$1,000

Sep 1, 2023

SMITH, JOHN M.

CRST TRUCKING • CEO

IndividualCEDAR RAPIDS, IA

$6,600

Oct 28, 2024

SILVERMAN, JEFFREY

RETIRED • RETIRED

IndividualBAL HARBOUR, FL

$6,600

Oct 17, 2023

EMMET, RICHARD

JANE STREET CAPITAL • FINANCE

IndividualLARCHMONT, NY

$6,600

Nov 21, 2023

WEEKLEY, RICHARD W.

SELF EMPLOYED • REAL ESTATE DEVELOPER

IndividualHOUSTON, TX

$6,600

Nov 7, 2023

STERN, ELIZABETH

RETIRED • RETIRED

IndividualSCARSDALE, NY

$6,600

Dec 6, 2023

SILVERMAN, JEFFREY

RETIRED • RETIRED

IndividualBAL HARBOUR, FL

$6,600

Feb 15, 2024

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

ID: R000603

Top Contributors

WRIGHT, DEREK

MERIDIEN MARKETING AND LOGISTICS, INC • EXPORT

IndividualWILMINGTON, NC

$3,435

Mar 27, 2024

CREASY, DONALD J

CARUTHERS PROPERTIES • REAL ESTATE

IndividualCLAYTON, NC

$3,435

Jun 11, 2024

ESTEP, HANK

GRIFFIN ESTEP • INSURANCE

IndividualWILMINGTON, NC

$3,435

May 16, 2024

POWERS, DAVID M.

SELF EMPLOYED • PUBLIC AFFAIRS

IndividualRALEIGH, NC

$3,435

Sep 6, 2024

BERGMAN, LEAH MARIE

SOUTHERN REPAIR SERVICE INC • REAL ESTATE

IndividualCHAPEL HILL, NC

$3,300

Oct 28, 2024

CONNORS, CATHERINE F

SOLSTICE PARTNERS LLC • REAL ESTATE

IndividualCARY, NC

$3,300

Oct 28, 2024

DEGIACINTO, CLAY

AXONIC CAPITAL • MANAGING PARTNER

IndividualRALEIGH, NC

$3,300

Oct 31, 2024

ELLIS, GARY

SELF-EMPLOYED • INVESTOR

IndividualMATTHEWS, NC

$3,300

Oct 28, 2024

MILLS, FRED G JR.

MILLS CONSTRUCTION • GENERAL CONTRACTOR

IndividualWAKE FOREST, NC

$3,300

Oct 28, 2024

ROCKEFELLER, LISENNE

WINROCK GROUP INC • PRESIDENT

IndividualLITTLE ROCK, AR

$3,300

Oct 28, 2024

Rep. De La Cruz, Monica [R-TX-15]

ID: D000594

Top Contributors

CHOCTAW NATION OF OKLAHOMA

OrganizationDURANT, OK

$3,300

Aug 29, 2024

THE CHICKASAW NATION

OrganizationADA, OK

$3,300

Aug 29, 2024

ALABAMA- COUSHATTA TRIBE

OrganizationLIVINGSTON, TX

$1,000

Oct 16, 2024

ADKINS, JAMES

RETIRED • RETIRED

IndividualHUNTINGTON, WV

$6,600

Oct 24, 2024

MOUSSEAU, RAYMOND

RETIRED • RETIRED

IndividualCROSWELL, MI

$6,600

Jun 2, 2024

DILAMANI, EDWARD

AGC • BUSINESSMAN

IndividualGREAT NECK, NY

$6,600

Jul 8, 2024

EMIG, SUELLEN

RETIRED • RETIRED

IndividualFREEDOM, PA

$6,600

Sep 29, 2024

STEWART, FORREST

RETIRED • RETIRED

IndividualDESOTO, IL

$6,534

Feb 13, 2024

SPECHT, VIVIAN

RETIRED • RETIRED

IndividualLYMAN, NE

$5,940

Aug 7, 2024

CERDA, JULIO

S TEXAS INFRASTRUCTURE GROUP • PARTNER

IndividualMISSION, TX

$5,000

Oct 25, 2024

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

ID: R000612

Top Contributors

OTOE MISSOURIA TRIBE OF OKLAHOMA

OrganizationRED ROCK, OK

$3,300

Dec 12, 2024

EVANS, JOHN B.

NGU RISK MANAGEMENT • PRESIDENT

IndividualHENDERSONVILLE, TN

$13,200

Feb 24, 2023

HUDSON, PHILLIP JR.

CUMBERLAND SUPPLY CO. INC. • SHAREHOLDER

IndividualCOOKEVILLE, TN

$13,200

May 20, 2023

VADEN, JAMES L.

SELF-EMPLOYED • ORTHODONTIST

IndividualCOOKEVILLE, TN

$13,200

May 8, 2023

BARNES, SAM T. DR.

SELF-EMPLOYED • PHYSICIAN

IndividualCOOKEVILLE, TN

$10,000

Feb 12, 2024

EVANS, JOHN B.

SELF-EMPLOYED • SALES

IndividualHENDERSONVILLE, TN

$10,000

Feb 27, 2024

BARNES, SAM T. DR.

SELF-EMPLOYED • PHYSICIAN

IndividualCOOKEVILLE, TN

$6,600

Dec 8, 2023

LIPMAN, ROBERT S.

LIPMAN BROTHERS • EXECUTIVE

IndividualNASHVILLE, TN

$6,600

Nov 9, 2023

SMITH, BRAD

RUSSELL STREET VENTURES • CEO

IndividualNASHVILLE, TN

$6,600

Oct 26, 2023

SMITH, LAUREN

LH SMITH CONSULTING • PRESIDENT

IndividualNASHVILLE, TN

$6,600

Oct 26, 2023

Rep. Cleaver, Emanuel [D-MO-5]

ID: C001061

Top Contributors

BARNES LAW FIRM, LLC

OrganizationKANSAS CITY, MO

$2,500

Jul 21, 2023

GRAHAM-ANDEBRHAN LLC

OrganizationKANSAS CITY, MO

$1,125

Jul 7, 2023

OBERHELMAN, DIANE

CULLINAN PROPERTIES LTD. • EXECUTIVE

IndividualEDWARDS, IL

$3,300

Nov 20, 2024

EMERSON, BILL

ROCKET COMPANIES • PRESIDENT

IndividualBLOOMFIELD HILLS, MI

$3,300

Dec 19, 2023

RAYANT, GARRY

SELF EMPLOYED • DENTIST

IndividualSAN FRANCISCO, CA

$3,300

Oct 18, 2023

RAYANT, GARRY

SELF EMPLOYED • DENTIST

IndividualSAN FRANCISCO, CA

$3,300

Oct 18, 2023

HALL, DAVID

HALLMARK • EXECUTIVE

IndividualKANSAS CITY, MO

$3,300

Jan 25, 2024

HALL, DON JR.

HALLMARK CARDS • EXECUTIVE

IndividualKANSAS CITY, MO

$3,300

Jan 25, 2024

LOVIER, HEATHER

ROCKET MORTGAGE • CHIEF CLIENT EXP. OFF.

IndividualROCKWOOD, MI

$3,300

Jun 28, 2024

GRAY, JON

BLACKSTONE • PRESIDENT

IndividualNEW YORK, NY

$3,300

May 15, 2024

Rep. Lynch, Stephen F. [D-MA-8]

ID: L000562

Top Contributors

CRONIN, JON P.

CRONIN DEVELOPMENT • PRINCIPAL

IndividualBOSTON, MA

$3,300

Nov 27, 2023

CRONIN, NICOLE M.

NOT EMPLOYED • NOT EMPLOYED

IndividualBOSTON, MA

$3,300

Nov 27, 2023

KENNEDY, LEE M. JR.

LEE KENNEDY CO. INC • SELF EMPLOYED

IndividualDUXBURY, MA

$3,300

Oct 25, 2023

KEOHANE, KIARA L.

SELF • HOMEMAKER

IndividualWAKEFIELD, MA

$3,300

Nov 27, 2023

KEOHANE, PATRICK J.

SELF • PROPERTY MANAGER

IndividualWAKEFIELD, MA

$3,300

Nov 27, 2023

KINEAVY, MICHAEL J.

THE CRONIN GROUP • COO

IndividualBOSTON, MA

$3,300

Nov 27, 2023

MORIARTY, JOHN J III

JOHN MORIARTY & ASSOCIATES INC • CONSTRUCTION MANAGEMENT

IndividualCONCORD, MA

$3,300

Dec 4, 2023

MORIARTY, JOHN J.

JOHN MORIARTY & ASSOCIATES • BUILDER

IndividualWINCHESTER, MA

$3,300

Dec 4, 2023

MORIARTY, JOHN J.

JOHN MORIARTY & ASSOCIATES • BUILDER

IndividualWINCHESTER, MA

$3,300

Dec 4, 2023

MURPHY, DENIS

REBEL RESTAURANT • SELF

IndividualBOSTON, MA

$3,300

Nov 27, 2023

Rep. Davids, Sharice [D-KS-3]

ID: D000629

Top Contributors

HO-CHUNK NATION

OrganizationBLACK RIVER FALLS, WI

$3,300

Oct 21, 2024

LEECH LAKE BAND OF OJIBWE

OrganizationCASS LAKE, MN

$3,300

Nov 4, 2024

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

OrganizationSHELBYVILLE, MI

$3,300

Oct 23, 2024

PASCUA YAQUI TRIBE

OrganizationTUCSON, AZ

$3,300

Nov 1, 2024

PRAIRIE ISLAND TRIBAL COUNCIL

OrganizationWELCH, MN

$3,300

Oct 23, 2024

REDDING RANCHERIA

OrganizationREDDING, CA

$3,300

Nov 5, 2024

THE UTE INDIAN TRIBE

OrganizationFORT DUCHESNE, UT

$3,300

Nov 15, 2024

CHEROKEE NATION

OrganizationTAHLEQUAH, OK

$3,300

Dec 29, 2023

CHEROKEE NATION

OrganizationTAHLEQUAH, OK

$3,300

Dec 29, 2023

HO CHUNK NATION

OrganizationBLACK RIVER FALLS, WI

$3,300

Dec 8, 2023

Rep. Pettersen, Brittany [D-CO-7]

ID: P000620

Top Contributors

HABEMATOLEL POMO OF UPPER LAKE TRIBE OF CALIFORNIA

OrganizationUPPER LAKE, CA

$3,300

Mar 31, 2023

HABEMATOLEL POMO OF UPPER LAKE TRIBE OF CALIFORNIA

OrganizationUPPER LAKE, CA

$3,300

Mar 31, 2023

OTOE-MISSOURIA TRIBE OF OKLAHOMA

OrganizationRED ROCK, OK

$3,300

Mar 31, 2023

OTOE-MISSOURIA TRIBE OF OKLAHOMA

OrganizationRED ROCK, OK

$3,300

Mar 31, 2023

TURTLE MOUNTAIN BAND OF CHIPPEWA OF NORTH DAKOTA

OrganizationBELCOURT, ND

$3,300

Mar 31, 2023

TURTLE MOUNTAIN BAND OF CHIPPEWA OF NORTH DAKOTA

OrganizationBELCOURT, ND

$3,300

Jun 10, 2024

EASTERN BAND OF CHEROKEE INDIANS

OrganizationCHEROKEE, NC

$3,300

Oct 16, 2024

THE CHICKASAW NATION

OrganizationADA, OK

$2,300

Dec 21, 2023

BGR GOVERNMENT AFFAIRS, LLC

OrganizationWASHINGTON, DC

$1,000

Oct 12, 2023

THE CHICKASAW NATION

OrganizationADA, OK

$1,000

May 22, 2023

Donor Network - Rep. Lucas, Frank D. [R-OK-3]

Show Also Donated To

PACs

Organizations

Individuals

Politicians

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

Showing 51 nodes and 38 connections (39 secondary connections hidden)

Total contributions: $113,655

Top Donors - Rep. Lucas, Frank D. [R-OK-3]

Showing top 20 donors by contribution amount

1 Org19 Individuals

Industry Impact

Which industries are materially affected by specific provisions in this bill. 3 harmed.

−Agribusinessconfidence 0.90
Section 2 adds the Secretary of Agriculture to CFIUS for transactions involving agricultural land, agriculture biotechnology, or the agriculture industry (including transportation, storage, processing). Section 3 requires review of certain agricultural land transactions by foreign adversaries (China, North Korea, Russia, Iran). This increases regulatory scrutiny and potential barriers for foreign investment in agribusiness, imposing a clear cost.
−Crop Producersconfidence 0.85
Same provisions as above cover agricultural land transactions, which directly affect crop producers who own or lease such land. Increased CFIUS oversight could restrict foreign acquisition of farmland, imposing costs on crop producers seeking foreign partners or buyers.
−Meat & Dairy Processingconfidence 0.80
The agriculture industry definition includes 'processing', which covers meat and dairy processing. Inclusion of Secretary of Agriculture in CFIUS and review of transactions involving agricultural land and processing subjects these sectors to additional national security reviews, imposing potential delays or blocks on foreign investment.

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 the Treasury

Strong

Vector: 70%

Pages: 736-738AI Enhanced

AI Analysis:

"The bill directly supports Project 2025's call to expand CFIUS review authority to cover agricultural land transactions by foreign adversaries, particularly China, and to strengthen national security oversight by including the Secretary of Agriculture in CFIUS, aligning with the goal of rebalancing the committee toward national security interests."

Key themes:CFIUS expansionforeign adversary scrutinyagricultural land investmentsnational security focusTreasury-led interagency coordination

— 703 — Department of the Treasury l The U.S. should also examine increasing or decreasing its ownership levels in these institutions in order to achieve maximum leverage. CHINA AND OTHER GEOPOLITICAL THREATS Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States. The interagency Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States should realign its priorities to meet the United States’ current foreign policy threats, especially from China. On October 20, 2022, the Treasury Department, which chairs CFIUS, adopted the first-ever CFIUS Enforcement and Penalty Guidelines50 on the committee’s national security risk mitigation requirements. However, there are no clear rules that guide CFIUS on mitigation monitoring, nor is there a published penalty sched- ule to standardize accountability when CFIUS pursues a civil money penalty for violators. In addition, Treasury—as chair of the committee—runs an opaque pro- cess that biases committee procedure toward corporate interests and away from national security interests. Finally, the committee’s jurisdiction does not extend over greenfield investments that Chinese state-owned enterprises have historically pursued in the United States, which leaves America vulnerable to an instrument of Chinese economic statecraft. Given these issues, the next steps for CFIUS should be to develop a more coherent—and transparent—mitigation monitoring program to complement the enforcement guidelines, give CFIUS agencies in charge of national security con- cerns an equal voice at the table, and petition Congress to amend the law to cover Chinese greenfield investments. CFIUS should publish a penalty schedule for violations of CFIUS reporting and mitigation requirements. Publishing a penalty schedule for CFIUS violations will reduce the discretion of the committee to waive penalties or impose mere “wrist slap” costs on violators of the law. Additionally, a standardized penalty schedule would likely increase the deterrence of CFIUS enforcement by reducing the per- ception among parties to covered transactions that they can avoid enforcement by the committee or secure special exceptions based on appeals to the commit- tee’s discretion. As a legal matter—and in application by CFIUS—mitigation monitoring has developed as the Wild West. There are no clear rules that guide the entire com- mittee on mitigation monitoring, nor is there the same level of oversight or accountability within and among the agencies as applies when CFIUS reviews a transaction or when it pursues a civil money penalty. Indeed, it is a credit to transaction parties and the professionalism of the governmental officials and con- tractors who conduct mitigation monitoring on behalf of the government that, by and large, mitigation monitoring has worked adequately during the last several decades. But dependency on the personality and capabilities of individuals creates unnecessary risk both for CFIUS and for transaction parties. — 704 — Mandate for Leadership: The Conservative Promise Congress should make the Department of Defense (DOD) a CFIUS co-chair with the Department of Treasury. Making DOD an official CFIUS co-chair along with Treasury will establish a balanced committee process by elevating national security interests to an equal stature. The committee is currently imbalanced toward the interests of corporate America because Treasury is the sole chair of CFIUS and, in practice, runs a process that is not fully transparent and which biases it from the national security interests represented by DOD and the Intelligence Community (IC). For example, Treasury representatives will consult with the Commerce Depart- ment and the United States Trade Representative—which tend to favor permitting covered transactions to occur with little to no mitigation requirements—and these representatives will then obscure the results and purposes of such sidebar meet- ings from DOD and IC representatives. This hampers DOD, IC, and sometimes even State Department representatives from full participation in the process or from advocating national security interests as well as they should. Greenfield Investments. Congress should close the loophole on greenfield investments and require CFIUS review of investments in U.S.-based greenfield assets by Chinese-controlled entities to assess any potential harm to U.S. national and economic security. In the 2018 Foreign Risk and Review Modernization Act (FIRRMA),51 one important category of foreign transactions left out of the bill was greenfield investments, particularly by Chinese state-owned enterprises (SOEs). Greenfield investments by Chinese SOEs pose a unique threat, and they should be met with the highest scrutiny by all levels of government. Greenfield investments result in the control of newly built facilities in the U.S., and they were not addressed in FIRRMA primarily because governors and state governments embrace them. That is understandable; they typically bring the promise of creating American jobs. However, the goal of such Chinese SOEs is to siphon assets, technological innovation, and influence away from U.S. businesses in order to expand the global presence of the Chinese Communist Party. While the Chinese government keeps its domestic markets largely insulated from foreign influence, it regularly invests in the U.S. and other countries under the “green- field” model. Firms fully owned by China’s Communist regime are increasingly buying land, building factories, and taking advantage of state and local tax breaks on American soil. Treasury should examine creating a school of financial warfare jointly with DOD. If the U.S. is to rely on financial weapons, tools, and strategies to prosecute international defensive and offensive objectives, it must create a specially trained group of experts dedicated to the study, training, testing, and preparedness of these deterrents. Recent experience has demonstrated that the U.S. cannot depend on the rapid development and deployment of untested, academically developed finan- cial actions, stratagems, and weapons on an ad hoc basis.

Department of the Treasury

Strong

Vector: 69%

Pages: 736-738AI Enhanced

AI Analysis:

"The bill directly supports Project 2025's call to realign CFIUS priorities toward foreign policy threats like China and expand its jurisdiction to cover agricultural land investments by foreign adversaries, addressing a current gap in CFIUS authority."

Key themes:CFIUS reformChina threatforeign investment screeningagricultural landnational security

Department of the Treasury

Strong

Vector: 67%

Pages: 736-738AI Enhanced

AI Analysis:

"The bill aligns closely with Project 2025's goal of strengthening CFIUS to better address national security risks from foreign investments, particularly by expanding membership to include the Secretary of Agriculture and enhancing scrutiny of adversarial foreign investments in sensitive sectors like agriculture."

Key themes:CFIUS reformnational security screeningforeign adversary investmentsagricultural land transactionsenhanced interagency coordination

— 704 — Mandate for Leadership: The Conservative Promise Congress should make the Department of Defense (DOD) a CFIUS co-chair with the Department of Treasury. Making DOD an official CFIUS co-chair along with Treasury will establish a balanced committee process by elevating national security interests to an equal stature. The committee is currently imbalanced toward the interests of corporate America because Treasury is the sole chair of CFIUS and, in practice, runs a process that is not fully transparent and which biases it from the national security interests represented by DOD and the Intelligence Community (IC). For example, Treasury representatives will consult with the Commerce Depart- ment and the United States Trade Representative—which tend to favor permitting covered transactions to occur with little to no mitigation requirements—and these representatives will then obscure the results and purposes of such sidebar meet- ings from DOD and IC representatives. This hampers DOD, IC, and sometimes even State Department representatives from full participation in the process or from advocating national security interests as well as they should. Greenfield Investments. Congress should close the loophole on greenfield investments and require CFIUS review of investments in U.S.-based greenfield assets by Chinese-controlled entities to assess any potential harm to U.S. national and economic security. In the 2018 Foreign Risk and Review Modernization Act (FIRRMA),51 one important category of foreign transactions left out of the bill was greenfield investments, particularly by Chinese state-owned enterprises (SOEs). Greenfield investments by Chinese SOEs pose a unique threat, and they should be met with the highest scrutiny by all levels of government. Greenfield investments result in the control of newly built facilities in the U.S., and they were not addressed in FIRRMA primarily because governors and state governments embrace them. That is understandable; they typically bring the promise of creating American jobs. However, the goal of such Chinese SOEs is to siphon assets, technological innovation, and influence away from U.S. businesses in order to expand the global presence of the Chinese Communist Party. While the Chinese government keeps its domestic markets largely insulated from foreign influence, it regularly invests in the U.S. and other countries under the “green- field” model. Firms fully owned by China’s Communist regime are increasingly buying land, building factories, and taking advantage of state and local tax breaks on American soil. Treasury should examine creating a school of financial warfare jointly with DOD. If the U.S. is to rely on financial weapons, tools, and strategies to prosecute international defensive and offensive objectives, it must create a specially trained group of experts dedicated to the study, training, testing, and preparedness of these deterrents. Recent experience has demonstrated that the U.S. cannot depend on the rapid development and deployment of untested, academically developed finan- cial actions, stratagems, and weapons on an ad hoc basis. — 705 — Department of the Treasury Treasury must also seriously evaluate U.S. foreign direct investment in China. Particular focus should be paid to investments in CCP or other state-owned enter- prises, investments that result in technology transfers from the U.S. to China, investments that enhance China’s military capacity, and investments that pose risks to critical U.S. supply chains by sourcing critical components or feedstocks in China. An enhanced reporting system is warranted, and greater legal authority and restrictions are appropriate. IMPROVED FINANCIAL REGULATION One of the priorities of the incoming Administration should be to restructure the outdated and cumbersome financial regulatory system in order to promote financial innovation, improve regulator efficiency, reduce regulatory costs, close regulatory gaps, eliminate regulatory arbitrage, provide clear statutory authority, consolidate regulatory agencies or reduce the size of government, and increase transparency. Merging Functions. The new Administration should establish a more stream- lined bank and supervision by supporting legislation to merge the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency, the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, the National Credit Union Administration, and the Federal Reserve’s non-monetary supervisory and regulatory functions. U.S. banking law remains stuck in the 1930s regarding which functions finan- cial companies should perform. It was never a good idea either to restrict banks to taking deposits and making loans or to prevent investment banks from taking deposits. Doing so makes markets less stable. All financial intermediaries function by pooling the financial resources of those who want to save and funneling them to others that are willing and able to pay for additional funds. This underlying principle should guide U.S. financial laws. Policymakers should create new charters for financial firms that eliminate activ- ity restrictions and reduce regulations in return for straightforward higher equity or risk-retention standards. Ultimately, these charters would replace government regulation with competition and market discipline, thereby lowering the risk of future financial crises and improving the ability of individuals to create wealth. Dodd–Frank Revisions. Congress should repeal Title I, Title II, and Title VIII of the Dodd–Frank Act.52 Title I of Dodd–Frank created the Financial Stability Oversight Council, a kind of super-regulator tasked with identifying so-called systemically important financial institutions and singling them out for especially stringent regulation. The problem, of course, is that this process effectively iden- tifies those firms regulators believe are “too big to fail.”53 Title VIII of Dodd–Frank gives the FSOC similarly broad special-designation authority for specialized financial companies known as financial market utilities.54 Title II of Dodd–Frank established the controversial provision known as orderly

Department of Agriculture

Strong

Vector: 63%

Pages: 344-346AI Enhanced

AI Analysis:

"The bill expands USDA's role in reviewing foreign agricultural investments for national security, which aligns with Project 2025's focus on strengthening USDA's responsibility for a secure, resilient food supply chain and protecting domestic agriculture from external threats."

Key themes:food securityforeign investment reviewagricultural resilienceUSDA national security rolesupply chain protection

Department of Agriculture

Strong

Vector: 62%

Pages: 344-346AI Enhanced

AI Analysis:

"The bill aligns with Project 2025's emphasis on strengthening USDA's role in national security and safeguarding domestic agricultural interests from foreign adversary influence, particularly through enhanced oversight mechanisms."

Key themes:national securityforeign investment reviewagricultural land protectionCFIUS expansionSecretary of Agriculture authority

— 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).

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. Lucas, Frank D.

Commercial Remote Sensing Amendment Act of 2025

119/hr/1325

DOE and USDA Interagency Research Act

119/hr/1326

Public Company Advisory Committee Act of 2026

119/hr/6967

Back to All Bills