Fighting Foreign Illegal Seafood Harvests Act of 2025

Download PDF
Bill ID: 119/s/688
Last Updated: September 7, 2026

Sponsored by

Sen. Sullivan, Dan [R-AK]

ID: S001198

Follow the money

The bill

Fighting Foreign Illegal Seafood Harvests Act of 2025

S. 688, 119th Congress — read as touching Agribusiness.

The sponsor

Sen. Sullivan, Dan [R-AK]

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

The money

$1,129,097 raised

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

The alignment

70% match to Project 2025

This bill's text tracks the "Department of Labor and Related Agencies" section, p. 645-647 of the Mandate for Leadership.

Bill's Journey to Becoming a Law

Track this bill's progress through the legislative process

Latest Action

Held at the desk.

March 23, 2026

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

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

**Main Purpose & Objectives**

The Fighting Foreign Illegal Seafood Harvests Act of 2025 (FISH Act) claims to combat "illegal, unreported, and unregulated fishing" globally. How noble. In reality, it's a thinly veiled attempt to appease the seafood industry and environmental groups while pretending to address the symptoms of a much deeper problem.

**Key Provisions & Changes to Existing Law**

The bill establishes an IUU (Illegal, Unreported, and Unregulated) Vessel List, which will supposedly track foreign vessels engaged in IUU fishing. Oh, wow. A list. That's sure to stop the pirates... err, I mean, fishermen. The Secretary of Commerce will maintain this list, because that's not a bureaucratic nightmare waiting to happen.

The bill also amends existing law to include new definitions and criteria for identifying IUU vessels. Because, you know, the previous definitions weren't vague enough. Now we have more loopholes to exploit and lawyers to enrich.

**Affected Parties & Stakeholders**

* The seafood industry: They'll pretend to support this bill while secretly lobbying against it. * Environmental groups: They'll cheerlead for this bill, oblivious to its ineffectiveness. * Foreign governments: They'll ignore this bill or use it as a pretext to retaliate against the US. * Taxpayers: They'll foot the bill for this bureaucratic exercise in futility.

**Potential Impact & Implications**

This bill will have all the impact of a feather on a hurricane. IUU fishing is a symptom of larger issues, such as corruption, lack of enforcement, and economic incentives that encourage overfishing. This bill doesn't address any of these underlying problems.

In fact, it might even make things worse by creating more bureaucracy and red tape, which will only serve to enrich lawyers and consultants while doing nothing to stop IUU fishing. The real beneficiaries of this bill will be the politicians who sponsored it, who'll get to claim they're "doing something" about the issue without actually accomplishing anything.

Diagnosis: This bill is a classic case of "Legislative Placebo Syndrome," where lawmakers create a feel-good solution that doesn't address the underlying problem. The prognosis? More of the same ineffective posturing and bureaucratic waste.

Related Topics

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

💰 Campaign Finance Network

Sen. Sullivan, Dan [R-AK]

Congress 119 • 2024 Election Cycle

Total Contributions
$1,129,097
18 donors
PACs
$91,600
Organizations
$1,035,500
Committees
$0
Individuals
$0
1
SEND IN THE SEAL PAC
2 transactions
$60,000
2
THE LINCOLN CLUB OF ORANGE COUNTY FEDERAL PAC
1 transaction
$25,000
3
WINRED
1 transaction
$6,600
1
MACLEAN-FOGG COMPANY
3 transactions
$141,300
2
PASCUA YAQUI TRIBE
2 transactions
$82,600
3
PECHANGA TRIBE OF LUISENO MISSION INDIANS
2 transactions
$82,600
4
ONEIDA INDIAN NATION
2 transactions
$82,600
5
SHAKOPEE MDEWAKANTON SIOUX COMMUNITY
2 transactions
$82,600
6
SOBOBA BAND OF LUISENO INDIANS
2 transactions
$82,600
7
CHICKASAW NATION
2 transactions
$82,600
8
AGUA CALIENTE BAND OF CAHUILLA INDIANS
2 transactions
$77,800
9
MISSISSIPPI BAND OF CHOCTAW INDIANS
2 transactions
$77,800
10
POARCH BAND OF CREEK INDIANS
2 transactions
$77,800
11
AK-CHIN INDIAN COMMUNITY
1 transaction
$41,300
12
TIGUA INDIAN RESERVATION
1 transaction
$41,300
13
TUNICA-BILOXI TRIBE OF LOUISIANA
1 transaction
$41,300
14
MORONGO BAND OF MISSION INDIANS
1 transaction
$41,300

No committee contributions found

No individual contributions found

Cosponsors & Their Campaign Finance

This bill has 9 cosponsors. Below are their top campaign contributors.

Sen. Whitehouse, Sheldon [D-RI]

ID: W000802

Top Contributors

20

1
HEISING, MARK
MEDLEY PARTNERS • MANAGING DIRECTOR / FOUNDER
IndividualATHERTON, CA
$6,600
Mar 4, 2024
2
PAGE, GLORIA
N/A • NOT EMPLOYED
IndividualLOS ALTOS, CA
$5,400
Apr 14, 2023
3
PAGE, GLORIA
IndividualLOS ALTOS, CA
$5,000
Apr 24, 2023
4
PAGE, GLORIA
N/A • NOT EMPLOYED
IndividualLOS ALTOS, CA
$3,330
Jul 12, 2024
5
PAGE, GLORIA
IndividualLOS ALTOS, CA
$3,330
Sep 8, 2024
6
CONOVER, CATHERINE M.
SELF EMPLOYED • INVESTOR
IndividualWASHINGTON, DC
$3,300
Oct 25, 2024
7
LANG, DAVID
N/A • RETIRED
IndividualPORTSMOUTH, RI
$3,300
Oct 28, 2024
8
ARNOLD, JOHN
N/A • NOT EMPLOYED
IndividualHOUSTON, TX
$3,300
Nov 20, 2023
9
BILLINGSLEY, LINDSAY
ALLIANCE RESIDENTIAL • REAL ESTATE
IndividualDALLAS, TX
$3,300
Dec 16, 2023
10
BILLINGSLEY, LINDSAY
ALLIANCE RESIDENTIAL • REAL ESTATE
IndividualDALLAS, TX
$3,300
Dec 16, 2023

Sen. Murkowski, Lisa [R-AK]

ID: M001153

Top Contributors

29

1
MUCKLESHOOT INDIAN TRIBE
OrganizationAUBURN, WA
$3,300
May 15, 2023
2
THE CHICKASAW NATION
OrganizationADA, OK
$2,500
Dec 20, 2023
3
MUCKLESHOOT INDIAN TRIBE
OrganizationAUBURN, WA
$1,000
Nov 20, 2024
4
SHAKOPEE MDEWAKANTON SIOUX COMMUNITY
OrganizationPRIOR LAKE, MN
$1,000
Oct 26, 2023
5
SHAKOPEE MDEWAKANTON SIOUX COMMUNITY
OrganizationPRIOR LAKE, MN
$1,000
Jun 3, 2024
6
PUYALLUP TRIBE OF INDIANS
OrganizationTACOMA, WA
$1,000
Sep 30, 2024
7
SUQUAMISH INDIAN TRIBE
OrganizationSUQUAMISH, WA
$1,000
Sep 30, 2024
8
TOHONO O'ODHAM NATION
OrganizationSELLS, AZ
$1,000
Aug 9, 2024
9
CHOCTAW NATION OF OKLAHOMA
OrganizationDURANT, OK
$550
Oct 26, 2023
10
SEGAL, PAUL
LS POWER DEVELOPMENT, LLC • CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER
IndividualNEW YORK, NY
$3,300
Dec 16, 2023

Sen. Wicker, Roger F. [R-MS]

ID: W000437

Top Contributors

25

1
EASTERN BAND OF CHEROKEE INDIANS
OrganizationCHEROKEE, NC
$25,000
Sep 13, 2024
2
MISSISSIPPI BAND OF CHOCTAW INDIANS
OrganizationCHOCTAW, MS
$15,000
Nov 5, 2024
3
WT CONSULTANTS LLC
OrganizationJACKSON, MS
$2,500
Jan 12, 2023
4
WAYPOINT CONSULTING, LLC
OrganizationWASHINGTON, DC
$1,000
Mar 26, 2024
5
HEDERMAN BROTHERS, LLC
OrganizationMADISON, MS
$1,000
Oct 9, 2024
6
CHOUEST, GARY
EDISON CHOUEST OFFSHORE, LLC • CEO
IndividualGALLIANO, LA
$100,000
Dec 1, 2023
7
HALE, ROBERT T. JR.
GRANITE TELECOM • CEO
IndividualBOSTON, MA
$100,000
Jun 28, 2023
8
BLUE, J. NEAL
GENERAL ATOMICS • CEO
IndividualLA JOLLA, CA
$50,000
Dec 21, 2023
9
HALE, ROBERT T. JR.
GRANITE TELECOM • CEO
IndividualBOSTON, MA
$50,000
Apr 12, 2024
10
DUFF, THOMAS M.
SOUTHERN TIRE MART • PRESIDENT
IndividualHATTIESBURG, MS
$50,000
Sep 30, 2024

Sen. Graham, Lindsey [R-SC]

ID: G000359

Top Contributors

31

1
WINRED PAC
PACARLINGTON, VA
$3,833
Oct 15, 2024
2
CATAWBA INDIAN NATION
OrganizationROCK HILL, SC
$3,300
May 21, 2024
3
BEVERLY B GROSSMAN TRUST
OrganizationENCINO, CA
$1,550
Jul 12, 2024
4
BELL FAMILY TRUST
OrganizationINDIAN WELLS, CA
$1,000
Mar 1, 2024
5
BEVERLY B GROSSMAN TRUST
OrganizationENCINO, CA
$230
Oct 2, 2024
6
BEVERLY B GROSSMAN TRUST
OrganizationENCINO, CA
$200
Jul 30, 2024
7
BEVERLY B GROSSMAN TRUST
OrganizationENCINO, CA
$150
Aug 14, 2024
8
ALFRED SEYMOUR BASSLER TR
RETIRED • RETIRED
OrganizationWOODBINE, MD
$100
Jul 26, 2024
9
ALFRED SEYMOUR BASSLER TR
RETIRED • RETIRED
OrganizationWOODBINE, MD
$100
Jul 26, 2024
10
BEVERLY B GROSSMAN TRUST
OrganizationENCINO, CA
$100
Jul 30, 2024

Sen. Merkley, Jeff [D-OR]

ID: M001176

Top Contributors

28

1
AK-CHIN INDIAN COMMUNITY
OrganizationMARICOPA, AZ
$2,500
Oct 17, 2024
2
CHEROKEE NATION
OrganizationTAHLEQUAH, OK
$2,500
Dec 30, 2023
3
SISSETON-WAHPETON OYATE
OrganizationAGENCY VILLAGE, SD
$2,000
Jun 21, 2024
4
CONFEDERATED TRIBES AND BANDS OF THE YAKAMA NATION
OrganizationTOPPENISH, WA
$1,000
Oct 7, 2024
5
CHOCTAW NATION OF OKLAHOMA
OrganizationDURANT, OK
$1,000
Nov 9, 2023
6
SHAKOPEE MDEWAKANTON SIOUX COMMUNITY
OrganizationPRIOR LAKE, MN
$1,000
May 2, 2024
7
MISSISSIPPI BAND OF CHOCTAW INDIANS
OrganizationCHOCTAW, MS
$1,000
Aug 2, 2024
8
SHAKOPEE MDEWAKANTON SIOUX COMMUNITY
OrganizationPRIOR LAKE, MN
$400
Jul 17, 2023
9
STUBBS, MARILYN L.
NOT EMPLOYED • RETIRED
IndividualPORTLAND, OR
$5,000
Jul 17, 2023
10
BARNHART, PHILIP N.
NOT EMPLOYED • RETIRED
IndividualEUGENE, OR
$5,000
Jun 21, 2024

Sen. Blunt Rochester, Lisa [D-DE]

ID: B001303

Top Contributors

36

1
PHAROS CAPITAL GROUP LLC
OrganizationBRENTWOOD, TN
$3,300
Dec 15, 2023
2
TUNICA-BILOXI TRIBE OF LA
OrganizationMARKSVILLE, LA
$3,300
Dec 29, 2023
3
POMO BAND OF THE HABEMOTOLEL INDIANS
OrganizationUPPER LAKE, CA
$3,300
May 17, 2024
4
THE CHICKASAW NATION
OrganizationMADILL, OK
$3,300
May 30, 2024
5
THE CHICKASAW NATION
OrganizationMADILL, OK
$3,300
May 30, 2024
6
THE DANIEL INITIATIVE, LLC
OrganizationSTAFFORD, VA
$3,300
Jul 24, 2023
7
TUNICA-BILOXI TRIBE OF LA
OrganizationMARKSVILLE, LA
$2,500
Sep 30, 2024
8
PHAROS CAPITAL GROUP LLC
OrganizationBRENTWOOD, TN
$2,300
Dec 15, 2023
9
SAN MANUEL BAND OF MISSION INDIANS
OrganizationLOS ANGELES, CA
$2,000
Mar 31, 2024
10
1634 ASSOCIATES
OrganizationPHILADELPHIA, PA
$2,000
Sep 30, 2023

Sen. Coons, Christopher A. [D-DE]

ID: C001088

Top Contributors

22

1
CHEROKEE NATION
OrganizationTAHLEQUAH, OK
$3,300
Dec 27, 2023
2
CHEROKEE NATION
OrganizationTAHLEQUAH, OK
$1,700
Dec 27, 2023
3
CHEN, YU
NOT EMPLOYED • NOT EMPLOYED
IndividualMIAMI, FL
$3,300
Dec 17, 2024
4
MIRZAIE, REZA
RUSS AUGUST & KABAT LLP • ATTORNEY
IndividualPACIFIC PALISADES, CA
$3,300
Oct 7, 2024
5
CHEN, YU
NOT EMPLOYED • NOT EMPLOYED
IndividualMIAMI, FL
$3,300
Dec 17, 2024
6
WASSERMAN, CASEY
WASSERMAN • CEO
IndividualLOS ANGELES, CA
$3,300
Nov 5, 2024
7
ZHAO, PENG
CITADEL SECURITIES • CEO
IndividualMIAMI, FL
$3,300
Dec 17, 2024
8
WASSERMAN, CASEY
WASSERMAN • CEO
IndividualLOS ANGELES, CA
$3,300
Nov 5, 2024
9
ZHAO, PENG
CITADEL SECURITIES • CEO
IndividualMIAMI, FL
$3,300
Dec 17, 2024
10
MIRZAIE, REZA
RUSS AUGUST & KABAT LLP • ATTORNEY
IndividualPACIFIC PALISADES, CA
$3,300
Oct 7, 2024

Sen. Kennedy, John [R-LA]

ID: K000393

Top Contributors

20

1
REITERMAN, MARY ELIZABETH
RETIRED • RETIRED
IndividualSTOKESDALE, NC
$17,400
Oct 3, 2024
2
VIVIAN, MICHAEL A
RETIRED • RETIRED
IndividualPHOENIX, AZ
$17,400
Oct 23, 2024
3
REITERMAN, MARY ELIZABETH
IndividualSTOKESDALE, NC
$17,400
Nov 18, 2024
4
VIVIAN, MICHAEL A
IndividualPHOENIX, AZ
$17,400
Oct 23, 2024
5
JONES, SHIRLEY
IndividualLAKELAND, FL
$17,400
May 9, 2024
6
LACOSTE, ROGER
IndividualNEW BEDFORD, MA
$17,400
Jun 30, 2024
7
JONES, SHIRLEY
RETIRED • RETIRED
IndividualLAKELAND, FL
$17,400
May 6, 2024
8
LACOSTE, ROGER
RETIRED • RETIRED
IndividualNEW BEDFORD, MA
$17,400
Jun 22, 2024
9
LABEDZ, DAVID
RETIRED • RETIRED
IndividualWARREN, MI
$17,400
Sep 5, 2024
10
LABEDZ, DAVID
IndividualWARREN, MI
$11,000
Sep 6, 2024

Sen. Hyde-Smith, Cindy [R-MS]

ID: H001079

Top Contributors

24

1
POARCH BAND OF CREEK INDIANS
OrganizationATMORE, AL
$2,900
Feb 28, 2023
2
MS BAND OF CHOCTAW INDIANS
OrganizationCHOCTAW, MS
$1,500
May 31, 2023
3
SHAKOPEE MDEWAKANTON SIOUX COMMUNITY
OrganizationPRIOR LAKE, MN
$1,000
Jun 20, 2024
4
THE CHICKASAW NATION
OrganizationADA, OK
$250
Mar 11, 2024
5
LUROS, HILARY
HOUSEWIFE • HOUSEWIFE
IndividualSUGAR LAND, TX
$6,600
Oct 21, 2024
6
LUROS, HILARY
HOUSEWIFE • HOUSEWIFE
IndividualSUGAR LAND, TX
$6,600
Oct 21, 2024
7
BESSENT, SCOTT
KEY SQUARE GROUP • INVESTMENT MANAGEMENT
IndividualCHARLESTON, SC
$6,600
Dec 31, 2024
8
FREEMAN, JOHN
HIGH PLAINS ACRES LLP • ATTORNEY/AGRICULTURE
IndividualCHARLESTON, SC
$6,600
Dec 31, 2024
9
CASTLE, JOHN
CASTLE HARLAN • MERCHANT BANKER
IndividualNEW YORK, NY
$6,600
Mar 26, 2024
10
SEEMANN, WILLIAM III
SEEMANN COMPOSITES • CHAIRMAN
IndividualPASS CHRISTIAN, MS
$6,600
Jun 20, 2024

Donor Network - Sen. Sullivan, Dan [R-AK]

PACs
Organizations
Individuals
Politicians

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

Loading...

Showing 53 nodes and 75 connections

Total contributions: $75

Top Donors - Sen. Sullivan, Dan [R-AK]

Showing top 18 donors by contribution amount

3 PACs14 Orgs1 Committee

Industry Impact

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

  • −Agribusinessconfidence 0.80

    Section 11 requires developing a strategy to identify seafood harvested on foreign vessels using forced labor, which could affect seafood supply chains and potentially increase costs for agribusinesses involved in seafood processing and distribution.

  • Section 11's strategy to identify seafood harvested using forced labor may extend to broader seafood processing, impacting meat and dairy processors that also handle seafood products or face similar supply chain scrutiny.

Who funds the sponsor on these industries

For each industry this bill affects, here's what the sponsor (Sen. Sullivan, Dan [R-AK])received from donors associated with that industry during the 2022–present cycles. Donations are not proof of intent — they are a record of who funds the people writing the law.

Industries this bill HARMS

  • from 125 contributions
    • ENGLES, GREGG L. MR.$50,000
    • LOPEZ, GEORGE ALBERTO MR.$1,310
    • ROSE, LESLEY$785
    • SNYDER, BRUCE$482
    • PARKS, KARL$413
  • from 140 contributions
    • ROSE, LESLEY$785
    • MACMILLIAN, CARGILL A. III$634
    • CARGILL, CANDACE$500
    • SNYDER, BRUCE$482
    • PARKS, KARL$413

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 Labor and Related Agencies

Moderate
Vector: 62%
Pages: 645-647AI Enhanced

AI Analysis:

"The bill addresses forced labor and human trafficking in the fishing industry, which aligns with Project 2025's focus on combating forced labor and protecting workers' rights in international trade. However, the bill's primary focus is on IUU fishing enforcement rather than direct labor policy or trade agreement enforcement mechanisms emphasized in the Project 2025 section."

Key themes:forced laborhuman traffickinginternational labor enforcementworker protectionssupply chain accountability

— 613 — Department of Labor and Related Agencies l Congress must amend the law so that employers can again have the freedom to make hiring Americans a priority. Despite the significant advantages that preferring citizens over (work-authorized) aliens in hiring would provide to American workers, businesses, and the country at large, such a practice has been illegal since 1986.25 This makes no sense. Alternative View Some conservatives believe that the government has a duty to limit its spending in order to limit how much it takes from American families. This means that when the government spends money, it must find the most econom- ical and effective way to do so. Excessive government spending will be borne by American workers and families through reduced incomes and purchasing power. There may be good reasons to require a certain percentage of American workers on federal contracts, but those decisions should be based on economy and efficiency as opposed to arbitrary quotas. Visa Fraud. American businesses that commit visa fraud and hire illegal immi- grants should not be the beneficiaries of federal spending. But a 2020 report by the Department of Labor’s Office of Inspector General (OIG) examined the depart- ment’s process for excluding employers who commit visa fraud and abuse from federal contracts and found much to be desired. l To protect the American workforce from unscrupulous immigration lawyers, employers, and labor brokers, the department must follow the recommendations of the OIG and institute more robust investigations for suspected visa fraud and speedier debarments for those found guilty. INTERNATIONAL LABOR POLICY Leveling the International Playing Field for Workers. As recent decades of intense import competition and offshoring have made clear, American workers suffer when the U.S. opens its markets to foreign nations’ minimal labor standards and exploitative conditions. While federal law already prohibits the importation of goods produced with forced labor, the prohibitions are toothless without effective means of enforcement and cover only the most basic of workers’ rights. The Trump Administration and its United States Trade Representative (USTR) took unprece- dented steps to redress the issue for workers. The U.S.–Mexico–Canada Agreement (USMCA) contained the strongest and most far-reaching labor provisions of any free trade agreement (FTA), with protections and commitments to reduce labor abuses and raise wages. It also established new modes of enforcement. For future FTAs, the USTR should replicate the labor provisions of USMCA, especially the provisions to: — 614 — Mandate for Leadership: The Conservative Promise l Eliminate all forms of forced or compulsory labor. l Protect workers’ rights to organize and participate voluntarily in a union without employer interference or discrimination. l Create a rapid-response mechanism to provide for an independent panel investigation of denial of labor rights at covered facilities. l Shift the burden of proof by presuming that an alleged violation affects trade and investment, unless otherwise demonstrated. For future authorizations of Trade Promotion Authority (TPA), the President should urge Congress to: l Create mechanisms for supply-chain transparency. l Institute a general prohibition on forced labor conditions. Investigate Foreign Labor Violations That Undermine American Work- ers. The United States’ embrace of globalization has exposed American workers to unfair competition from nations with cheap, abundant, and often exploited labor. American workers have, as a consequence, seen their earning power erode. While negotiating stronger trade agreements with robust labor provisions should be the primary tool with which to regulate international labor competition, the federal government can also take steps to identify the worst labor abuses and rule breakers. DOL’s Bureau of International Labor Affairs (ILAB) plays a critical role in monitor- ing and enforcing the labor provisions of U.S. trade agreements and trade preference programs as well as investigating child labor and human trafficking violations. l The next Administration should focus ILAB investigations on foreign labor violations that do the most to damage American workers’ earning power, specifically regimes that engage in child and forced labor, fail to protect workers’ organizing rights, and permit hazardous or otherwise exploitative working conditions. Alternative/Additional View. Conservatives share a belief in protecting and pro- moting American workers and their families and orienting international policies with Americans’ interests first. Some conservatives believe that the best way to put Amer- ica first is by making America more attractive. In addition to restrictions imposed on other countries, removing existing barriers to American manufacturing, employ- ment, and commerce can help American workers, entrepreneurs, and families.

Department of Agriculture

Weak
Vector: 61%
Pages: 344-346AI Enhanced

AI Analysis:

"The bill focuses on combating illegal, unreported, and unregulated (IUU) fishing and related maritime security and human rights issues, while the Project 2025 policy excerpt pertains to the U.S. Department of Agriculture's role in food systems, agricultural productivity, and rural development. There is minimal thematic overlap, as the bill does not address domestic agriculture, farming subsidies, or food system transformation as outlined in the USDA-focused policy."

Key themes:food systemssupply chain integrity

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

Department of the Treasury

Weak
Vector: 61%
Pages: 736-738AI Enhanced

AI Analysis:

"The bill focuses on combating illegal, unreported, and unregulated fishing and related human rights abuses, while the Project 2025 Treasury section concerns CFIUS oversight, foreign investment screening, and mitigating China-related economic statecraft. Both touch on foreign threats and transparency, but their substantive policy areas do not directly overlap."

Key themes:foreign threatsnational securitytransparencyinternational cooperationhuman rights

— 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.

Showing 3 of 5 policy matches

About These Correlations

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

Full Policy Text

Related Bills