HR-7547-119
Referred to the Committee on Armed Services, and in addition to the Committee on Agriculture, for a period to be subsequently determined by the Speaker, in each case for consideration of such provisions as fall within the jurisdiction of the committee concerned.
Sponsored by Mark Messmer (R-IN)
What it does
This bill would require the Department of Defense (DOD) and the Department of Agriculture (USDA) to carry out joint research and development activities in areas where their missions overlap, including food and agriculture defense, supply chain security, biosecurity, and natural resource management. It would require the two agencies to formalize their collaboration through a memorandum of understanding, establish a competitive grant program with required 1-to-1 private matching funds, and authorize the use of existing unobligated funds from both agencies. The bill would also require annual reports to Congress and periodic Government Accountability Office (GAO) reviews, and it includes a provision directing courts to defer to the agencies' interpretation of any ambiguous provisions of the Act.
Who benefits
Universities and research institutions that could receive competitive grants. Private companies in agriculture technology, precision farming, drone manufacturing, and bioindustrial manufacturing that could access federal research partnerships and matching funds. Farmers near military bases affected by PFAS contamination from DOD activities. Rural agricultural communities that could benefit from dual-use technologies like precision agriculture and remote sensing. The U.S. military, which could gain improved food supply chain security and access to domestically sourced biofuels and materials. National Laboratories involved in defense and agricultural research. Wildfire-affected communities that could benefit from improved prediction and mitigation research.
Who is hurt
Taxpayers who fund the underlying DOD and USDA appropriations that could be redirected to this program via unobligated funds. Existing research programs within DOD and USDA that may compete for the same unobligated funds. Foreign research partners who may be excluded by the bill's research security requirements. Open-government advocates and journalists, as the bill explicitly exempts agricultural producer data from Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) disclosure. Courts and litigants, whose ability to independently review agency interpretations of the Act would be curtailed by the judicial deference provision in Section 2(g).
Supporters argue
Supporters argue that agriculture and national security are deeply intertwined — food supply chain disruptions, biosecurity threats, and PFAS contamination of farmland near military bases represent real and documented vulnerabilities. They contend that formalizing DOD-USDA collaboration, which currently occurs on an ad hoc basis, would eliminate duplicative spending and accelerate dual-use technologies like precision agriculture and biofuels that serve both civilian and military needs. The 1-to-1 private matching requirement ensures federal dollars leverage private investment, reducing the net cost to taxpayers while expanding the program's reach.
Opponents argue
Opponents argue that the bill's judicial deference provision in Section 2(g) — which directs courts to defer to the agencies' interpretation of ambiguous provisions — directly conflicts with the Supreme Court's 2024 ruling in Loper Bright v. Raimondo, which overruled Chevron deference and held that courts must exercise independent judgment on agency statutory interpretation. They also contend that authorizing agencies to redirect unobligated funds without a specific appropriation circumvents Congress's core power of the purse, and that the broad FOIA exemption for agricultural producer data reduces government transparency without a clearly defined national security justification.
Constitutional context
The bill's Section 2(g) judicial deference provision is in direct tension with Loper Bright v. Raimondo (2024), which overruled Chevron deference and held that courts must independently interpret agency statutory authority — Congress cannot simply legislate deference back into existence by statute, as that would raise separation-of-powers concerns under Article III. The authorization to use unobligated funds also implicates Congress's appropriations power under Article I, Section 9.
Checks and balances
The executive branch (DOD and USDA) gains new collaborative research authority and discretion over fund allocation; checks include annual congressional reporting requirements, periodic GAO reviews, a competitive merit-review process, and the appropriations committees' ongoing oversight of both agencies' budgets.
Historical precedent
The DOD-USDA relationship has precedent in the 2008 Farm Bill and subsequent National Defense Authorization Acts, which included provisions for military land use and agricultural research coordination, though no prior law has established a formal standing joint R&D program of this scope between the two agencies.