S-4607-119
Read twice and referred to the Committee on Armed Services.
Sponsored by Jim Banks (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, use a competitive grant process with required 1-to-1 private matching funds, and submit annual reports to Congress. The bill also authorizes the agencies to redirect existing unobligated funds toward these activities and includes a provision directing courts to defer to the agencies' interpretation of ambiguous provisions of the Act.
Who benefits
Universities and research institutions that would compete for grants in agriculture-defense research. Private companies in precision agriculture, drone technology, bioindustrial manufacturing, and cybersecurity that could receive grants or commercialize resulting technologies. Rural agricultural communities near military bases that may benefit from research on chemical contamination mitigation. The U.S. military, which would gain improved food supply chain security and access to domestically sourced biofuels and materials. Farmers and agribusinesses that could adopt precision agriculture and remote sensing technologies developed through the program. National laboratories and nonprofit research organizations eligible to participate in the competitive grant process. Allied nations whose bilateral research agreements could be leveraged under the program.
Who is hurt
Foreign research institutions and companies that may be excluded due to research security requirements. Researchers whose work involves data from agricultural producers, who would face restrictions on data sharing and FOIA access. Taxpayers who bear the cost of the program, which draws on existing appropriations and any new funds Congress may authorize. Competing federal research programs that could see their unobligated funds redirected. Open-government advocates who may object to the broad FOIA exemption for agricultural producer data. Courts and litigants who may be disadvantaged by the judicial deference provision, which attempts to restore Chevron-style deference that the Supreme Court eliminated in Loper Bright v. Raimondo (2024).
Supporters argue
Supporters argue that agriculture is formally designated as critical national infrastructure and that adversaries have already demonstrated the ability to target food supply chains through cyberattacks and biological threats. They contend that DOD and USDA have complementary but siloed capabilities — DOD's research infrastructure and USDA's agricultural expertise — and that formalizing collaboration through a merit-reviewed, matching-funds grant structure maximizes both efficiency and private-sector leverage. They further argue that the bill addresses concrete vulnerabilities, including farmland contamination near military bases and dependence on foreign feedstocks for defense materials like propellants and fuels, that neither agency can adequately address alone.
Opponents argue
Opponents argue that the bill's judicial deference provision in Section 2(g) directly conflicts with the Supreme Court's 2024 ruling in Loper Bright v. Raimondo, which eliminated mandatory deference to agency interpretations, and that including such a provision may invite legal challenges that delay or invalidate the program. They also contend that authorizing agencies to redirect existing unobligated funds without new appropriations reduces congressional control over spending, and that the broad FOIA exemption for agricultural producer data lacks sufficient oversight mechanisms, creating a potential for misuse of sensitive information with limited public accountability.
Constitutional context
The bill's most notable constitutional issue is Section 2(g), which directs courts to defer to the agencies' interpretation of ambiguous provisions — a structure that directly conflicts with Loper Bright v. Raimondo (2024), in which the Supreme Court overruled Chevron deference and held that courts must exercise independent judgment on agency statutory interpretation. Congress has authority to structure agency programs under the Necessary and Proper Clause (Art. I, §8, cl. 18), but it cannot by statute override the judiciary's constitutional role in interpreting laws.
Checks and balances
The executive branch (DOD and USDA) gains new collaborative research authority and discretion over grant-making; checks include annual congressional reporting, GAO reviews every five years, a competitive merit-review requirement, and the appropriations power — though the judicial deference provision in Section 2(g) attempts to limit judicial oversight in a manner that conflicts with current Supreme Court doctrine.
Historical precedent
The CHIPS and Science Act (2022) established a similar model of competitive, matching-funds federal grants to spur private-sector research and development in a national security-relevant sector, though it focused on semiconductor manufacturing rather than agriculture-defense convergence.