This bill revamps USDA Centers of Excellence for agricultural research across various critical areas and establishes a competitive grant program to enhance food and agricultural security and workforce development.
Don Bacon
Representative
NE-2
The American Agricultural Security Research Act of 2025 overhauls USDA Centers of Excellence to focus on critical areas like biosecurity, digital agriculture, and food quality, while also establishing new research priorities for related programs. The bill also creates a competitive grant program to fund research, training, and facility upgrades specifically aimed at protecting U.S. agriculture and food systems from emerging threats. This legislation seeks to strengthen agricultural resilience, workforce development, and national security through targeted research and education investments.
The American Agricultural Security Research Act of 2025 is essentially a major system upgrade for how the U.S. government invests in farming and food research. This bill completely revamps the USDA’s Centers of Excellence program, shifting the focus to modern threats and technologies. Starting in 2026, Congress authorizes $10 million annually through 2030 to fund these new centers, which must tackle specific, high-stakes issues like biosecurity, cybersecurity, and reducing contaminants like PFAS and microplastics in the food supply (SEC. 2).
Think of this as redirecting the firehose of research money toward areas that actually keep you up at night. The new Centers of Excellence are mandated to focus on ten specific areas. This includes developing animal and plant biotechnologies, using digital tools like AI and remote sensing (Digital Ag), and preparing for foreign animal diseases. Crucially, the bill mandates centers focused on Security, specifically working on biosecurity and cybersecurity to protect the U.S. food supply from global risks. If you’re a consumer, this means federal research dollars are now directly targeting things like reducing lead and mercury in your food supply, which is a significant, tangible benefit (SEC. 2).
One of the most important fine-print details is the restriction on how the money can be spent. The bill explicitly states that funds for these Centers cannot be used to build, expand, remodel, or alter existing facilities. The five-year, renewable awards are strictly for research and training. This is a big deal: it ensures that the authorized $10 million per year goes directly into research projects, training the next generation of agricultural experts, and getting solutions out the door, instead of funding construction projects (SEC. 2).
Beyond the Centers, the Act establishes a separate, competitive grant program—also authorized for $10 million annually from 2026 to 2030—specifically for agriculture and food protection (SEC. 3). This money is targeted at building up our national defense against threats to farming. Grants will fund basic research into countermeasures, expand teaching programs in agricultural biosecurity and cybersecurity, and upgrade facilities to safely conduct high-security research. For those in academia or the veterinary field, this is a clear signal that the government wants to invest heavily in specialized training, making biosecurity a hot career path. It’s about making sure we have the people and the labs ready to react quickly when a new threat appears.
If you run a small farm, work in a related industry, or just eat food (which is everyone), this bill matters. By focusing research on areas like Farm Business (financial planning and marketing) and Beginning Farmers (management training), the bill aims to improve the economic stability of rural communities. The push for Digital Ag and automation means future farming might be more efficient, potentially stabilizing food prices down the line. However, the bill completely replaces old rules, meaning institutions that relied on the previous funding structure might need to quickly pivot to align with these new, highly specific priorities. While the new focus on cybersecurity and contaminants is clearly beneficial, the requirement for Centers to direct funds toward “high-priority issues” remains vague, leaving some room for interpretation on where that $10 million ultimately lands.