Sponsors (15)
Ask me about this bill
This is not an official government website.
Copyright © 2026 PLEJ LC. All rights reserved.
Treats failure to divest under this Act as an unlawful method of competition in violation of section 5 of the Federal Trade Commission Act and incorporates the Commission’s enforcement authorities, powers, and duties under that Act into this section for enforcement of divestitures.
References the Federal Trade Commission established under 15 U.S.C. 41 as the Commission responsible for enforcement under this Act.
Specifies that the Commission shall also enforce this Act with respect to persons subject to the Packers and Stockyards Act, 1921.
This section defines 'eligible entity' by referencing the definition of 'small business concern' in 15 U.S.C. 632; it does not amend or otherwise change the cited statute.
References the definition of 'packer' from section 201 of the Packers and Stockyards Act (7 U.S.C. 191) to define 'covered meatpacking enterprise' subject to rulemaking under this Act.
References definitions of 'livestock products' and related terms from section 2 of the Packers and Stockyards Act (7 U.S.C. 182) as part of the definition of 'line of protein.'
References the definition of 'poultry product' from 21 U.S.C. 453 in defining 'line of protein.'
References definitions from 21 U.S.C. 601 (Federal Meat Inspection Act definitions) in defining 'line of protein.'
References 26 U.S.C. 521 to define 'farmers’ cooperative' as an organization exempt from taxation under that section.
Limits market power of large meatpackers by forcing structural separations, blocking certain foreign-controlled owners, capping vertical control over feedlots, and directing the FTC and SBA to carry out divestitures, enforcement, studies, and support for new regional or cooperative processors. It creates numerical concentration triggers and remedies, authorizes financial and technical assistance for buyer-operators (including farmer co-ops and small businesses), and gives private parties and the FTC enforcement tools and penalties to restore competition and protect producers, workers, and consumers.
The bill trades reduced concentration and stronger competition—plus support for regional processors, cooperatives, and protections for producers and supply‑chain resilience—against the risk of short‑term price increases, job and market disruption, higher taxpayer and enforcement costs, and increased
Consumers and families would likely see lower meat prices and more product choice if large packers are broken up and competition increases.
Farmers and ranchers would gain stronger bargaining power and higher shares of meat-sale revenue through limits on concentration, clearer competition metrics, and protections for feedlots.
Independent, regional, and cooperative processors (and small meat businesses) would get greater market opportunities and access to capital and technical assistance—through divestiture priority, SBA loans/guarantees, and FTC-directed remedies—making it easier for smaller operators to enter or expand.
Meatpacking and supply‑chain workers could gain safer, fairer, or more local/worker‑owned employment options if divestitures and ownership changes favor smaller U.S. firms or cooperatives.
Consumers and taxpayers could face higher meat prices—temporarily or longer term—if forced divestitures, loss of scale, or transitional disruptions raise production or compliance costs.
Workers, retirees, and local communities could experience job losses, plant closures, or short‑term employment uncertainty during restructurings, divestitures, or sales.
The measures would raise government, regulatory, and taxpayer costs—through FTC rulemaking/enforcement, SBA loan programs and guarantees, studies, and litigation—creating fiscal exposure and administrative burdens.
The bill increases litigation and diplomatic risk—large penalties, treble damages, fee‑shifting, and singling out named foreign firms could trigger costly lawsuits or international pushback that delay remedies and raise costs.
Establishes the official short title of the Act as the "Family Grocery and Farmer Relief Act."
Finds that the U.S. meatpacking industry is highly concentrated, with a few firms dominating beef, pork, and chicken slaughtering and processing.
Finds that four firms control 85% of the beef market and 67% of the pork market, increases from 1980 levels.
Finds that four firms control more than 60% of the chicken processing market.
Finds that large firms’ scale and dominance create barriers to entry and expansion for independent and regional processors, limiting competition.
Who is affected and how:
Farmers & Agricultural Workers: Directly affected — smaller and independent producers may gain better prices and negotiating power if large packer concentration is reduced and regional processors or cooperatives grow. Feedlots also receive protection from excessive packer purchasing and a private right to sue for damages.
Small Business Owners: Regional processors, independent meatpackers, and neighborhood grocers could gain market opportunities, technical assistance, and SBA-backed financing to enter or expand in processing or retailing, increasing competition.
Middle-Class Families (consumers): Intended to lower retail meat prices over time by reducing oligopolistic pricing power and encouraging more regional processing and competition, potentially improving access and choice.
Rural Communities: Could benefit from new or expanded local processing plants and jobs when divested facilities are purchased and operated by local, cooperative, or small-business owners; reduced concentration aims to retain economic value in producing regions.
Workers & Labor Organizations (represented here by Unions): May see changes in ownership and structure of facilities; the law favors worker-owned and small-business buyers in divestitures, which could affect job quality, wages, and bargaining dynamics.
Agency and program impacts:
Federal Trade Commission: Significant new enforcement duties, rulemaking, expedited timelines, studies, and authority to order structural remedies and civil penalties; increased legal and operational workload.
Small Business Administration: New loan and technical-assistance responsibilities to support transition of divested plants to cooperatives or small operators; requires program design and likely appropriation or transfer of funds.
Department of Agriculture and national-security agencies: Roles in assisting enforcement, consultation on foreign-controlled operations, and contributing to market and supply-chain assessments.
Economic and legal impacts:
Industry consolidation will be actively unwound in targeted cases, raising legal challenges and litigation risk (divestiture orders, determinations of foreign control, and damages suits).
Short-term disruption to supply chains and ownership structures is possible during rapid divestitures, while medium-to-long-term effects depend on success of new regional competitors and SBA support.
The law shifts power toward producers, small buyers, and regional processors, but implementation complexity and judicial review may affect timing and ultimate impact.
Expand sections to see detailed analysis
Read twice and referred to the Committee on the Judiciary. (text: CR S883-887)
Introduced March 5, 2026 by Charles Ellis Schumer · Last progress March 5, 2026
Read twice and referred to the Committee on the Judiciary. (text: CR S883-887)
Introduced in Senate