Sponsors (3)
Want my take on what this bill would do?
This is not an official government website.
Copyright © 2026 PLEJ LC. All rights reserved.
Authorizes USDA officials, working with the U.S. Trade Representative, to negotiate in advance with trading partners on regionalization, zoning, compartmentalization, and similar measures so animal disease outbreaks have a smaller effect on U.S. exports of animals and animal products. Negotiations should take accepted global research advances into account and do not limit the Trade Representative’s existing negotiation authority.
Redesignate existing subsection (d) of Section 10405 of the Animal Health Protection Act as subsection (e).
Authorize the Secretary of Agriculture, acting through the Administrator of APHIS, the Under Secretary of Agriculture for Trade and Foreign Agricultural Affairs, and the Administrator of the Food Safety and Inspection Service, in consultation with the United States Trade Representative, to negotiate in advance (to the extent practicable) regionalization, zoning, compartmentalization, and other agreements with governments of countries that are export markets for U.S. livestock animals or animal products. The purpose is to reduce the impact of animal disease outbreaks on United States exports.
Require that a negotiation carried out under the authorization should seek to take into account accepted global research advances.
Provide a rule of construction stating nothing in this section shall be construed to limit the ability of the United States Trade Representative to negotiate trade agreements.
Provide a rule of construction stating nothing in this section shall be construed to require the United States Trade Representative to condition other trade agreements on inclusion of language related to reducing the impact of animal disease outbreaks on U.S. exports (as described in the newly inserted subsection).
Who is affected and how:
Owners and operators of commercial farms and producers: Likely benefit from reduced and faster-resolved export disruptions when animal disease outbreaks occur, preserving market access and income. Advance agreements could limit blanket bans and confine trade restrictions to specific zones or compartments.
Federal agencies (USDA, USTR) and state animal health authorities: Will need to coordinate, negotiate, and possibly implement technical frameworks; may require staff time and technical resources although no new funding is specified.
Animal and animal-product exporters, processors, and related supply-chain businesses (shippers, packers): Stand to gain from clearer, scientifically informed trade rules that reduce uncertainty and shorten market closures.
Trading partners and foreign regulatory authorities: Will be direct negotiation counterparts; outcomes depend on mutual agreement and acceptance of scientific approaches.
Consumers and downstream markets: May experience fewer supply shocks and price impacts if exports and imports face fewer or more targeted disruptions.
Potential risks and limitations:
Expand sections to see detailed analysis
Referred to the Committee on Agriculture, and in addition to the Committee on Ways and Means, 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.
Introduced April 28, 2025 by Randy Feenstra · Last progress April 28, 2025
SAFE Act of 2025
Referred to the Committee on Agriculture, and in addition to the Committee on Ways and Means, 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.
Introduced in House