What This Bill Does
This bill would amend the Agricultural Marketing Act of 1946 to make the Resilient Food Systems Infrastructure Program a permanent federal program and create regional food systems hubs. It is designed to help farmers, ranchers, processors, distributors, and local food businesses strengthen supply chains and move more food from farm to market. The bill would expand federal support for infrastructure that makes regional and local food systems more reliable, especially in times of disruption. It would also give USDA a lasting role in coordinating and supporting these networks.
- Permanently authorizes the Resilient Food Systems Infrastructure Program under the Agricultural Marketing Act of 1946.
- Creates regional food systems hubs to support coordination across farms, processors, and distributors.
- Targets infrastructure that helps move agricultural products through local and regional markets.
- Extends federal support for food-system resilience beyond short-term or temporary authorization.
- Aims to strengthen the capacity of smaller producers to reach institutional and retail buyers.
Who This Bill Affects
If you are a farmer, rancher, food processor, distributor, or local food buyer, this bill could make it easier to access infrastructure support and connect into regional markets. In practical terms, that can improve access to storage, processing, and distribution capacity that helps move products from farms to shelves more reliably. For most other people, the effect would be indirect: potentially steadier food supplies and better resilience when supply chains are disrupted.
See how this bill affects you — sign in for a personalized analysisWho Supports & Opposes This
- Small and mid-sized farmers They see the bill as a way to get more reliable access to processing, storage, and distribution infrastructure. That can reduce dependence on distant buyers and make it easier to sell into local and regional markets.
- Local food processors and distributors They benefit from a steadier pipeline of investment in facilities that handle aggregation, cold storage, and transport. Those improvements can lower bottlenecks and expand business opportunities.
- State and regional food-system planners They argue that permanent authorization gives communities a stable federal partner for long-term planning. That stability helps align public and private investments around resilience and market access.
- Fiscal conservatives They may object to creating a permanent federal commitment without a recurring debate over whether the program is still needed. Their concern is that ongoing authorization can encourage spending growth and bureaucratic expansion.
- Large agribusiness interests focused on national supply chains Some may question whether federal support should favor regional systems over established large-scale logistics networks. They may prefer policies that keep the market centered on existing national distribution channels.
- Taxpayers wary of federal market intervention They may argue that food infrastructure should be financed primarily by private investment or state programs. In their view, federal involvement can distort competition or duplicate efforts already underway in the private sector.
Key Implications
-
““permanently authorize the Resilient Food Systems Infrastructure Program””
This would make the program a standing part of federal agriculture policy rather than something that needs repeated renewal. For producers and communities, that can mean more predictable access to federal support for food-system projects.
-
““establish regional food systems hubs””
These hubs would likely serve as coordination points for producers, processors, and distributors. In practice, that can help smaller farms and food businesses navigate market access and infrastructure gaps.
-
““amend the Agricultural Marketing Act of 1946””
The bill would embed these changes in an existing federal agriculture statute. That signals the program would be administered through USDA’s agricultural marketing framework rather than as a stand-alone initiative.
-
““for other purposes””
This phrase allows the bill to include related administrative or technical changes beyond the title language. In legislative practice, that can give the agency flexibility to implement the program effectively.
Latest Status
June 18, 2026
Read twice and referred to the Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry.
Related Bills
Take Action
Get more from BillBoard
Free tools to understand, respond to, and track this bill.
Ask AI about this billData sourced from api.congress.gov.