Better CARE for Animals Act of 2025
- Sponsor
- Rep. Malliotakis, Nicole [R-NY-11]
- Committees
- Agriculture Committee (primary)
- Last action
- Apr 30, 2025
Bottom line
The bill strengthens federal animal welfare enforcement by granting the Attorney General direct civil litigation authority and providing a mechanism to fund the care of animals seized from violators.
What it actually does
This bill significantly expands the enforcement powers of the Attorney General under the Animal Welfare Act (AWA), allowing for direct civil actions, injunctions, and the seizure and forfeiture of animals involved in violations. It also clarifies that civil penalties can be used to cover the costs of temporary care for seized animals and mandates a Memorandum of Understanding between the Secretary of Agriculture and the Attorney General for coordinated enforcement.
Proponents argue
Supporters argue that the bill provides crucial new tools to combat animal cruelty by empowering the Attorney General to take swift and decisive legal action against violators of the Animal Welfare Act. They contend it will ensure greater accountability, deter repeat offenders, and provide a necessary financial backstop for the care of animals rescued from abusive situations.
Opponents contend
Potential opponents, particularly within certain segments of regulated industries, might express concerns about the expansion of federal enforcement powers, fearing increased litigation and regulatory burdens. While direct opposition to animal welfare legislation is often limited, some may argue for a more balanced approach that emphasizes compliance assistance over punitive measures.
The bill is short and clearly written, making it highly accessible for a quick and thorough understanding of its provisions.
Section 2(a)
Clarification of 'Inspector' Definition and Formatting
This section amends the Animal Welfare Act to clarify that an 'inspector' is a representative and employee of the Secretary of Agriculture. It also reorders and adds headings to existing definitions within the Act, improving readability and organization for future reference.
Supporters argue
Proponents argue this amendment enhances administrative clarity and ensures that the roles of federal inspectors are explicitly defined within the statute, contributing to more consistent enforcement.
Critics contend
No specific opposition is typically raised against this provision, as it primarily serves to clarify existing definitions and improve the organizational structure of the Act.
Tradeoffs
This provision involves no significant tradeoffs, focusing solely on technical improvements to the statutory text.
Section 2(b)
Prohibition on Unlicensed Animal Sales and Transportation
This provision rewrites Section 4 of the Animal Welfare Act to explicitly prohibit any dealer or exhibitor from engaging in commerce (exhibiting, purchasing, selling, transporting) any animal without a valid, unsuspended license from the Secretary of Agriculture. This strengthens the existing licensing requirements.
Section 2(d)
Use of Civil Penalties for Animal Care Costs
This section amends the civil penalty provisions of the AWA. It clarifies that penalties apply to violations of rules and regulations, not just the Act itself. Crucially, it mandates that sums collected from civil penalties or fines for AWA violations be used to pay for the reasonable and necessary costs incurred by any person providing temporary care for seized animals during legal proceedings.
Section 2(e)
Direct Civil Enforcement Authority for Attorney General
This is a major new provision granting the Attorney General the authority to bring civil actions in federal court for violations of the Animal Welfare Act or its regulations. This includes seeking temporary restraining orders, preliminary or permanent injunctions (including for animal removal or relocation), license revocation, and civil penalties up to $10,000 per violation per day. It also allows for the seizure and forfeiture of animals involved in violations and empowers judges to issue warrants for enforcement. A savings clause clarifies that this new authority does not limit the Secretary of Agriculture's existing enforcement powers.
Section 2(h)
Inter-Agency Memorandum of Understanding
This section mandates that the Secretary of Agriculture and the Attorney General enter into a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) within 180 days of the Act's enactment. The MOU is intended to facilitate the implementation of the new enforcement authorities, specifically requiring an agreement to provide the Attorney General with timely information about violators who have multiple serious citations affecting animal health or well-being.
This subsection mandates the reordering of existing definitions in the Animal Welfare Act into alphabetical order and the addition of subsection headings for each definition.
Section 2(a)(3)
Why it matters:This is standard legislative practice for improving the clarity and usability of statutory text, not an attempt to obscure content.
Case for: This improves the readability and navigability of the Animal Welfare Act, making it easier for regulators, legal professionals, and the public to understand its provisions.
Case against: No significant case against, as it is a purely technical and organizational change.
Estimated impact: Minor, primarily affecting the ease of referencing definitions within the AWA.
This amendment clarifies that the authority to 'enforce, prevent, and restrain violations' of the Animal Welfare Act extends not only to the Act itself but also to 'any rule, standard, or regulation promulgated pursuant to this Act.'
Section 2(c)
Why it matters:This is a technical clarification of existing enforcement scope, likely intended to remove any ambiguity rather than to hide a new policy.
Case for: This ensures that federal enforcement powers are explicitly applicable to the full body of regulations that implement the Animal Welfare Act, preventing potential legal challenges based on scope.
Case against: No specific opposition, as it clarifies existing intent and ensures comprehensive enforcement of all AWA-related regulations.
Estimated impact: Minor, but important for legal robustness and comprehensive enforcement.
This subsection amends Section 29(b) of the Animal Welfare Act by striking its second sentence. The original second sentence stated: 'The Attorney General shall seek such an order or injunction upon the request of the Secretary.'
Section 2(f)
Why it matters:This change is made in conjunction with the new Section 20, which grants the Attorney General independent authority. Removing this sentence shifts the AG's role from being reactive (mandated to act upon Secretary's request) to proactive (having independent authority), which is a significant policy shift. It's buried because it's a consequential change made by omission, dependent on context from another section.
Case for: This change complements the new Section 20, which grants the Attorney General independent authority to seek injunctions. It streamlines the enforcement process by allowing the AG to act without a formal request from the Secretary, potentially leading to faster intervention in urgent cases.
Case against: Some might argue that removing the mandate for the AG to act upon the Secretary's request could reduce the Secretary's influence over federal enforcement priorities or create a less coordinated approach if the AG chooses not to act on a USDA recommendation.
Estimated impact: Moderate, shifting the Attorney General's role from reactive to proactive in seeking injunctions, potentially increasing the speed and frequency of federal intervention.