Domestic Organic Investment Act of 2025
- Sponsor
- Rep. Salinas, Andrea [D-OR-6]
- Committees
- Agriculture Committee (primary)
- Last action
- Jan 13, 2026
Bottom line
This bill aims to strengthen the U.S. organic agriculture sector by providing financial and technical assistance to domestic organic producers and businesses to reduce reliance on imports and enhance market access.
What it actually does
This bill establishes the Domestic Organic Investment Program within the Agricultural Marketing Act of 1946. The program provides grants and technical assistance to eligible entities, including certified organic producers, handlers, and Tribal governments, to expand and modernize the domestic organic product supply chain, improve regulatory compliance, and facilitate market development for U.S.-produced organic goods.
Proponents argue
Supporters argue this bill is crucial for bolstering the domestic organic supply chain, reducing reliance on foreign imports, creating jobs, and supporting American farmers transitioning to or already engaged in organic production. They contend it addresses identified bottlenecks and helps meet the growing consumer demand for organic products with domestically sourced options.
Opponents contend
Potential opponents might raise concerns about the cost to taxpayers, the efficiency of government grant programs versus private investment, or whether such targeted investments could distort market dynamics. Some may question if the program sufficiently addresses the root causes of supply chain issues or if it creates unfair advantages for specific agricultural sectors.
The bill is concise and can be read quickly, allowing ample time for evaluation.
Section 2, adding Section 210B to the Agricultural Marketing Act of 1946
Establishment of Domestic Organic Investment Program
This provision creates a new federal program under the Department of Agriculture, called the 'Domestic Organic Investment Program.' Its core purpose is to provide financial support, primarily through grants, to entities involved in the domestic organic product supply chain. The program aims to increase capacity, modernize infrastructure, improve regulatory compliance, and expand market access for U.S.-produced certified organic goods, thereby reducing reliance on organic imports.
Supporters argue
Supporters argue this program is crucial for strengthening the U.S. organic sector, reducing reliance on imports, and ensuring a resilient food supply. They contend it directly addresses infrastructure gaps and market barriers faced by organic businesses, fostering economic growth and food security.
Critics contend
Critics might argue that such a program could lead to market distortions or that private investment should primarily drive these improvements, rather than taxpayer-funded grants. Concerns about administrative overhead and potential for fraud could also be raised regarding government-managed grant programs.
Tradeoffs
The provision balances the desire for a robust domestic organic industry and food security with concerns about government intervention in markets and the efficient allocation of public funds.
Section 2, adding Section 210B(a), (d), (e), (f), (g), (h)
Grant Eligibility, Project Types, and Matching Funds
This section defines 'eligible entities' as certified organic businesses, those in transition to certification, and Tribal governments. It outlines eligible project types, including capacity expansion for storage, processing, and distribution, and equipment-only projects. Maximum grant amounts are set at $2,000,000 for capacity expansion and $100,000 for equipment-only projects. The bill requires matching funds (50% for larger projects, 25% for equipment-only), with potential waivers for beginning farmers, ranchers, and veterans. The Secretary can prioritize grants based on trade imbalance, National Organic Standards Board recommendations, and identified supply chain bottlenecks.
Section 2, adding Section 210B(j)
Authorization of Appropriations
This provision authorizes the appropriation of 'such sums as are necessary' to the Secretary of Agriculture for carrying out the Domestic Organic Investment Program for each of fiscal years 2026 through 2030. These authorized funds are to remain available until expended, providing a multi-year funding framework for the program.
An 'eligible entity' for grant funding must either be certified organic or 'in transition to certification, as defined by the Secretary.'
Section 2, adding Section 210B(a)(2)(A)(ii)
Why it matters:While defining terms precisely is standard legislative practice, the inclusion of entities 'in transition' is a significant policy choice that broadens the program's scope beyond currently certified operations.
Case for: Supporters argue this inclusion is vital for encouraging new organic producers by providing support during the often challenging and costly transition period, which can take up to three years. This helps grow the overall organic sector.
Case against: Critics might argue that supporting entities 'in transition' introduces a level of risk, as certification is not guaranteed, and could potentially divert funds from already certified and established organic operations that have proven their compliance.
Estimated impact: This provision significantly broadens the pool of potential grant recipients, potentially accelerating the growth of the organic sector by supporting new entrants and those making the costly shift to organic practices.
The term 'eligible entity' explicitly excludes any entity whose organic operations are suspended or revoked under federal regulations (7 CFR 205.662 or successor regulation).
Section 2, adding Section 210B(a)(2)(C)
Why it matters:This is standard legislative practice to ensure program integrity and prevent the misuse of public funds by entities that have failed to meet established organic standards or have had their certification revoked.
Case for: Supporters would argue this ensures program integrity and prevents the misuse of public funds by entities that have failed to meet organic standards, thereby maintaining consumer trust in organic products and the program itself.
Case against: No specific opposition is typically raised against provisions ensuring compliance and preventing fraud or funding for non-compliant entities, as such measures are generally seen as good governance.
Estimated impact: This provision maintains the credibility and integrity of the organic certification process and the grant program by disincentivizing non-compliance and ensuring funds go to legitimate organic operations.