DOD and USDA Interagency Research Act
- Sponsor
- Rep. Messmer, Mark B. [R-IN-8]
- Committees
- Agriculture Committee (primary)
- Last action
- Jun 15, 2026
Bottom line
This bill creates a mandated interagency research program between DOD and USDA to enhance national security and agricultural resilience through collaborative R&D, with a focus on critical areas like food defense, biosecurity, and supply chain integrity.
What it actually does
This bill establishes a formal collaboration between the Department of Defense (DOD) and the Department of Agriculture (USDA) for joint research and development activities. These activities will focus on agriculture and food defense, national security, agricultural resilience, bioindustrial manufacturing feedstocks, and natural resource management. It mandates a memorandum of understanding, competitive grant processes with matching fund requirements, and specific research areas including AI in agriculture, biosecurity, PFAS mitigation, and supply chain security.
Proponents argue
Proponents argue that this bill is crucial for national security by strengthening the resilience of the U.S. agricultural and food systems against various threats, including natural disasters, biosecurity hazards, and supply chain disruptions. They emphasize the benefits of leveraging DOD's research capabilities for agricultural innovation and USDA's expertise for defense applications, fostering public-private partnerships, and addressing critical issues like PFAS contamination near military bases.
Opponents contend
No explicit opposition is immediately apparent from the bill text itself, as interagency cooperation on research is generally viewed favorably. Potential critics might raise concerns about the scope of DOD's involvement in agricultural matters, potential for mission creep, or the efficiency of the proposed joint funding mechanisms. Some might also question the necessity of a new formal agreement if existing mechanisms could achieve similar collaboration.
The bill is concise and its provisions are clearly laid out, making it accessible for a reader to understand its core objectives and mechanisms within a reasonable timeframe.
Section 2(a)
Establishment of Joint DOD and USDA Research and Development Activities
This section mandates that the Secretary of Defense and the Secretary of Agriculture collaborate on research and development. The focus areas include agriculture and food defense, national security, agricultural resilience, feedstocks for bioindustrial manufacturing, and natural resource management, aligning with existing USDA mandates.
Supporters argue
Supporters argue this formalizes and strengthens critical interagency cooperation, ensuring a unified approach to national security and agricultural resilience challenges. It leverages the unique strengths of both departments.
Critics contend
No specific opposition is typically raised against mandating interagency cooperation, as it generally promotes efficiency and comprehensive problem-solving.
Tradeoffs
Balancing the distinct missions and priorities of two large federal agencies while ensuring effective resource utilization.
Section 2(b)
Mandated Interagency Agreement and Partnership Framework
This section requires the Secretaries to enter into a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) or similar agreement. This MOU must formalize coordination, establish a competitive, merit-reviewed process for project selection (open to federal agencies, national labs, universities, industry, etc.), and provide a framework for public-private partnerships, including a non-Federal matching fund requirement for grants. It also mandates a comprehensive risk management approach for research security.
Section 2(c)(1)
Delineation of Collaborative Research Topics
This subsection specifies ten key areas for collaborative research, including engineering and mechanization in the agrifood supply chain, agricultural data architecture (AI/ML applications), biological sciences (e.g., biosecurity, PFAS mitigation, invasive species), natural resource management, supply chain security (bioindustrial manufacturing), agrifood supply chain security, innovations beneficial to rural economies (precision agriculture, drones), operational resilience, and wildfire prediction/mitigation.
Section 2(c)(4)
Protection of Agricultural Producer Data
This provision ensures that federal data or records from agricultural producers, when utilized in activities under this Act, are explicitly exempt from disclosure under the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) and cannot be disclosed by the Secretaries under any other authority.
Section 2(e)
Flexible Funding Authority for Joint Activities
This section authorizes the Secretaries to use unobligated funds already appropriated for the Agriculture Advanced Research and Development Authority (AGARDA) within USDA and for research, development, testing, and evaluation (RDT&E) within DOD, in addition to any new appropriations, to carry out the activities of this Act.
Section 2(f)
Annual Reporting and GAO Review Requirements
This subsection mandates annual reports from the Secretaries to appropriate congressional committees, detailing interagency coordination, expansion opportunities, research achievements, security practices, expenditures, and future priorities. A public version of the report must also be made available, adhering to unclassified information guidelines. It also requires the Comptroller General (GAO) to conduct reviews every five years to assess the initiative's effectiveness and impact.
Mandates collaborative research on the mitigation of impacts to farmland contiguous to military bases from Department of Defense chemical releases, specifically perfluoroalkyl and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS).
Section 2(c)(1)(C)(iv)
Why it matters:This is standard legislative practice to include specific directives within broader categories. However, PFAS contamination is a highly visible and contentious issue, and its inclusion here ensures it is addressed within the joint research framework.
Case for: Proponents argue that addressing PFAS contamination near military bases is a critical environmental and public health issue, directly impacting agricultural communities and requiring a coordinated federal response. This provision ensures dedicated research to find solutions.
Case against: No specific opposition to researching PFAS mitigation is likely. However, some might argue that the scope of this research should be broader or that funding should come from specific environmental remediation budgets rather than general R&D.
Estimated impact: Potentially significant environmental and economic benefits for affected agricultural communities and a reduction in long-term liability for the DOD, though the direct financial impact is not specified in the bill.
States that, notwithstanding section 706 of title 5, United States Code (which governs judicial review of agency actions), a court shall defer to the Secretaries' reasonable interpretation of any ambiguous provision of this Act.
Section 2(g)
Why it matters:This is a common legislative tactic to limit judicial review and grant agencies more discretion in implementing complex statutes. It is technically phrased to achieve a specific legal effect.
Case for: Proponents argue that this clause provides necessary flexibility for the Secretaries to implement a complex, interagency program, allowing them to adapt to unforeseen circumstances and technical challenges without constant threat of litigation over minor interpretive differences. It respects agency expertise.
Case against: Critics contend that this provision weakens judicial oversight, potentially allowing the Secretaries too much latitude in interpreting the Act, which could lead to actions inconsistent with congressional intent or harm to affected parties without adequate recourse.
Estimated impact: Could significantly influence the outcome of any future legal challenges to the implementation of this Act, potentially reducing the likelihood of successful lawsuits against the Secretaries' interpretations.