Better CARE for Animals Act of 2025
- Sponsor
- Sen. Blumenthal, Richard [D-CT]
- Committees
- Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry Committee (primary)
- Last action
- Apr 30, 2025
Bottom line
The Better CARE for Animals Act of 2025 strengthens federal enforcement against Animal Welfare Act violators by granting the Attorney General broad new civil enforcement, seizure, and forfeiture authorities, alongside the existing powers of the Secretary of Agriculture.
What it actually does
This bill significantly expands the enforcement powers of the Attorney General under the Animal Welfare Act (AWA), allowing the AG to bring civil actions, seek injunctions including animal removal, revoke licenses, and impose substantial civil penalties. It also explicitly subjects animals involved in AWA violations to seizure and forfeiture, and allows penalty funds to cover temporary animal care costs. Furthermore, it clarifies that enforcement powers extend to rules and regulations promulgated under the AWA.
Proponents argue
Proponents argue that current enforcement mechanisms under the Animal Welfare Act are insufficient to deter chronic violators, particularly large-scale commercial breeders and exhibitors. They contend that empowering the Attorney General with direct civil enforcement, including the ability to seize animals and revoke licenses, will provide a more robust and timely response to animal cruelty and neglect, ensuring better welfare outcomes for animals and holding bad actors accountable. They also highlight the importance of using penalty funds to cover care costs for seized animals, reducing the burden on rescue organizations.
Opponents contend
Opponents might raise concerns about potential overreach of federal authority or duplication of enforcement efforts between the Department of Agriculture (USDA) and the Department of Justice (DOJ). They could argue that existing USDA enforcement mechanisms, if adequately funded and utilized, are sufficient, and that adding another layer of enforcement could lead to confusion, inconsistent application, or unnecessary legal burdens on licensed animal facilities. Concerns might also be raised about the potential for arbitrary application of seizure and forfeiture provisions or the financial implications for small, licensed operators.
The bill is short and relatively straightforward, making it accessible for an informed reader to understand its core provisions within a short timeframe.
Section 2(b), amending 7 U.S.C. 2134
Clarified Prohibition on Unlicensed Animal Activities
This provision rewrites Section 4 of the Animal Welfare Act to explicitly prohibit unlicensed dealers or exhibitors from engaging in a wide range of commercial activities involving animals, including exhibiting, purchasing, selling, or transporting. It clarifies that these activities are illegal without a valid, unsuspended license from the Secretary of Agriculture, aiming to close potential loopholes in existing law.
Supporters argue
Proponents argue that this clarification is essential to ensure that all commercial animal activities are conducted by licensed entities, preventing unlicensed operators from evading oversight and potentially engaging in substandard animal care. It strengthens the regulatory framework by explicitly listing prohibited actions.
Critics contend
No specific opposition is typically raised against clarifying prohibitions on unlicensed activity, as the intent is to ensure compliance with existing licensing requirements.
Tradeoffs
This provision aims to reduce ambiguity in enforcement, potentially increasing the burden on enforcement agencies to monitor and prosecute a broader range of unlicensed activities.
Section 2(c) and 2(d)(1), amending 7 U.S.C. 2146(c) and 2149(d)
Expanded Scope of Enforcement to Include Regulations
These amendments clarify that the federal government's authority to enforce the Animal Welfare Act, including investigations, inspections, and civil penalties, explicitly extends to violations of any 'rule, standard, or regulation promulgated thereunder.' This ensures that violations of specific regulatory requirements, not just the broader statutory text, are subject to the full range of federal enforcement actions.
Section 2(d)(2), adding 7 U.S.C. 2149(e)
Use of Penalty Funds for Animal Care Costs
This new subsection mandates that sums collected by the Secretary of Agriculture or the Attorney General from penalties or fines for Animal Welfare Act violations must be used to cover the reasonable and necessary costs incurred by any person (e.g., rescue organizations, shelters) providing temporary care for animals seized during civil or criminal proceedings. This aims to alleviate the financial burden on those caring for animals pending legal resolution.
Section 2(e), adding 7 U.S.C. 2150
Expanded Enforcement Authority for the Attorney General
This section grants the Attorney General significant new civil enforcement powers under the Animal Welfare Act. The AG can now initiate civil actions in federal court, seek temporary restraining orders, preliminary or permanent injunctions (including orders for animal removal or relocation), and license revocation. It also authorizes civil penalties of up to $10,000 per violation per day, providing a powerful deterrent against ongoing non-compliance.
Section 2(e), adding 7 U.S.C. 2150(b)
Animal Seizure and Forfeiture Authority
This provision establishes that any animal subjected to an Animal Welfare Act violation is subject to seizure and forfeiture to the United States, in accordance with existing federal forfeiture law (Chapter 46 of Title 18). It also allows for the person responsible for the violation to be charged a reasonable fee for the costs associated with the transfer and care of the seized animal, shifting financial responsibility to the violator.
Section 2(h)
Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) Requirement
This section mandates that the Secretary of Agriculture and the Attorney General enter into a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) within 180 days of the bill's enactment. The MOU is intended to formalize how the two departments will coordinate and carry out the new enforcement authorities granted by the bill, specifically requiring an agreement for timely information sharing about violators with multiple serious citations affecting animal health or well-being.
This amendment subtly changes the definition of 'inspector' in the Animal Welfare Act. It modifies the phrase 'of the United States or his representative who shall be an employee of the United States' to 'or a representative of the Secretary of Agriculture, who shall be an employee of the'.
Section 2(a)(1), amending 7 U.S.C. 2132(b)
Why it matters:This appears to be a technical clarification, likely intended to ensure that only employees of the Secretary of Agriculture (i.e., USDA) can serve as representatives for inspection purposes, rather than any general 'representative of the United States.' This is standard legislative practice for refining definitions.
Case for: Supporters would argue this clarifies the specific agency responsible for providing inspectors, ensuring that individuals conducting inspections possess the necessary expertise and are accountable to the Secretary of Agriculture, who oversees the AWA.
Case against: No specific case against this technical clarification is likely, as it primarily refines administrative responsibility rather than altering substantive policy.
Estimated impact: The impact is primarily administrative, ensuring clarity on who can act as an inspector for the USDA under the AWA. It does not significantly alter the scope of inspections but clarifies the personnel involved.
This section includes a 'Sense of Congress' statement affirming that federal courts have jurisdiction and the Attorney General has authority to enforce the Animal Welfare Act, including its rules, standards, and regulations, under Section 16(c) of the Act.
Section 3
Why it matters:While not legally binding, a Sense of Congress can be politically significant. In this case, it appears to be a proactive measure to affirm and reinforce the interpretation of existing law regarding federal court jurisdiction and the Attorney General's enforcement authority, particularly in light of the expanded AG powers in Section 2(e). This is a common legislative tactic to guide judicial interpretation or agency action.
Case for: Proponents would argue this statement provides important legislative guidance, clarifying Congress's intent regarding the scope of federal enforcement under the AWA, especially concerning rules and regulations. It could help preempt legal challenges to the AG's authority.
Case against: Critics might argue that a 'Sense of Congress' is not law and should not be relied upon for legal interpretation, or that it represents an attempt to influence judicial decisions without going through the formal legislative process of statutory amendment.
Estimated impact: The direct legal impact is minimal as it's non-binding. However, its interpretive impact could be significant, influencing how courts and agencies approach enforcement of the AWA and its regulations, particularly after the new AG powers are enacted.