American Food Supply Chain Resiliency Act
- Sponsor
- Sen. Schiff, Adam B. [D-CA]
- Committees
- Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry Committee (primary)
- Last action
- Jun 18, 2026
Bottom line
The bill invests significantly in infrastructure and support for local and regional food systems to enhance the resilience and security of the American food supply chain.
What it actually does
This bill permanently authorizes the Resilient Food Systems Infrastructure Program (RFSI) and establishes a network of regional and intertribal food systems hubs. It aims to strengthen domestic food supply chains by providing federal funding to states for competitive grants to expand middle-of-the-supply-chain capacity and by creating technical assistance and market development support for local and regional food producers and businesses.
Proponents argue
Supporters argue that a secure domestic food supply is a national security imperative, and this bill directly addresses vulnerabilities exposed by recent disruptions. They contend that strengthening local and regional food systems will create new revenue streams for small and mid-sized producers, improve access to nutritious foods, and build resilience against future shocks, while also prioritizing underserved farmers and businesses.
Opponents contend
While direct opposition to the bill's core goals is not widely articulated given its bipartisan sponsorship, potential critics might raise concerns about the scale of federal intervention in agricultural markets, arguing that such investments could distort market dynamics or lead to inefficiencies. Others might question the effectiveness of grant programs versus private sector investment in achieving long-term supply chain resilience.
The bill is relatively accessible for an informed reader, requiring a reasonable amount of time to understand its provisions.
Section 3, Amending Agricultural Marketing Act of 1946, Section 210B(b)
Permanent Authorization of Resilient Food Systems Infrastructure Program (RFSI)
This provision permanently establishes the Resilient Food Systems Infrastructure Program (RFSI) within the Agricultural Marketing Act of 1946. The program's goal is to build resilience in the middle of the food supply chain and strengthen local and regional food systems by creating new revenue streams for producers through cooperative agreements with States.
Supporters argue
Supporters argue that permanent authorization provides stability and long-term planning capabilities for states and agricultural stakeholders, ensuring sustained investment in critical infrastructure rather than relying on temporary programs.
Critics contend
No specific opposition is typically raised against permanent authorization of a program, though some might argue for periodic reauthorization to allow for legislative review and adaptation.
Tradeoffs
The tradeoff is between providing long-term certainty for program planning and maintaining legislative oversight and flexibility to adapt to changing needs over time.
Section 3, Amending Agricultural Marketing Act of 1946, Section 210B(e)
State-Administered Infrastructure Grants
States entering into cooperative agreements under RFSI must award competitive grants to eligible entities. These grants, ranging from $100,000 to $3,000,000, are for expanding middle-of-the-supply-chain capacity for locally or regionally produced targeted agricultural products, modernizing facilities and equipment, enhancing worker safety, and improving food safety compliance. Priority is given to projects benefiting underserved producers, businesses owned by socially disadvantaged individuals, institutions, retail markets, and food supply chain intermediaries.
Section 3, Amending Agricultural Marketing Act of 1946, Section 210B(e)(5)
Simplified Equipment-Only Projects
This provision allows states to award smaller infrastructure grants, ranging from $10,000 to $100,000, specifically for purchasing equipment. The Secretary is directed to establish a simplified application process for these equipment-only grants.
Section 4, Amending Agricultural Marketing Act of 1946, Section 210C(b)
Establishment of Regional and Intertribal Food Systems Hubs
The bill mandates the Secretary to establish, through competitive cooperative agreements with eligible entities, not fewer than 10 regional food systems hubs that collectively cover all U.S. states, territories, and possessions. Additionally, one intertribal food systems hub will be established to provide assistance exclusively to Tribal producers and businesses nationally.
Section 4, Amending Agricultural Marketing Act of 1946, Section 210C(d)
Activities of Regional Food Systems Hubs
The established food systems hubs are tasked with integrating assistance from USDA and other federal agencies, providing direct business technical assistance (e.g., financial coaching, business planning, market development) to beneficiaries, offering financial assistance, and helping beneficiaries create new procurement opportunities with public agencies (schools, hospitals) and private institutions (retailers, distributors). Hubs must prioritize services to beneficiaries owned or operated by underserved producers and recipients of other USDA programs.
The definition of 'targeted agricultural product' explicitly excludes animal feed, fuel, cotton, fiber, or any other product not intended for human consumption.
Section 3, Amending Agricultural Marketing Act of 1946, Section 210B(a)(8)(B)
Why it matters:This is standard legislative practice to precisely define the scope of a program, ensuring funds are directed as intended.
Case for: Supporters would argue that these exclusions ensure the program's focus remains squarely on human food supply chain resilience, preventing diversion of funds to other agricultural sectors.
Case against: Critics might argue that excluding products like animal feed misses opportunities to strengthen the broader agricultural economy, as feed production is a crucial component of meat and dairy supply chains.
Estimated impact: Ensures that the hundreds of millions of dollars authorized are exclusively used for human food products, narrowing the scope of potential beneficiaries and projects.
A cooperative agreement under the Resilient Food Systems Infrastructure Program shall provide not less than $1,000,000 to a State in a fiscal year, regardless of its production value.
Section 3, Amending Agricultural Marketing Act of 1946, Section 210B(d)(2)
Why it matters:This is standard legislative practice to ensure that smaller states or those with lower agricultural output still receive a meaningful level of funding to participate in federal programs.
Case for: Supporters would argue this minimum ensures all states, including those with smaller agricultural sectors, have sufficient resources to establish and run an effective program, promoting equitable access to federal support.
Case against: Critics might contend that a fixed minimum allocation, irrespective of need or capacity, could lead to less efficient use of funds in states with very limited agricultural infrastructure or a small number of eligible projects.
Estimated impact: Guarantees that every state receives at least $1 million annually for the RFSI program, potentially increasing the total federal outlay beyond what a purely proportional allocation would yield for smaller states.
States may use not more than the lesser of 20 percent and $1,000,000 of their cooperative agreement funds for supply chain coordination activities.
Section 3, Amending Agricultural Marketing Act of 1946, Section 210B(f)(1)
Why it matters:This is a common legislative mechanism to provide states with flexibility for program support activities while setting a clear limit to ensure the majority of funds go to direct infrastructure grants.
Case for: Supporters would argue that allowing states to use funds for coordination is essential for the success of infrastructure grants, as it helps connect producers, processors, and markets, maximizing the impact of physical investments.
Case against: Critics might suggest that even this limited allocation could divert funds from direct infrastructure improvements, or that coordination activities should be funded separately to ensure all grant money goes to tangible assets.
Estimated impact: Provides states with up to $1 million annually for non-infrastructure activities, totaling up to $5 million over five years per state, for critical support functions.