PlainBillCongress, translated.Legislation. Context. Public interest.Referred to the House Committee on Agriculture.
Congressional Research Service
Version 00 · Introduced in House · Feb 6, 2025
Agriculture Export Promotion Act of 2025
This bill extends the Market Access Program (MAP) and the Foreign Market Development (FMD) Program of the Foreign Agricultural Service (FAS) through FY2029 and increases funding for the programs.
Under MAP, FAS provides funds to eligible participants to share the cost of marketing and promotion activities to encourage the development, maintenance, and expansion of commercial export markets for U.S. agricultural commodities. Eligible participants include nonprofit U.S. agricultural trade organizations, state regional trade groups, U.S. agricultural cooperatives, state government agencies, and small businesses.
Under the FMD Program, FAS provides funds to nonprofit U.S. agricultural trade organizations to share the cost of overseas marketing and promotion activities. The FMD program focuses on the generic promotion of U.S. commodities, rather than the promotion of branded products.
People & committees
Rep. Newhouse, Dan [R-WA-4] · R–WA
Legislative record
A procedural vote is different from passage. Passage in one chamber does not establish enactment. Explore the glossary.
Referred to the House Committee on Agriculture.
Introduced in House
Introduced in House
Primary sources
Text links open the official source. We also preserved the text version used in the PlainBill explanation below.
No related bills are listed in this snapshot. This does not establish whether the proposal has appeared in earlier Congresses.
Source last updated: Jan 15, 2026. Consult Congress.gov for the current record.
AI Conversation Starters
Choose a perspective, copy a prompt, and paste it into your preferred AI. Each prompt includes the bill version and available official source links, and asks for counterarguments as well as supporting evidence.
Analyze H.R.1086 as objectively as possible. Explain its main provisions, who would be affected, possible benefits and harms, implementation, exceptions, and uncertainties. Present the strongest arguments for and against it, and identify evidence needed to assess its public impact.
Examine H.R.1086 through a progressive lens, focusing on fairness, access, economic inequality, and effects on vulnerable communities. Explain potential benefits, costs, and unintended consequences. Consider the strongest counterarguments and distinguish stated goals from demonstrated outcomes.
Examine H.R.1086 through a conservative lens, focusing on fiscal responsibility, institutional stability, federalism, and the scope of government. Explain potential benefits, costs, and unintended consequences. Consider the strongest counterarguments and any provisions that challenge this perspective.
Examine H.R.1086 through a civil-liberties and limited-government lens. Consider individual rights, privacy, voluntary choice, accountability, and government power. Explain tradeoffs, possible safeguards, and the strongest counterarguments without assuming the proposal is beneficial or harmful.
PlainBill explanation
Based on the full Introduced in House · 2025-02-06 text. This explanation has not received human editorial review. This overview describes the proposal’s major provisions; it does not establish what its real-world effects would be.
This bill proposes raising several dollar amounts in an existing law supporting efforts to sell U.S. agricultural products abroad and replacing references to 2019–2023 with 2025–2029. It concerns agricultural producers and export-promotion groups, but the supplied amendments do not show the full rules governing who receives support or how money is distributed.
(1) by striking 2019 through 2023 each place it appears and inserting 2025 through 2029; (2) in paragraph (2), by striking $255,000,000 and inserting $489,500,000; (3) in paragraph (3)(A)(i), by striking $200,000,000 and inserting $400,000,000; (4) in paragraph (3)(A)(ii), by striking $34,500,000 and inserting $69,000,000;
private sector contributions have helped maintain the public-private partnership between the Department of Agriculture and private agricultural groups
foreign competitors have expanded their agricultural export promotion programs at a far faster rate than the United States, placing United States producers at a competitive disadvantage in international markets
Section 1 would name the bill the Agriculture Export Promotion Act of 2025.
This Act may be cited as the Agriculture Export Promotion Act of 2025.
Section 2 presents proposed congressional findings supporting increased export-promotion funding. It attributes a projected average annual export gain of approximately $7.4 billion to an academic analysis of doubling public funding for the Market Access Program and Foreign Market Development Cooperator Program while increasing private contributions by 10–20 percent. This is a projection cited by the bill, not an established result of the proposal.
Congress finds that—
(7) a recent academic analysis found that doubling public funding for the Market Access Program and the Foreign Market Development Cooperator Program, coupled with increasing private contributions ranging from 10 to 20 percent, would result in average annual gains in agricultural exports of approximately $7,400,000,000.
Section 3 would replace every reference to 2019 through 2023 within section 203(f) of the Agricultural Trade Act of 1978 with 2025 through 2029. The amendment alone does not establish what obligations or funding rules those periods govern.
Section 203(f) of the Agricultural Trade Act of 1978 (7 U.S.C. 5623(f)) is amended— (1) by striking 2019 through 2023 each place it appears and inserting 2025 through 2029;
The bill would increase the dollar amount in section 203(f)(2) from $255 million to $489.5 million. The supplied text does not reproduce the provision that determines how this amount operates.
(2) in paragraph (2), by striking $255,000,000 and inserting $489,500,000;
The bill would double two additional amounts: from $200 million to $400 million in section 203(f)(3)(A)(i), and from $34.5 million to $69 million in section 203(f)(3)(A)(ii). The amended clauses are not reproduced, so the supplied text does not explicitly connect each amount to a named program.
(3) in paragraph (3)(A)(i), by striking $200,000,000 and inserting $400,000,000; (4) in paragraph (3)(A)(ii), by striking $34,500,000 and inserting $69,000,000;
The bill would change a timing condition in section 203(f)(4) to depend on how long a memorandum's directives remain in effect, instead of how long the memorandum itself remains in effect. The supplied text does not identify the memorandum or reproduce the rule subject to that condition.
(5) in paragraph (4), by striking during the period in which that memorandum is in effect and inserting during the period in which the directives in such memorandum are in effect.
The supplied official-actions snapshot, updated January 15, 2026, records introduction in the House and referral to the House Committee on Agriculture on February 6, 2025. It does not establish subsequent legislative action or enactment.
Source snapshot updated 2026-01-15T09:06:22Z. 2025-02-06: Referred to the House Committee on Agriculture. 2025-02-06: Introduced in House
A closer look
Reviewed version: Introduced in House · 2025-02-06. These findings describe provisions and who may benefit; they are not judgments of waste, corruption, or motive.
This review covers the supplied bill text. “None identified” does not rule out provisions in later versions or accompanying reports and disclosures.
Provisions outside the bill’s main subject, or policy changes attached to appropriations.
None identified in the reviewed text
No unrelated provision or policy change attached to appropriations was identified in the complete supplied introduced text. This conclusion is limited to that version and does not establish absence in other versions or accompanying materials.
Spending directed to particular recipients or places outside ordinary competitive or formula-based allocation.
None identified in the reviewed text
No congressionally directed spending for a particular recipient or place was identified in the complete supplied introduced text. This conclusion is limited to that version; the missing underlying law and accompanying materials limit assessment of allocation and formal earmark status.
Narrow exceptions, exemptions, or preferential treatment that warrant a closer look.
None identified in the reviewed text
No materially narrow carve-out, special exemption, or preferential exception was identified in the complete supplied introduced text. This conclusion is limited to that version and does not establish absence in other versions or accompanying materials.
Full text preserved for this analysis. Legislative record snapshot: Jan 15, 2026. How PlainBill uses AI