PlainBillCongress, translated.Legislation. Context. Public interest.Referred to the Subcommittee on Nutrition and Foreign Agriculture.
Congressional Research Service
Version 00 · Introduced in House · Feb 26, 2025
Farm and Food Cybersecurity Act of 2025
This bill directs the Department of Agriculture (USDA) to (1) assess cybersecurity threats in the agriculture and food critical infrastructure sector, and (2) conduct annual crisis simulation exercises for food-related emergencies or disruptions. The agriculture and food critical infrastructure sector includes (1) any activity relating to the production, processing, distribution, storage, transportation, consumption, or disposal of agricultural or food products; and (2) any entity involved in any of these activities.
Specifically, USDA must conduct a risk assessment every two years on the cybersecurity threats to, and security vulnerabilities in, this sector. The risk assessment must include any recommendations for federal legislative or administrative actions to address related threats and vulnerabilities.
Showing the opening paragraphs of the official summary.
USDA must also conduct an annual simulation exercise relating to a food-related emergency or disruption in coordination with the Department of Homeland Security (DHS), the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), and the Office of the Director of National Intelligence (ODNI).
Among other things, the exercise must (1) involve a realistic and plausible scenario that simulates a food-related emergency or disruption that affects multiple sectors and jurisdictions, and (2) incorporate input from experts and stakeholders from various disciplines and sectors (e.g., agriculture, public health, emergency management, transportation, and energy).
USDA, in consultation with DHS, HHS, and ODNI, must submit a report to Congress on each simulation exercise, including recommendations to enhance the cybersecurity and resilience of the agriculture and food critical infrastructure sector.
People & committees
Rep. Finstad, Brad [R-MN-1] · R–MN
Legislative record
A procedural vote is different from passage. Passage in one chamber does not establish enactment. Explore the glossary.
Referred to the Subcommittee on Nutrition and Foreign Agriculture.
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.
Source last updated: Sep 19, 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.1604 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.1604 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.1604 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.1604 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 · 2025-02-26 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.
The proposed Farm and Food Cybersecurity Act of 2025 would require the Agriculture Secretary to assess cybersecurity risks across the food and agriculture system every two years. It would also require annual practice exercises for food emergencies over five years, involving government agencies and private organizations. The bill would authorize Congress to provide $1 million annually for those exercises in fiscal years 2026–2030; that authorization would not itself provide the money.
This Act may be cited as the Farm and Food Cybersecurity Act of 2025.
The Secretary shall conduct a risk assessment, on a biennial basis, on the cybersecurity threats to, and security vulnerabilities in, the agriculture and food critical infrastructure sector
shall conduct, over a 5-year period, an annual cross-sector crisis simulation exercise relating to a food-related emergency or disruption
There is authorized to be appropriated to carry out this section $1,000,000 for each of fiscal years 2026 through 2030.
The proposal would cover activities throughout the food and agriculture system, from production through consumption and disposal, and the people and organizations involved. The Agriculture Secretary would administer its requirements. The named information-sharing center is the Food and Agriculture-Information Sharing and Analysis Center.
(A) any activity relating to the production, processing, distribution, storage, transportation, consumption, or disposal of agricultural or food products; and (B) any entity involved in an activity described in subparagraph (A), including a farmer, rancher, processor, manufacturer, distributor, retailer, consumer, and regulator.
(3) Secretary The term Secretary means the Secretary of Agriculture. (4) Sector-specific ISAC The term sector-specific ISAC means the Food and Agriculture-Information Sharing and Analysis Center.
The required assessments would examine cyberattacks and incidents affecting food and agriculture, their potential consequences for food availability and safety, the economy, public health and national security, and government and private organizations’ readiness to prevent and handle them. These are subjects to assess, rather than established effects of the bill.
(1) the nature and extent of cyberattacks and incidents that affect the agriculture and food critical infrastructure sector; (2) the potential impacts of a cyberattack or incident on the safety, security, and availability of food products, as well as on the economy, public health, and national security of the United States; (3) the current capability and readiness of the Federal Government, State and local governments, and private sector entities to prevent, detect, mitigate, respond to, and recover from cyberattacks and incidents described in paragraph (2)
Assessments would also review existing defensive policies and practices, obstacles and opportunities for improvement, and recommendations for federal action. That review would include regulatory requirements that may divert resources from managing actual risks. This provision calls for assessment and recommendations; it does not itself repeal those requirements.
(4) the existing policies, standards, guidelines, best practices, and initiatives applicable to the agriculture and food critical infrastructure sector to enhance defensive measures in that sector; (5) the gaps, challenges, barriers, or opportunities for improving defensive measures in the agriculture and food critical infrastructure sector; and (6) any recommendations for Federal legislative or administrative actions to address the cybersecurity threats to, and security vulnerabilities in, the agriculture and food critical infrastructure sector, including intrusive, duplicative, or conflicting regulatory requirements that may divert attention and resources from operational risk management to a compliance regime that impedes actual security efforts.
For each risk assessment, the Agriculture Secretary would have to consult appropriate private-sector organizations, including the named food and agriculture information-sharing center and the appropriate sector coordinating council.
(b) Private sector participation In conducting a risk assessment under subsection (a), the Secretary shall consult with appropriate entities in the private sector, including— (1) the sector-specific ISAC; and (2) the appropriate sector coordinating council.
The first assessment report would be due within one year after enactment, with reports every two years afterward. Reports would go to the four specified House and Senate agriculture and homeland security committees. The reporting provision specifies no end date.
(c) Biennial report Not later than 1 year after the date of enactment of this Act, and every 2 years thereafter, the Secretary shall submit a report on each risk assessment conducted under subsection (a) to— (1) the Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry of the Senate; (2) the Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs of the Senate; (3) the Committee on Agriculture of the House of Representatives; and (4) the Committee on Homeland Security of the House of Representatives.
The Agriculture Secretary would conduct an annual food-emergency simulation involving multiple sectors over a five-year period. The Secretary would coordinate with Homeland Security, Health and Human Services, the Director of National Intelligence and other relevant federal agency heads.
(a) Establishment The Secretary, in coordination with the Secretary of Homeland Security, the Secretary of Health and Human Services, the Director of National Intelligence, and the heads of other relevant Federal agencies, shall conduct, over a 5-year period, an annual cross-sector crisis simulation exercise relating to a food-related emergency or disruption (referred to in this section as an exercise).
The exercises’ stated purposes would include testing preparedness, identifying and addressing weaknesses, improving coordination, evaluating existing programs and resources, and sharing recommended practices. They would also identify missing participants for inclusion in later exercises. These are stated objectives, not demonstrated results.
(b) Purposes The purposes of each exercise are— (1) to assess the preparedness and response capabilities of Federal, State, Tribal, local, and territorial governments and private sector entities in the event of a food-related emergency or disruption; (2) to identify and address gaps and vulnerabilities in the food supply chain and critical infrastructure; (3) to enhance coordination and information sharing among stakeholders involved in food production, processing, distribution, and consumption; (4) to evaluate the effectiveness and efficiency of existing policies, programs, and resources relating to food security and resilience; (5) to develop and disseminate best practices and recommendations for improving food security and resilience; and (6) to identify key stakeholders and categories that were missing from the exercise to ensure the inclusion of those stakeholders and categories in future exercises.
Each exercise would use a realistic food-emergency scenario affecting multiple sectors and jurisdictions. It would incorporate input from diverse experts, including academic and private cybersecurity specialists, use varied methods such as discussion exercises and drills, and include government and private participants with food-security responsibilities.
(c) Design Each exercise shall— (1) involve a realistic and plausible scenario that simulates a food-related emergency or disruption affecting multiple sectors and jurisdictions; (2) incorporate input from experts and stakeholders from various disciplines and sectors, including agriculture, public health, nutrition, emergency management, transportation, energy, water, communications, related equipment suppliers and manufacturers, and cybersecurity, including related academia and private sector information security researchers and practitioners, including the sector-specific ISAC; (3) use a variety of methods and tools, such as tabletop exercises, workshops, seminars, games, drills, or full-scale exercises; and (4) include participants from Federal, State, Tribal, local, and territorial governments and private sector entities (including the sector-specific ISAC and appropriate sector coordinating councils) that have roles and responsibilities relating to food security and resilience.
The Secretary would consult appropriate private-sector organizations when conducting exercises, including the named information-sharing center and appropriate coordinating councils. After each exercise, the Secretary would consult the participating federal agency heads, give participants feedback and an evaluation, and submit findings, lessons and recommendations to Congress.
(d) Private sector participation In conducting an exercise under subsection (a), the Secretary shall consult with appropriate entities in the private sector, including— (1) the sector-specific ISAC; and (2) the appropriate sector coordinating councils.
(e) Feedback; report After each exercise, the Secretary, in consultation with the heads of the Federal agencies described in subsection (a), shall— (1) provide feedback to, and an evaluation of, the participants in that exercise on their performance and outcomes; and (2) produce, and submit to Congress, a report that summarizes, with respect to that exercise, the findings of that exercise, lessons learned from that exercise, and recommendations to enhance the cybersecurity and resilience of the agriculture and food critical infrastructure sector.
The proposal would authorize $1 million for each fiscal year from 2026 through 2030 to carry out the simulation-exercise section. This is permission for future appropriations—laws providing funding—not an appropriation itself. The authorization is expressly for section 4.
(f) Authorization of appropriations There is authorized to be appropriated to carry out this section $1,000,000 for each of fiscal years 2026 through 2030.
The supplied actions snapshot, updated September 19, 2026, records introduction and referral to the House Agriculture Committee on February 26, 2025, followed by referral to the Subcommittee on Nutrition and Foreign Agriculture on March 28, 2025. These entries do not establish whether later legislative action or enactment occurred.
Source snapshot updated 2026-09-19T23:18:51Z. 2025-03-28: Referred to the Subcommittee on Nutrition and Foreign Agriculture. 2025-02-26: Referred to the House Committee on Agriculture. 2025-02-26: Introduced in House
A closer look
Reviewed version: Introduced in House · 2025-02-26. 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 rider 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 earmark was identified in the complete supplied introduced text. This conclusion is limited to that version; it does not establish absence in other versions or accompanying materials, or resolve formal earmark status without supporting disclosures.
Narrow exceptions, exemptions, or preferential treatment that warrant a closer look.
None identified in the reviewed text
No materially narrow preferential benefit, carve-out or special exemption was identified in the complete supplied introduced text. Routine consultation and participation requirements do not alone establish preferential treatment. 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: Sep 19, 2026. How PlainBill uses AI