Agriculture Export Promotion Act of 2025
Summary
What This Bill Does
The Agriculture Export Promotion Act is findings-only in the locally stored text. It does not itself appropriate new money or amend the Market Access Program or Foreign Market Development Cooperator Program. Instead, it builds the case for expanding USDA export promotion by citing average annual export gains of $9.6 billion from 1977 to 2019, nearly $648 billion in added export revenue, a $24.50 return for every dollar invested, up to 225,800 jobs from 2002 to 2019, $45 billion in gross economic output, and a study finding that doubling MAP and FMD public funding with 10 to 20 percent higher private contributions would add about $7.4 billion in annual agricultural exports.
Who Benefits and How
U.S. agricultural producers benefit from congressional findings supporting larger export-promotion investment. Commodity groups benefit because the findings cite apples, cotton, beef, soybeans, rice, wheat, dairy, corn, citrus, wine, pork, peanuts, cranberries, lentils, tree nuts, timber, poultry, potatoes, and seafood. USDA export-promotion program advocates benefit from official return-on-investment figures for MAP and FMD funding debates. Rural economies benefit if the findings help build support for future export-promotion funding increases.
Who Bears the Burden and How
Budget hawks must respond to findings supporting higher public funding for export promotion. USDA trade program staff may face pressure to justify or expand MAP and FMD based on the cited figures. Private agricultural groups may face expectations for 10 to 20 percent higher contributions in an expanded public-private partnership. Foreign competitors face a potential U.S. policy push to catch up with their faster-growing export-promotion programs.
Key Provisions
- Provides findings on USDA export-promotion gains from 1977 through 2019.
- Recognizes a $24.50 return for every public dollar invested in export promotion.
- Identifies static MAP and FMD funding as eroding export-promotion impact after inflation.
- Cites analysis that doubling MAP and FMD public funding with higher private contributions would add about $7.4 billion in annual exports.
Evidence Chain:
This summary is generated from the full bill text using AI analysis. Expand "Detailed Analysis" below for identified beneficiaries/burden bearers with clause-level evidence links.
At a Glance
What This Bill Does
Makes congressional findings that USDA export-promotion programs have generated large agricultural export, job, and GDP gains and that doubling MAP and FMD funding with higher private contributions would increase exports by about $7.4 billion annually.
Key Policy Areas
Agriculture, Trade, Export Promotion
Primary Purpose
Makes congressional findings that USDA export-promotion programs have generated large agricultural export, job, and GDP gains and that doubling MAP and FMD funding with higher private contributions would increase exports by about $7.4 billion annually.
Policy Domains
Resolution provisions
Identified Gains
- U.S. agricultural producers
- Commodity groups
- USDA export-promotion advocates
- Rural economies
Identified Costs
- Budget hawks
- USDA trade program staff
- Private agricultural groups
- Foreign competitors
Sponsors
Legislative Progress
In CommitteeMr. Newhouse (for himself, Mr. Mann, Mr. Finstad, Mrs. Hinson, …
Referred to the House Committee on Agriculture.
Introduced in House
Stakeholder Effects
cui bono?How this legislation distributes effects. Mention counts reflect frequency, not effect magnitude.
Commodity groups, Private agricultural groups, U.S. agricultural producers
Positive-direction: Commodity groups, U.S. agricultural producers
Negative-direction: Private agricultural groups
Bill Structure & Actor Mappings
Who is "The Secretary" in each section?
We use a combination of our own taxonomy and classification in addition to large language models to assess meaning and potential beneficiaries. High confidence means strong textual evidence. Always verify with the original bill text.
Learn more about our methodology