Capital Update – For the Week Ending April 24, 2026

NPPC Continues to Apply Pressure as House is set to Vote on Farm Bill 2.0

What happened: As the House prepares to vote on a new farm bill, producers are continuing to press lawmakers to keep a provision in the legislation that addresses the problems caused by California’s Proposition 12.

NPPC joined the Farm Credit Council and 330+ national and state groups in urging Congress to pass the farm bill.

An NPPC-backed provision in the farm bill would prohibit states from setting meat and poultry product standards as a condition of sale for animals produced outside their borders.

Why it matters: Without a fix to Prop. 12, pork producers across the country will need to spend hundreds of thousands of dollars to retrofit existing or build new housing that complies with California’s arbitrary standards or otherwise not be able to sell into that market of 40 million people. Californians consume about 13% of all pork sold domestically.

Adding to concerns, if the livestock production law stands, other states are in line to approve differing statutes, creating a nationwide patchwork of restrictive mandates on producers.

Veterinary Groups Renew Support of Prop. 12 Fix in House Farm Bill

What happened: Two of NPPC’s biggest allies on the issue of animal well-being offered their support for a farm bill provision that would fix the complications triggered by California’s Proposition 12.

The House farm bill provision would prohibit states from implementing laws and regulations that dictate animal production practices outside their borders.

The American Association of Swine Veterinarians and the American Veterinary Medical Association, in separate letters to Congress, urged lawmakers to support the Prop. 12 provision of the “Farm, Food, and National Security Act of 2026.”

AASV told House Speaker Mike Johnson (R-LA) and Majority Leader Hakeem Jeffries (D-NY) that the Prop. 12 requirements putting limits on veterinarians’ ability to work with farmers … “may not be in the best interest of the animals under our care.” Prop. 12, said AASV, “does not objectively improve animal welfare” and, in some cases, “may compromise animal welfare.”

In its letter to House Agriculture Committee Chairman Glenn “GT” Thompson (R-PA) and Ranking Member Angie Craig (D-MN), the AVMA noted that “no one husbandry style is appropriate for all circumstances” and that efforts to improve animal well-being should be based on science and veterinarians’ experience. “The requirements in Prop. 12 are not scientifically based and have not been objectively demonstrated to reliably and consistently improve animal welfare,” the organization wrote.

Why it matters: As AASV and AVMA pointed out, the best solution for animal well-being is for farmers and veterinarians to have flexibility to determine the housing arrangements that are best for their animals. Prop. 12 takes away that flexibility and places the well-being of animals at risk.

Allowing Prop. 12 to stand, the organizations said, could create a patchwork of regulations that would impact biosecurity and be cost-prohibitive and cumbersome for veterinarians and producers to navigate.

NPPC Asks Administration to Use Caution in Imposing 301 Tariffs

What happened: NPPC urged the Trump administration to be cautious when imposing tariffs on countries in response to their unfair trade practices because of the negative consequences that often follow such duties – namely, retaliatory tariffs on U.S. goods, including pork.

In comments submitted to the Office of the U.S. Trade Representative, NPPC acknowledged the challenges caused by nations using forced labor and fostering overcapacity of products and subsequently subsidizing exports. And it recognized the administration’s use of Section 301 tariffs as a way to protect domestic manufacturers of, for example, steel, aluminum, and semiconductors.

But, said NPPC, the U.S. pork industry historically has been the primary target in trade disputes involving manufacturing. Pork is a high-value commodity on which trading partners often impose retaliatory duties “to exert maximum political pressure on the U.S. government” to back off its tariffs, the organization wrote.

NPPC also pointed out that using Section 301 tariffs as a permanent trade architecture creates uncertainty, which stifles long-term business planning and investment. “Section 301 was designed to enforce U.S. rights under trade agreements and encourage negotiations, not to serve as a permanent tax on imports.”

NPPC’s take: NPPC is asking USTR to “carefully” target trade remedies only at products where foreign government intervention has created excess capacity that is immune to market correction. NPPC also wants USTR to exclude agricultural equipment and components and inputs from tariffs to avoid inflating domestic production costs.

Why it matters: Imposing of U.S. tariffs can prompt retaliatory duties on American goods. Trade disputes with China in 2018-2019, for example, saw that country respond to U.S. 301 tariffs (and Section 232 duties) with tariffs on U.S. pork of 62 to 70%, leading to an estimated annualized loss of nearly $646 million in exports. Additionally, it is difficult and costly to regain market share in a country once a trading partner responds to U.S. tariffs by sourcing pork from U.S. competitors such as Brazil or the European Union, even after the tariffs have been lifted.

Fund Ag Export Promotion Programs, Says Coalition

What happened: The Coalition to Promote U.S. Agricultural Exports, which includes NPPC and more than 130 other agriculture organizations, is urging the House Agriculture Appropriations Subcommittee to include “full, mandatory” funding for two export promotion programs in the fiscal 2027 agriculture appropriations bill.

In a letter to Reps. Andy Harris (R-MD) and Sanford Bishop (D-GA), the chairman and ranking member, respectively, of the Subcommittee on Agriculture, Rural Development, Food and Drug Administration, and Related Agencies, the coalition asked that funding continue for the U.S. Department of Agriculture’s Market Access Program and Foreign Market Development Program, “an investment which is making a difference.”

The coalition pointed out that private-sector investment through MAP is $2.50 for each $1 in federal funding, while FMD spending is $3.25 for each federal dollar appropriated. “Full funding for these programs is abundantly necessary,” said the coalition.

Why it matters: Exports add significantly to the bottom line of every U.S. agricultural producer. In countries around the world, MAP and FMD have helped promote U.S. farm products, which generated economic output of more than $362 billion in 2023, according to USDA. That means for every $1 of U.S. agricultural goods exported, $2.06 of domestic economic activity was generated.