Capital Update – For the Week Ending July 10, 2026

Producers Urge Trump Administration to Improve USMCA

What happened: NPPC and the Agricultural Coalition for USMCA are asking President Trump to make targeted improvements to the U.S.-Mexico-Canada Agreement to “promote long-term certainty and stability for farm families and workers in the food manufacturing sector.” This request precedes the July 1 announcement from U.S. Trade Representative Jamieson Greer that the United States did not agree to renew the trade deal “in its current form” but will work to “address the [a]greement’s shortcomings.”

The United States, Canada, and Mexico had until July 1 to decide whether to renew the deal for 16 years, terminate it, or let it continue until 2036 with annual reviews.

NPPC and the Agricultural Coalition for USMCA – of which NPPC is a member – had urged the president to renew the agreement, calling it “foundational to American food and agriculture’s success.”

“The USMCA is providing expanded cross-border rail traffic, long-term policy certainty, and greater supply chain predictability for American producers – and this agreement delivers for American consumers, too,” wrote the coalition in its June 25 letter.

NPPC’s take: NPPC strongly supports renewal of the USMCA, which has facilitated and streamlined the flow of commerce throughout North America.

“Ensuring USMCA remains intact is vital to continuing the mutually beneficial trading relationships U.S. pork enjoys with both Canada and Mexico,” said NPPC President Rob Brenneman, a producer from Iowa. “While we would have liked to have seen immediate renewal of the USMCA, U.S. pork producers appreciate Ambassador Greer’s commitment to staying at the negotiating table with Mexico and Canada to make sure U.S. pork’s market access is preserved.”

Why it matters: U.S. pork exports account for the equivalent of more than $66 of value for each hog marketed and sustain more than 155,000 American jobs. In 2025, Mexico and Canada were the No. 1 and No. 4 export markets, respectively, for U.S. pork, accounting for a third of all the U.S. pork industry’s exports. USMCA provides certainty in those markets and ensures the value of pork exports remains strong.

Bill Introduced to Expand H-2A Program to Year-Round Workers

What happened: House Agriculture Committee Chairman Glenn “GT” Thompson (R-PA) introduced the “Securing Agriculture’s Workforce Act,” which incorporates NPPC recommendations that allow producers to utilize the H-2A visa program.

The program currently lets agricultural employers who meet specific requirements to bring foreign nationals to the United States to fill temporary seasonal farm jobs.

In addition to expanding the H-2A visa program to year-round agricultural workers, Thompson’s bill would:

• Modify what is considered “agriculture labor or services” to address the needs of the livestock sector, including certain meat processing activities, and transfer the authority to further define the term to the Secretary of Agriculture
• Codify Adverse Effect Wage Rate calculation standards to lower costs and provide stability in farmworker pay rates
• Streamline the program through the allowance of multi-year housing certifications and lower costs by allowing maximum daily housing charges that employers can deduct from workers’ wages
• Establish one streamlined H-2A application processing system through the creation of an internet-based electronic portal

Despite higher wages and competitive benefits, pork production employment has declined over the past several years.

NPPC’s position: NPPC strongly supports Thompson’s bill, which would help address pork producers’ workforce challenges.

“Agriculture needs a strong – and reliable – workforce,” said NPPC President Rob Brenneman, a pork producer from Washington County, Iowa. “For pork producers, one giant step in the right direction means expanding the H-2A visa program to include year-round agricultural industries like ours.”

Why it matters: U.S. agriculture faces a severe labor shortage, which has increased its reliance on agricultural guest workers. While the H-2A visa program helps address some of the labor issues, currently it cannot be utilized by sectors of agriculture that rely on year-round workers.

NPPC Comments on Improving Pork Trade with China

What happened: NPPC submitted comments to the Office of the U.S. Trade Representative on China’s trade-limiting measures that are contrary to international rules and standards and on the agency’s efforts to promote reciprocal managed trade with the Asian nation.

NPPC pointed out that, despite better market access to China included as part of the 2020 U.S.-China Phase One trade agreement, U.S. pork exports remain restricted because of the Asian country’s tariffs, domestic subsidies, and various sanitary and phytosanitary restrictions, which violate World Trade Organization rules.

Among other restrictions, NPPC noted China’s requirement that all U.S. pork exports test negative for residues of ractopamine hydrochloride utilized for feed efficiency in hog production. Ractopamine has a maximum residue limit set by the U.N.’s Codex Alimentarius Commission that is widely accepted globally.

The country also has subjected pork shipments from some U.S. facilities to increased inspections and testing because of alleged detections of animal diseases, such as porcine reproductive respiratory syndrome. The United States utilizes vaccines to control the spread of PRRS, which is endemic in China, and certain common testing techniques are known to give false positives when the animals being tested have received vaccinations.

NPPC also commented on USTR’s consideration of a government-to-government mechanism – a U.S.-China Board of Trade – to manage trade between the two countries, noting that it “would enable regular dialogue on market access issues … [and] could function similar to technical committees like those routinely set forth in free trade agreements,” including the U.S.-Mexico-Canada Agreement. Such a mechanism also could use technical experts to ensure progress is being made on commitments related to sanitary-phytosanitary issues and non-tariff barriers.

EPA, States, Livestock Groups Ask Court to Uphold Farms’ Exemption from Emission Reporting Regulation

What happened: NPPC, the American Farm Bureau Federation, the National Cattlemen’s Beef Association, and the U.S. Poultry and Egg Association joined the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency – along with the bipartisan support from the attorneys general of 25 states – in asking a federal appeals court to uphold a lower court’s ruling that livestock and poultry producers do not need to report air emissions from manure on their farms to emergency management agencies.

Animal and environmental activist groups sued EPA in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia over a section of the 1986 Emergency Planning and Community Right to Know Act that exempted livestock and poultry farmers from reporting routine air emissions from animal manure. EPCRA requires certain entities to notify state and local authorities, including first responders, about accidental spills and releases of hazardous materials and chemicals. In August 2025, the District Court rejected the arguments of the activist groups, which appealed the ruling to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit.

A 2017 court decision threw out the EPCRA exemption, but Congress in 2018 approved the Fair Agricultural Reporting Method Act, which EPA relied on to reinstate the exclusion. The activist groups challenged EPA’s 2019 regulation implementing the legislation.

Livestock agriculture’s position: In arguing for keeping the exemption, NPPC and the other agricultural organizations cited EPA’s reasoning: When Congress passed the FARM Act, it exempted certain emission releases. That exemption covers this reporting.  Further, requiring farmers to report these emissions would be “unnecessary, impractical and unlikely.” Agitating a manure pit, for example, could result in the release of ammonia and hydrogen sulfide in amounts that exceed reportable levels, but the gases would dissipate quickly, so no response would be warranted.

Why it matters: If livestock farmers were subject to EPCRA reporting, they would be required to estimate the emissions of certain gases (EPA has yet to finalize reliable, scientifically sound estimating methodologies that accurately represent the air emissions from animal manure at modern livestock farms). Additionally, farmers could be subject to liabilities resulting from differing interpretations of the information called for in the emissions reports, exposing them to potential civil penalties or litigation.

FAA Rule Would Restrict Drone Use Around Agricultural Facilities

What happened: NPPC weighed in on a proposed Federal Aviation Administration rule establishing a process for what the FAA calls fixed-site facilities to petition for restrictions on the use of unmanned aircraft – drones – in airspace around such critical infrastructure.

In comments, NPPC said the regulation is a “necessary and overdue step toward protecting critical infrastructure, safeguarding the nation’s food supply, defending farm biosecurity,” and ensuring the responsible use of drones.

NPPC’s submission focuses on addressing the farm biosecurity, worker safety, operational and physical security threats that low-altitude drone activity poses to pork operations and on the demonstrated record of activist organizations that target hog farms.

NPPC’s take: NPPC strongly supports the FAA’s proposed rule to expressly allow livestock and poultry farms, feed operations, and meat and poultry processing facilities to restrict unauthorized drone use around their operations and to establish penalties for intrusions.

“Strengthening protections around eligible agricultural facilities will enhance farm and food security, protect the swine herd from biosecurity threats, safeguard the men and women who work on America’s hog farms, and reinforce the resilience of the nation’s food supply – all while preserving responsible access to the benefits of unmanned aircraft technology,” wrote the organization.

Why it matters: Animal rights activists have targeted swine and other livestock farms for decades. Given the documented pattern of activist organizations physically intruding on, surveilling, and damaging animal agriculture facilities, producers are concerned that unauthorized drones will be used against their farms, jeopardizing animals, workers, and the safety of the food supply.

Input Sought on Good Pork Production Practices

What happened: NPPC and the American Society of Agricultural and Biological Engineers, in coordination with the American National Standards Institute, are initiating a review and revision of the Good Experience Life and Production Practices standard, which outlines responsible, science-based pork production practices.

The organizations are seeking input and participation on “Concentrated Livestock Operations – General Site Conditions” from a diverse range of stakeholders who have an interest in animal agriculture, pork production, food safety, animal welfare, environmental management, public health, and consumer protection.

They are looking for contributions from: producer organizations and pork industry representatives; government agencies and regulatory bodies; animal health and veterinary professionals; academia and research institutions; environmental and animal welfare advocacy organizations; food processors, retailers, and restaurant chains; certification and auditing bodies; consumer protection and public interest groups; and independent farmers, veterinarians, and subject-matter experts.

Participants can either become members of the consensus body involved in developing and voting on the revised standard, or advisory reviewers, who review and provide feedback at key points in the process. Click here to sign up for the committee.

Why it matters: The GELPP standard reflects best practices, promotes continuous improvement, and helps maintain credibility across the pork supply chain.

Agriculture Groups Comment on Revised Conservation Practices

What happened: The Agricultural Nutrient Policy Council submitted comments on proposed revisions to the federal government’s conservation practices. The ANPC was established and is led by NPPC and consists of more than 40 state and national agriculture trade associations and agribusiness members.

The U.S. Department of Agriculture’s Natural Resources Conservation Service requested input on changes to the Conservation Practice Standards, technical documents that define the minimum science-based criteria for planning, designing, installing, and maintaining conservation practices.

The ANPC urged the NRCS to identify opportunities to enhance flexibility of conservation practices, allowing, for example, site-specific conservation planning, additional farmer and rancher innovation, and economic feasibility at the farm gate. The agency also should make improvements to the standards that clarify the intent and function of practices and preserve professional engineering, said the ANPC.

Additionally, NRCS should avoid expanding prescriptive design requirements and distinguish between mandatory practice standards criteria and programmatic, regulatory, or guidance-level provisions.

“Maintaining practical, achievable requirements for manure-, waste-, and nutrient-related practices should be a high priority for NRCS,” the ANPC said.

In comments submitted in early April, the ANPC made a number of recommendations for the revised conservation practice standards, several of which the NRCS incorporated into its proposed revisions. In its latest comments, the ANPC asked the agency to adopt suggestions related to energy equipment, weed treatment, storage of animal waste, livestock pipelines, wells, and waste treatment/separation facilities.

Why it matters: The NRCS Conservation Practice Standards ensure conservation efforts across the country are delivered with consistency, technical integrity, and measurable benefits to soil, water, air, plants, animals, and energy resources.

USDA Funds Available for Expanded Meat Processing Capacity

What happened: The U.S. Department of Agriculture began accepting applications for the fourth round of its Meat and Poultry Processing Expansion Program, an effort supported by NPPC as a way to increase independent meat and poultry processing capacity, create better markets for producers, and lower food costs. The MPPEP was launched in 2022.

A separate plan announced in June by Agriculture Secretary Brooke Rollins will support small and very small meat and poultry processing plants, improve customer service, and reduce regulatory burdens while maintaining food safety protections for consumers.

USDA is making $60 million available to help eligible meat and poultry processors. The funding will be divided equally between small/very small processors and intermediate processors.

Through 2025, the MPPEP awarded grants totaling more than $325 million to 74 independent processors, increasing packing capacity by more than 800,000 cattle, 14,000 hogs, 23 million chickens, and 5 million turkeys, according to USDA.

NPPC’s take: NPPC supports efforts to expand meatpacking capacity and strengthen the nation’s food supply chain, and while it backs investing in smaller independent meat processors, it previously pointed out to USDA that larger plants are better able to capture economies of scale and – unlike most small facilities – can ship product interstate and overseas.

What it means for producers: Ensuring sufficient harvesting and processing capacity at meatpacking plants is critical to the ability of the U.S. pork industry to provide products to consumers around the globe. The MPPEP helps encourage competition and sustainable growth in the U.S. meat processing sector and improve supply chain resiliency. Click here for more information and to apply by the Aug. 7, 2026, deadline for the MPPEP.