Read twice and referred to the Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry.
This bill requires the Secretary of Agriculture, working with CISA and other agencies, to conduct a biennial risk assessment of cybersecurity threats and vulnerabilities across the agriculture and food critical infrastructure sector and to report findings to relevant Congressional committees. It also mandates an annual, multi‑year cross‑sector food security and cyber resilience simulation exercise coordinated with DHS, HHS, the DNI, and other agencies, includes private‑sector consultation (including the Food and Agriculture ISAC), and authorizes $1,000,000 per year for fiscal years 2026–2030 to carry out the exercises.
Left emphasizes stronger funding, enforcement, and privacy safeguards
Narrow, low-cost, technical bill with bipartisan appeal; may face limited objections about federal oversight or competing floor priorities.
This bill requires the Secretary of Agriculture, working with CISA and other agencies, to conduct a biennial risk assessment of cybersecurity threats and vulnerabilities across the agriculture and food critical infrastructure sector and to report findings to relevant Congressional committees.
It also mandates an annual, multi‑year cross‑sector food security and cyber resilience simulation exercise coordinated with DHS, HHS, the DNI, and other agencies, includes private‑sector consultation (including the Food and Agriculture ISAC), and authorizes $1,000,000 per year for fiscal years 2026–2030 to carry out the exercises.
Technical, limited‑cost measures addressing infrastructure security historically clear committees and receive bipartisan support, though passage still depends on legislative calendar and committee action.
How solid the drafting looks.
Left emphasizes stronger funding, enforcement, and privacy safeguards
These are examples from the analysis, not a ranked list of the most-affected groups.
Left emphasizes stronger funding, enforcement, and privacy safeguards
Likely broadly supportive because the bill addresses public health, food safety, and infrastructure resilience.
Would want stronger funding, enforceable protections, and civil‑liberties safeguards for data sharing.
May press for follow‑through to translate assessments into protective policy.
Generally favorable as a pragmatic, evidence‑gathering approach to a national security risk.
Values the interagency coordination and private sector input, while wanting clear cost control and measurable outcomes.
Will judge success by whether reports lead to practical, funded actions.
Cautious but potentially supportive because it focuses on national security and cybersecurity rather than new regulation.
Concerned about federal overreach, ongoing costs, and unintended regulatory pressure on farmers and food businesses.
Favors limited scope and protection of private property and trade secrets.
Reached or meaningfully advanced
Reached or meaningfully advanced
Still ahead
Still ahead
Still ahead
Technical, limited‑cost measures addressing infrastructure security historically clear committees and receive bipartisan support, though passage still depends on legislative calendar and committee action.
The bill has not accumulated any surfaced votes yet.
Left emphasizes stronger funding, enforcement, and privacy safeguards
Technical, limited‑cost measures addressing infrastructure security historically clear committees and receive bipartisan support, though pa…
Pro readers get the full perspective split, passage barriers, legislative design review, stakeholder impact map, and lens-based policy tradeoff analysis for Farm and Food Cybersecurity Act of 2025.
Go beyond the headline summary with full stakeholder mapping, legislative design analysis, passage barriers, and lens-by-lens tradeoff breakdowns.