Monday, May 4, 2026

When it comes to appropriations—the annual multi-layered system Congress uses to allocate funding and provide direction for federal agencies—we’re driven, because it’s one of the most valuable channels for securing animal protection gains. This is particularly true for the USDA-FDA appropriations bill, which governs spending for the U.S. Department of Agriculture and the U.S. Food and Drug Administration, two agencies with critical influence over the fate of animals.

In the fiscal year 2027 USDA-FDA package, we succeeded in our efforts to maintain funding for USDA’s enforcement of the Animal Welfare Act at $37.25 million, the same as FY26. The appropriations committee also directed USDA to provide updates on its AWA enforcement efforts and the agency’s recommendations for improving requirements and standards, and to strengthen collaboration on enforcement efforts with the Department of Justice.

In addition, the package offers crucial direction for ongoing commitments to non-animal testing methods at the FDA.

To secure the gains reported below, we successfully marshalled strong bipartisan support. A total of 194 Representatives, led by Reps. Chris Smith (R-N.J.) and Mike Quigley (D-Ill.), advocated for many of these priorities, alongside parallel requests from 44 Senators led by Sen. Chris Van Hollen (D-Md.).

The good elements focused on USDA in the package included:

  • The defund language that annually prohibits funding for USDA to inspect horse slaughter plants, which prevents such plants from operating on U.S. soil.
  • Language that encourages USDA to continue to provide means for the public to search for AWA compliance and enforcement data and specific information on inspection report findings.
  • $1.5 million for the Protecting Animals with Shelter (PAWS) grant program that helps more domestic violence shelters build kennel space or organize pet fostering arrangements for survivors leaving abusive situations with their companion animals.
  • Language that encourages USDA to increase its efforts to investigate and prevent animal fighting on the grounds that it is cruel, illegal and can spread diseases including highly pathogenic avian influenza.
  • Language directing training for inspectors on humane handling of animals at slaughter facilities, including on the slaughter lines.
  • Inclusion of the Bring Animals Relief and Kibble (BARK) Act, to waive liability for donors of pet food and supplies, along with the receiving organizations, to incentivize pet retailers and others to donate millions of pounds of usable pet food and supplies to shelters and families with pets.
  • Language that directs USDA to review federally licensed Class A dog breeders that have relinquished a similar state license in the past two years, and if the agency finds that such breeders no longer qualify, to revoke their federal licenses.

We were certainly pleased to see the package contained language directing FDA to update its regulations within one year for non-animal methods and to clarify (where applicable) that animal tests are not required.

Bad news comes with the territory in any funding budget for USDA, and this year’s House committee report includes some problematic provisions:

  • Language that lays the groundwork for further adulteration of the rules designed to protect horses from soring under the Horse Protection Act.
  • Language encouraging USDA to work “collaboratively” with licensees on identified AWA infractions, instead of applying and enforcing the law.
  • Language directing USDA to fully integrate M-44s into its wildlife damage management strategy. These spring-loaded cyanide devices used to kill coyotes, foxes and other species deemed pests are cruel and threaten pets, people and endangered wildlife.

The results were mixed on a few matters on which we pressed for action.

  • We sought bill language to phase out elephants’ use in overnight traveling performances. Instead, the committee included report language expressing the need for safe and humane care of elephants and directing USDA to provide information on traveling elephant exhibitions, inspection standards, and agency resources allocated to elephant welfare.
  • We opposed the inclusion of the Pet Food Uniform Regulatory Reform (PURR) Act in the package because of our concern that this measure would designate FDA as the sole regulatory authority over pet food ingredients, labeling and marketing for dogs and cats. The bill as written would undermine state-enacted pet food labeling laws that benefit spay/neuter programs. While report language was included directing that spay/neuter programs cannot be impacted, if bill language shielding such programs is not incorporated, we believe the PURR Act should be removed from the final package.
  • As supporters of the veterinary loan repayment program that creates incentives for veterinarians to work in underserved areas, we were pleased the committee agreed to maintain its current funding level of $10 million. However, we were disappointed the committee did not encourage our view that the USDA should extend these benefits to veterinarians who serve the needs of companion animals as well as farm animals in rural and underserved areas.

In recent months we have been waging battles of tremendous consequence for animals. These include our fights to turn back persistent attacks on Proposition 12 and related state-level laws concerning animal welfare and public health, and to stop a concentrated assault on Endangered Species Act protections. But even in the midst of those intense campaigns, there are other challenges we must meet, including the ones that arise during the appropriations process. The fights we wage in that arena don’t get nearly as much attention, but they are no less important to our animal protection agenda and no less vital to the safety and well-being of animals.