This bill amends the Animal Welfare Act to give the Attorney General an explicit civil-enforcement route against persons who violate the statute or its implementing rules. It restructures several statutory definitions, tightens the prohibition on sale or transport without a valid license, and adds remedies and tools—such as seizure and forfeiture of animals and judicial injunctions—to the federal enforcement toolbox.
The measure also changes how penalties are used by allowing sums collected for violations to reimburse reasonable, necessary costs of temporary care for animals pending disposition, and it directs the Secretary of Agriculture and the Attorney General to enter into a memorandum of understanding to coordinate enforcement and information-sharing. For regulated entities, rescue groups, and federal agencies, the bill raises both the practical stakes of noncompliance and the operational need to coordinate across USDA and DOJ.
At a Glance
What It Does
The bill authorizes the Attorney General to bring civil actions in federal court for violations of the Animal Welfare Act and its rules, and adds judicial remedies including injunctions, license revocation, and civil penalties. It also makes animals subject to seizure and forfeiture under federal forfeiture law and allows penalty proceeds to cover temporary care costs.
Who It Affects
Primary targets are dealers and exhibitors regulated under the Animal Welfare Act, licensed kennels and research facilities covered by the statute, USDA (including APHIS) as the implementing agency, the Department of Justice and U.S. Attorneys executing civil enforcement, and animal welfare organizations that may receive animals during enforcement actions.
Why It Matters
The bill creates a parallel, court-centered enforcement pathway outside the existing USDA administrative process, raises the stakes for noncompliance by enabling removal and forfeiture of animals, and channels penalty revenue toward immediate animal care—all of which will change how agencies, regulated parties, and rescues prepare for and respond to enforcement.
More articles like this one.
A weekly email with all the latest developments on this topic.
What This Bill Actually Does
The bill touches both technical and substantive parts of the Animal Welfare Act. It begins by cleaning up the statute’s drafting—reordering and adding subsection headings to the definitions provision—which simplifies internal references but does not change substantive definitions.
More consequential are standalone changes to licensing and inspection provisions: the sale or transport of animals “in commerce” without a valid, unsuspended license is made an explicit statutory prohibition.
Inspections and enforcement language is broadened to cover not just statutory violations but also breaches of rules, standards, or regulations issued under the Act. Separate amendments expand the civil penalty authority and then earmark penalty and fine proceeds for a narrow purpose: to reimburse reasonable and necessary costs that private parties incur when they provide temporary care for animals while legal proceedings are ongoing.The centerpiece is a new enforcement section that expressly authorizes the Attorney General to sue in federal court for appropriate relief.
The statute lists the remedies available to DOJ—injunctive relief (including removal or relocation of animals), license revocation, and civil penalties—and incorporates seizure and forfeiture of animals under existing federal forfeiture statutes. The provision also lets courts and magistrates issue warrants on a showing of probable cause to carry out enforcement and preserves the Secretary of Agriculture’s independent authority to enforce the Act.Finally, the bill adds a severability clause and mandates an interagency memorandum of understanding between USDA and DOJ within 180 days of enactment to govern cooperation, including prompt sharing of information about repeat violators whose citations seriously threaten animal health.
Taken together, these changes create a parallel federal civil enforcement mechanism that sits alongside USDA’s administrative system, alters how penalty money is used in practice, and imposes new coordination requirements on federal agencies and third parties that care for animals during litigation.
The Five Things You Need to Know
The Attorney General may seek civil remedies in federal court for violations of the Act or its rules, including injunctive relief and license revocation.
Civil penalties can be imposed for violations and are assessed on a per-violation, per-day basis with a statutory ceiling of up to $10,000 for each violation for each day the violation continues.
Any animal subject to conduct violating the Act is expressly made subject to seizure and forfeiture to the United States under chapter 46 of title 18, U.S. Code.
Penalty and fine proceeds received by USDA or DOJ must be used to pay reasonable and necessary costs incurred by persons providing temporary care for animals pending resolution of civil or criminal proceedings.
The Secretary and the Attorney General must enter a memorandum of understanding within 180 days of enactment to share timely information on repeat or serious violators; courts and magistrates are authorized to issue warrants on probable cause to support enforcement.
Section-by-Section Breakdown
Every bill we cover gets an analysis of its key sections.
Short title
Formalizes the bill’s public name as the Better CARE for Animals Act of 2025. This is strictly cosmetic but important for citation and communications.
Redrafting and reordering of definitions
Rewrites section 2 of the Animal Welfare Act to add subsection headings and rearrange defined terms in alphabetical order. That change is procedural and reduces drafting friction for later references, but it could require cross-referencing in existing regulations, guidance, and enforcement notices to ensure internal consistency.
Sale or transport without a valid license becomes explicit prohibition
Replaces the existing Section 4 text with a clear statutory prohibition: dealers and exhibitors may not exhibit, purchase, offer to purchase, sell, offer to sell, transport, or offer for transportation any animal in commerce unless they hold a valid, unsuspended license. This tightens the licensing requirement into a standalone offense that supports civil actions.
Inspections, penalties, and use of penalty funds for temporary animal care
Expands inspection/enforcement language to cover violations of rules, standards, or regulations promulgated under the Act and amends the civil-penalty provision to reference those rules. Critically, the bill directs that sums collected as penalties or fines may be used by USDA or DOJ to reimburse reasonable and necessary costs that private parties incur when providing temporary care for animals pending the outcome of proceedings—creating an explicit statutory funding stream for interim animal care.
New Section 20 — Attorney General enforcement, seizure, and forfeiture
Adds a standalone enforcement section granting DOJ an explicit civil enforcement role: the Attorney General may file suit in federal district court for relief including temporary restraining orders, preliminary or permanent injunctions (covering removal/relocation of animals), license revocation, and civil fines. The section also makes animals seized for violations subject to forfeiture under federal forfeiture law, authorizes courts to issue warrants on probable cause for enforcement actions, and permits the government to charge a reasonable fee to the violator for transfer and care costs associated with a seizure.
Injunction authority and severability
Deletes a sentence in the existing injunction provision (section 29(b)) that previously limited or conditioned certain injunction-related authority; the net effect is to remove that constraint, aligning the statutory text with the expanded DOJ enforcement role. The bill also adds a severability clause to protect the remainder of the statutory scheme if any provision is invalidated.
Memorandum of understanding between USDA and DOJ
Requires the Secretary of Agriculture and the Attorney General to finalize an MOU within 180 days of enactment to operationalize the new enforcement authorities. The MOU must cover information-sharing about violators with multiple citations that severely affect animal health—an operational bridge intended to prevent enforcement gaps but dependent on technical and legal details left to the agencies.
This bill is one of many.
Codify tracks hundreds of bills on Agriculture across all five countries.
Explore Agriculture in Codify Search →Who Benefits and Who Bears the Cost
Every bill creates winners and losers. Here's who stands to gain and who bears the cost.
Who Benefits
- Animals subject to misconduct — The changes create faster federal tools (injunctions, seizure) to remove animals from harmful conditions and a statutory source of funds to pay for temporary care while cases proceed.
- Department of Justice and U.S. Attorneys — The bill supplies DOJ with explicit statutory authority and remedies, enabling federal civil litigation against serious or repeat violators rather than relying solely on USDA administrative routes.
- Animal rescues and temporary care providers — The statute requires penalty proceeds to reimburse reasonable, necessary expenses for interim care, which can reduce the financial burden on organizations that take in animals during enforcement.
- Animal welfare advocates and litigants — Clearer federal remedies and forfeiture authority broaden enforcement options and create leverage for systemic or high-harm cases that administrative processes may not resolve quickly.
Who Bears the Cost
- Dealers, exhibitors, and licensees covered by the Animal Welfare Act — Face heightened litigation exposure, risk of immediate removal or forfeiture of animals, license revocation, and significant civil penalties tied to per-day assessments.
- Small-scale breeders and hobby exhibitors — May encounter disproportionate compliance and legal costs if enforcement actions or aggressive interpretations of licensing requirements increase.
- USDA/APHIS — Must coordinate with DOJ, implement information-sharing protocols, and update enforcement workflows and regulatory materials, creating administrative and resource demands.
- Local rescues and municipal shelters — Although eligible for reimbursement, they still bear front-line costs and logistical burdens of intake, care, and housing pending reimbursement and court outcomes; reimbursements depend on collection of penalties.
Key Issues
The Core Tension
The bill balances two legitimate aims—faster, stronger federal remedies to protect animal welfare versus procedural safeguards, clear allocation of enforcement responsibility, and manageable burdens on regulated parties. Strengthening DOJ’s tools speeds removals and increases penalties, but it also risks overreach, duplication with USDA administrative processes, heavier litigation loads, and uncertain funding flows for interim animal care.
The bill creates a sharper federal enforcement posture but leaves several implementation details open. The statute ties forfeiture of animals to existing federal forfeiture law; applying that criminal forfeiture framework to animals in civil enforcement raises procedural questions about timing, custody, and standards of proof in civil versus criminal contexts.
The reimbursement mechanism for temporary care depends on penalty collections—if fines are contested, delayed, or insufficient, rescues could face delayed payments or shortfalls despite the statutory direction.
Interagency coordination will determine how smoothly the new regime operates. The required MOU is intended to bridge USDA and DOJ roles, but the bill does not prescribe triggers for information-sharing, confidentiality rules for proprietary business data, or how agencies will prioritize cases.
The combination of daily civil-penalty exposure, seizure risk, and license revocation dramatically raises enforcement stakes for regulated parties and may produce more litigated cases that consume judicial and agency resources. Finally, granting DOJ parallel authority preserves Secretary enforcement but creates potential duplication and questions about which pathway (administrative or federal civil suit) is preferable or mandatory in particular cases.
Try it yourself.
Ask a question in plain English, or pick a topic below. Results in seconds.