Goldie’s Act amends the federal Animal Welfare Act to strengthen enforcement tools available to the Department of Agriculture. The bill expands the statutory definition of a violation and creates new operational duties for USDA inspectors, along with faster information-sharing with state and local authorities.
The change recalibrates compliance risk for dealers, exhibitors, carriers, research facilities, and auction operators by increasing administrative remedies and penalty exposure while authorizing prompt confiscation of animals found to be suffering. Regulated entities and enforcement partners will need to adjust procedures to comply with stricter inspection, documentation, and post-inspection protocols.
At a Glance
What It Does
The bill adds a broad statutory definition of “violation,” requires the Secretary of Agriculture to inspect dealers, exhibitors and research facilities at least annually, and to document and follow up until violations are corrected. It directs USDA to promulgate rules authorizing humane confiscation or destruction of animals that are found to be physically or psychologically harmed and no longer needed for research, and it requires USDA to share records of violations with state and local animal control or law enforcement within 24 hours.
Who It Affects
This targets entities regulated under the Animal Welfare Act: dealers, exhibitors, intermediate handlers, carriers, operators of auction sales, and research facilities that house regulated animals. It also affects USDA/APHIS operations, state and local animal control and law enforcement agencies, and third parties involved in animal care and placement.
Why It Matters
The measure raises enforcement pressure by coupling faster investigative action and intergovernmental information-sharing with higher civil penalties and expedited administrative hearings. For regulated facilities, the bill increases the operational, compliance, and legal stakes of inspection findings.
More articles like this one.
A weekly email with all the latest developments on this topic.
What This Bill Actually Does
Goldie’s Act inserts a new, catch‑all definition of “violation” into the Animal Welfare Act to capture any deficiency, deviation, or failure to comply with the statute or implementing standards. That definitional change expands the universe of actionable conduct and removes ambiguity about what constitutes noncompliance for enforcement purposes.
The bill rewrites the AWA inspection authority. It requires the Secretary to determine whether covered entities have violated the Act, to have access to facilities, animals, and records at reasonable times, and to perform such inspections and investigations as needed.
Inspectors must document and record a detailed description of any violation they observe and conduct follow‑up inspections until corrections are made. The text explicitly instructs the Secretary to inspect each research facility and the premises of each dealer and exhibitor at least once per year and to include on‑site properties, vehicles, equipment, and other places used in regulated activities.On removal and disposition of animals, the bill directs USDA to issue rules that require inspectors to confiscate or humanely destroy animals that meet two criteria: (1) the animal is suffering physical or psychological harm because of noncompliance, and (2) the animal is held by a regulated person and—if it is a research animal—is no longer required for the research.
The measure bars an owner who has been notified of an impending confiscation from destroying that animal and, until the Secretary completes the confiscation, from destroying any other animals they own without written consent from USDA.Goldie’s Act tightens penalties and administrative procedures. It raises civil penalties to up to $10,000 for each violation (with each day of continued violation treated as a separate offense), requires notice and an opportunity to be heard, and makes USDA’s penalty order final unless appealed to a federal court of appeals.
Hearings must include at least one veterinarian and two animal care specialists or directors and are to occur within 21 days of delivery of violation notice unless a continuance is justified. The Secretary must consider business size, gravity, good faith, and prior history when setting penalties, which must be calculated on a per‑animal and per‑violation basis; the statute also creates a Departmental role to produce penalty guidelines and instructs DOJ collection actions for unpaid fines.
Finally, the bill requires USDA to provide records documenting any inspection‑identified violation to state and local animal control or law enforcement officials within 24 hours of the inspection or investigation.
The Five Things You Need to Know
The bill adds subsection (p) to the AWA’s definition section to define “violation” as any deficiency, deviation, or other failure to comply with the Act or implementing standards.
USDA must inspect each research facility and the premises of each dealer and exhibitor at least once per year, document any violations in detail, and perform follow‑ups until corrections are completed.
USDA is required to promulgate rules allowing inspectors to confiscate or humanely destroy animals that are suffering due to noncompliance and, for research animals, are no longer needed for research; owners are barred from preemptively destroying those animals after notice.
The bill requires USDA to deliver records documenting inspection‑identified violations to appropriate state, local, and municipal animal control or law enforcement officials within 24 hours.
Civil penalties rise to up to $10,000 per violation (with each day constituting a separate offense); hearings must be convened within 21 days and include at least one veterinarian plus two animal care specialists or directors.
Section-by-Section Breakdown
Every bill we cover gets an analysis of its key sections.
New statutory definition of ‘violation’
This amendment inserts a broad, catch‑all definition into the Act’s definitions section: a “violation” now includes any deficiency, deviation, or other failure to comply with the statute or regulations. Practically, the change reduces reliance on narrow, case‑by‑case interpretations and gives USDA clearer statutory footing to treat a wide range of noncompliant conditions as enforceable violations.
Expanded inspection mandate, documentation, and confiscation authority
The committee‑level rewrite directs the Secretary to determine compliance, grants access to business premises, animals, and AWA records at reasonable times, and requires inspectors to make whatever inspections are necessary and to document violations in detail. It mandates at least annual inspections of research facilities and the premises of dealers and exhibitors, and requires follow‑up until violations are corrected. The section also directs USDA to issue rules requiring inspectors to seize or humanely destroy animals meeting specified harm and redundancy criteria, and it prohibits owners from destroying such animals after notification—shifting the balance of control over disposition toward federal authorities once serious noncompliance is identified.
Rapid information‑sharing with state and local authorities
This addition obligates USDA to provide state, local, and municipal animal control or law enforcement officials with copies of records documenting any violation identified during an inspection or investigation within 24 hours. That is an operationally significant requirement: it creates a strict 24‑hour clock for data transfer and triggers intergovernmental coordination for any ongoing enforcement or rescue actions.
Higher civil penalties, expedited hearings, and penalty guidelines
The amendment raises the ceiling on civil penalties to $10,000 per violation, treats each day as a separate offense, and requires USDA to issue cease‑and‑desist orders. It establishes a short, presumptive 21‑day window to conduct hearings with a mandated panel composition (at least one veterinarian and two animal care specialists or directors), instructs the Secretary to weigh business size and other factors when setting penalties, requires penalties to be calculated per animal/per violation (with limits on reductions), and directs DOJ involvement for collection. The provision creates an internal USDA role to craft penalty guidelines intended to produce consistent deterrence.
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 held by regulated entities — the bill raises the chance of prompt federal intervention, mandating humane confiscation or destruction when animals are suffering and providing for follow‑up until corrections are made.
- State and local animal control and law enforcement — they receive inspection records within 24 hours, enabling faster local response, prosecution, or placement decisions.
- Animal care professionals and veterinarians — the law institutionalizes their role in administrative hearings and in standards for humane disposition, increasing demand for subject‑matter expertise during enforcement and adjudication.
- Animal advocacy organizations — improved documentation, faster public‑sector action, and heightened penalty exposure may strengthen standing for collaboration with local authorities and support advocacy and placement efforts.
Who Bears the Cost
- Dealers, exhibitors, carriers, intermediate handlers, auction operators, and research facilities — they face increased inspection frequency, tighter documentation requirements, heightened risk of confiscation or destruction of animals, and substantially higher per‑violation fines calculated per animal.
- USDA/APHIS — annual inspection mandates, detailed documentation, 24‑hour record transfers, expedited hearings, and responsibilities around confiscation/disposition will increase workload and require programmatic resources; the statute does not appropriate funds, creating an unfunded mandate risk.
- Small research programs and small exhibitors — per‑animal, per‑violation fines and the risk of losing animals used in studies could impose disproportionate financial and operational burdens on smaller institutions with limited compliance staffs.
- Owners and custodians of animals subject to confiscation — the prohibition on destroying animals after notice and the faster disposition pathway could impose loss of property and require navigation of federal administrative procedures to recover or contest custody.
Key Issues
The Core Tension
The central tension is between accelerating federal enforcement to stop animal suffering and the practical and legal safeguards that accompany swift administrative action: rapid confiscation, tight timelines, and steep per‑animal fines improve protection but also raise due process, proportionality, resourcing, and implementation challenges that could undermine consistent, fair enforcement if not addressed.
The bill tightens enforcement without providing funding or implementation detail for several resource‑intensive requirements. Annual inspections of a broad population of regulated entities, immediate 24‑hour record transfers to local authorities, rapid administrative hearings, and the logistics of confiscation and humane disposition all require staffing, training, secure data processes, transport and placement capacity, and judicial coordination.
Without explicit appropriations or phased implementation, USDA could either under‑deliver on the statutory mandates or reallocate resources from other programs.
Several operational ambiguities will matter in practice. The standard for “psychological harm” is not defined and may be contested in hearings or litigation.
The provision that penalties be calculated per animal and per violation could produce extremely large aggregate fines in multi‑animal settings—raising fairness and proportionality questions and incentivizing aggressive appeals. The subpoena‑style transfer of inspection records within 24 hours raises confidentiality and chain‑of‑custody issues when investigations are ongoing, and the bar on owner destruction of animals after notice could create biosecurity or animal‑welfare risks if immediate humane care and placement are not simultaneously available.
Try it yourself.
Ask a question in plain English, or pick a topic below. Results in seconds.