This bill adds a new Domestic Organic Investment Program to the Agricultural Marketing Act of 1946. The program funds capital projects and equipment that expand domestic capacity for certified organic products — from cold storage and processing lines to ingredient-tracking systems — and supports entities that are certified organic or transitioning to certification.
The bill focuses on bottlenecks that push the U.S. market to rely on imports, sets competitive selection and priority rules, creates a simplified process for equipment-only awards, and prescribes grant ceilings and matching requirements. It specifically includes Tribal governments and authorizes USDA to waive matching requirements for beginning farmers and veterans; funding is authorized “as necessary” for fiscal years 2026–2030.
At a Glance
What It Does
Creates the Domestic Organic Investment Program at USDA/AMS to award competitive grants for projects that expand storage, processing, distribution, and IT systems for certified organic products, plus a separate equipment-only grant stream.
Who It Affects
Certified-organic producers, handlers, processors, aggregators, Tribal governments, and entities transitioning to certification — as well as USDA (AMS) as program administrator and applicants that must provide matching funds.
Why It Matters
Targets public capital toward domestic organic infrastructure and supply-chain modernization to reduce import reliance and improve market access; it changes where capital can flow in the organic sector and introduces new administrative and compliance requirements for applicants.
More articles like this one.
A weekly email with all the latest developments on this topic.
What This Bill Actually Does
The bill inserts a standalone Domestic Organic Investment Program into subtitle A of the Agricultural Marketing Act of 1946 and places administration with the Agricultural Marketing Service. It defines eligible recipients narrowly enough to focus on certified-organic operations (and those in transition) while excluding operations whose organic certification is suspended or revoked.
Eligible recipients include producers, cooperatives, other commercial handlers, units of Tribal government, and any other entity USDA designates.
USDA must run a competitive grant process and may set annual priorities that respond to trade imbalances, National Organic Standards Board recommendations, and identified bottlenecks in processing and supply chains. Applicants submit details in the form and time specified by USDA; for projects that consist only of equipment purchases USDA must offer a simplified application and award path.
The agency must publish the evaluation criteria before accepting applications and may group and rank similar proposals.The program limits projects to two broad categories: (1) capacity-expansion projects for storage (including cold storage), aggregation, processing, and distribution; and (2) equipment-only projects. USDA may set project goals and deadlines; grants generally run no longer than three years.
The bill caps awards at $2 million for capacity expansions and $100,000 for equipment-only purchases.Recipients must cost-share: 50 percent non-Federal match for larger capacity projects and 25 percent for equipment-only awards. USDA retains authority to reduce or waive matching requirements for beginning farmers and ranchers and for veterans.
The agency may provide technical assistance directly or through cooperative agreements. Finally, the bill authorizes USDA to receive “such sums as are necessary” for fiscal years 2026–2030, with appropriated funds remaining available until expended.
The Five Things You Need to Know
The program authorizes two project streams: capacity-expansion (storage, processing, aggregation, distribution) and equipment-only awards.
Maximum grant sizes are $2,000,000 for capacity-expansion projects and $100,000 for equipment-only projects.
Recipients must provide a non-Federal match: at least 50% for capacity-expansion projects and at least 25% for equipment-only grants, though USDA may waive or lower matches for beginning farmers and veterans.
USDA must run a competitive selection process, publish evaluation criteria in advance, and may set annual priorities based on import reliance, National Organic Standards Board guidance, and identified supply-chain bottlenecks.
Funding is authorized “as necessary” for FY2026–FY2030 and appropriations remain available until expended — the bill does not set a specific dollar cap.
Section-by-Section Breakdown
Every bill we cover gets an analysis of its key sections.
Key definitions and eligibility rules
This subsection lays out who can apply and what counts as a certified organic product. It clarifies that eligible applicants include certified operations and those 'in transition' to certification, units of Tribal government, and certain commercial entities, while explicitly excluding operations with suspended or revoked certification under the federal organic regulations. That exclusion creates a bright-line integrity check but will require USDA to coordinate closely with accreditation/certification records during eligibility review.
Purpose and program scope
This paragraph sets the program's objectives: expand domestic organic supply-chain capacity, modernize manufacturing and IT systems specific to organic tracking, support regulatory compliance capacity, and reduce reliance on organic imports. Embedding those specific objectives guides USDA's later priority-setting and evaluation — the law ties grant intent to a mix of infrastructure, process control, and market development activities rather than general farm operating support.
Grant authority, applications, and selection process
USDA is authorized to provide grants for each fiscal year funds are appropriated; applicants must submit forms and information set by the agency. The statute requires a competitive selection process, public release of evaluation criteria before award, and allows USDA to group and rank similar applications. It also mandates a simplified application and award track for equipment-only projects, intended to lower administrative barriers for smaller purchases.
Eligible projects, terms, and award limits
The statute confines grant-eligible projects to two types — infrastructure expansion (including cold storage and distribution) and equipment-only purchases — and permits the Secretary to set completion goals and deadlines. Grants are time-limited (no longer than three years unless USDA decides otherwise) and financially limited: up to $2 million for infrastructure projects and up to $100,000 for equipment-only awards. Those ceilings will shape project packaging and whether applicants pursue single large awards or multiple smaller ones.
Cost-share, technical assistance, and funding authorization
Recipients must provide significant non-Federal shares: 50% for large projects and 25% for equipment-only awards, with explicit authority for USDA to waive or lower matches for beginning farmers, ranchers, and veterans. The agency can supply technical assistance directly or through partners. Funding is authorized as 'such sums as are necessary' for FY2026–2030 and remains available until expended, which grants appropriators flexibility but leaves total program funding open-ended unless separately capped by Congress.
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
- Domestic organic processors and cold-storage operators — receive capital to expand capacity and add organic-specific handling lines, reducing reliance on third-party import logistics and enabling scale needed to serve U.S. markets.
- Producers certified as organic and those transitioning to certification — stand to gain improved market access and potentially better prices if local processing, aggregation, and distribution capacity grow.
- Tribal governments and Tribal producers — explicitly eligible both as recipients and as units that can receive grants, enabling investment in Tribal-controlled aggregation, processing, or storage infrastructure.
- Beginning farmers, ranchers, and veterans — may access lowered or waived matching requirements, increasing the practical ability of smaller entrants to use the equipment-only or small-project pathways.
Who Bears the Cost
- Applicants and grant recipients — must provide substantial non-Federal matching funds (50% for larger projects, 25% for equipment-only), which shifts capital-raising and risk onto local businesses and cooperatives.
- USDA / Agricultural Marketing Service — bears the administrative burden of designing the competitive process, scoring criteria, compliance monitoring, and technical assistance delivery; implementing the program will require staffing and oversight resources.
- Federal budget/taxpayers — the bill authorizes open-ended appropriations for FY2026–2030, so program costs ultimately depend on appropriations decisions and can add to discretionary spending pressure.
- Smaller producers without access to matching capital or financing — may be effectively excluded despite the equipment-only track and waivers, because the matching rules and application requirements still create barriers to participation.
Key Issues
The Core Tension
The bill aims to accelerate domestic organic infrastructure through targeted public capital, which can reduce import reliance and expand market access, but it does so with substantial cost-share rules and limited award categories that risk concentrating benefits among better-capitalized processors — forcing a choice between maximizing aggregate capacity gains and ensuring equitable access for small, rural, and under-resourced organic producers.
Two practical implementation questions stand out. First, the sizable matching requirements and the $2 million project cap almost inevitably skew awards toward organizations that can assemble non-Federal financing — likely mid-size processors, cooperatives, or private investors — unless USDA uses its waiver authority aggressively.
The equipment-only simplified track helps lower administrative friction, but a $100,000 ceiling and 25% match still require capital outlays that may exceed the reach of very small farms or emerging aggregation efforts.
Second, the bill leaves several key program design choices to USDA without prescribing performance metrics, reporting rules, or a transparent measure of success (for example, how to quantify reduced import reliance). The authorization of 'such sums as are necessary' gives appropriators flexibility but creates uncertainty about long-term scale.
Administrative capacity at AMS will determine how quickly the program can operate and how well it prevents funds from concentrating in a few large facilities rather than strengthening regional processing networks. Finally, while the statute ties priorities to NOSB recommendations and identified bottlenecks, it does not require geographic or equity-targeted set-asides, so equity outcomes will depend on agency rulemaking and discretionary scoring decisions.
Try it yourself.
Ask a question in plain English, or pick a topic below. Results in seconds.