The Domestic Organic Investment Act of 2025 would amend the Agricultural Marketing Act of 1946 to establish the Domestic Organic Investment Program (DOIP). The program aims to lift capacity across the domestic organic product supply chain by funding eligible entities—like producers, producer cooperatives, and tribal governments—to expand storage, processing, aggregation, and distribution, and to modernize tracking and compliance systems.
It also sets funding rules, including grant amounts, matching requirements, and a competitive process, and authorizes appropriations for 2026–2030. The goal is to reduce reliance on imported organic products while improving market access for domestic producers and strengthening organic integrity throughout the supply chain.
At a Glance
What It Does
Creates the Domestic Organic Investment Program and authorizes grants to eligible entities for storage, processing, distribution, equipment-only projects, and related capacity-building activities.
Who It Affects
Producers, producer cooperatives, tribal governments, and other eligible entities that handle certified organic products, plus states, districts, tribes, and the Secretary through the Agricultural Marketing Service.
Why It Matters
Establishes a federally funded mechanism to grow domestic organic supply, modernize infrastructure and traceability, and address bottlenecks that limit market access for domestic organic producers.
More articles like this one.
A weekly email with all the latest developments on this topic.
What This Bill Actually Does
This bill creates a new program under the Agricultural Marketing Act of 1946 to support domestic organic production. Eligible entities—such as producers, cooperatives, and tribal governments—can apply for grants to expand storage, processing, and distribution capacity, and to upgrade equipment and information systems used for organic product tracking and compliance.
The program also funds market development within the United States to reduce dependence on imports and to improve the competitiveness of domestically produced organic goods. Grants are limited in size, require matching funds, and follow a competitive award process, with a simplified path for equipment-only projects.
The bill also authorizes funding for 2026 through 2030 to implement these activities.
The Five Things You Need to Know
Grant program up to $2,000,000 for storage/processing projects.
Equipment-only grants capped at $100,000.
Non-Federal cost-share: 50% for (e)(1) projects; 25% for equipment-only; waivers for beginning farmers and veterans.
Grants run up to 3 years.
Priority criteria include trade imbalance, National Organic Standards Board recommendations, and identified bottlenecks.
Section-by-Section Breakdown
Every bill we cover gets an analysis of its key sections.
Definitions
Defines key terms for the program, including certified organic product, eligible entity, Indian Tribe, Secretary, and Tribal government. Establishes the baseline for who can participate and under what regulatory framework entities must operate to be eligible.
Establishment and Purpose
Creates the Domestic Organic Investment Program and outlines its purposes: expanding the domestic organic supply chain, modernizing storage, processing, and tracking systems, improving regulatory compliance, expanding market opportunities, and addressing bottlenecks in the supply chain.
Grants
Authorizes annual grants to eligible entities to carry out the program’s purposes, describing eligible activities and how grants align with identified objectives such as capacity expansion and systems modernization.
Applications
Sets application requirements and introduces a simplified process for equipment-only projects, while preserving a competitive grant selection framework and public disclosure of evaluation criteria.
Project Types
Enumerates allowable projects: storage/aggregation/processing/distribution capacity expansion and equipment-only upgrades, all aimed at increasing domestic organic production capacity.
Term
Specifies grant terms not to exceed 3 years unless the Secretary determines otherwise, ensuring a clear implementation horizon for funded activities.
Maximum Amount
caps grant amounts: up to $2,000,000 for project-type activities and up to $100,000 for equipment-only projects, limiting project scope and enabling broader access.
Matching Funds
Requires non-Federal cost shares: 50% for project-type activities and 25% for equipment-only projects, with targeted waivers for beginning farmers and veterans to encourage participation.
Technical Assistance
Allows the Secretary to provide technical assistance directly or via partnerships to help eligible entities implement projects and meet program requirements.
Authorization of Appropriations
authorizes appropriations for 2026–2030 to fund the DOIP, with funding remaining available until expended.
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
- Certified organic farmers and producers in the United States (including territories) gain access to investment in storage, processing, and distribution facilities, enabling expanded market opportunities and price competitiveness.
- Producer cooperatives that aggregate organic products benefit from improved logistics and market reach.
- Tribal governments and Indian Tribes with organic programs gain capacity to maintain or improve local organic supply chains.
- Domestic organic processors and storage facilities expand capacity, reducing bottlenecks and expanding marketing options.
- Logistics providers and technology/traceability firms benefit from modernized systems and greater volume to support scale.
Who Bears the Cost
- Federal taxpayers fund the program through annual appropriations.
- Grant recipients must provide non-Federal cost share (50% or 25% depending on project type), representing a direct cost to participants.
- Eligible entities must cover costs associated with compliance readiness and potential certification improvements.
- States, tribes, and territories administer grants and reporting, potentially incurring administrative costs.
- Recipients bear the ongoing costs of operating upgraded infrastructure and IT systems once funded.
Key Issues
The Core Tension
The central dilemma is whether federal investment should prioritize rapid capacity expansion (storage, processing, and IT modernization) to boost domestic organic supply or carefully target projects to avoid misallocation of funds and ensure broad geographic and sectoral reach while maintaining organic integrity.
The program hinges on large-scale federal funding and a competitive grant process, which raises questions about geographic distribution, the pace of rollout, and the risk of subsidizing projects that may not achieve market impact. To avoid skewing toward larger or better-capitalized applicants, the bill relies on a public set of criteria, but real-world outcomes will depend on how the Secretary ranks applications and the clarity of success metrics.
There is also tension between accelerating capacity and preserving organic integrity, as increased processing and storage must align with standards and regulatory requirements. Implementers will need robust oversight to track the program’s effect on domestic supply, prices, and imports, as well as on small and historically underserved producers.
Try it yourself.
Ask a question in plain English, or pick a topic below. Results in seconds.