HB3038, the SAFE Act of 2025, amends the Animal Health Protection Act to strengthen U.S. preparation for animal disease outbreaks that could disrupt agricultural exports. The bill authorizes the Secretary of Agriculture, through APHIS, the Under Secretary for Trade and Foreign Agricultural Affairs, and the Food Safety and Inspection Service, to negotiate in advance with foreign governments on regionalization, zoning, compartmentalization, and related arrangements for known animal disease threats that affect trade. The stated goal is to reduce the impact of outbreaks on exports of livestock animals and animal products.
The bill also directs that these negotiations should, to the extent practicable, reflect accepted global research advances. A rule of construction makes clear that the measure does not limit the U.S. Trade Representative’s broader authority to negotiate trade agreements, and it does not require other trade deals to include these animal-disease-related provisions. In practical terms, the bill would add a new export-protection tool to federal animal health and trade policy, while leaving existing trade negotiation powers intact.
Impact
If enacted, the bill would amend section 10405 of the Animal Health Protection Act, adding a new subsection authorizing advance international agreements on animal disease response measures that protect U.S. livestock and animal-product exports. It would affect USDA agencies involved in animal health, trade, and food safety, as well as foreign trading partners and exporters that rely on predictable market access during disease outbreaks. The bill does not create a mandate to alter all trade agreements, but it would formalize a federal strategy for pre-negotiated outbreak protocols.
Sentiment
No committee transcripts or recorded votes were provided, so there is no direct evidence of debate or partisan division in the available materials. The bill’s introduction by Representatives Feenstra and Panetta suggests bipartisan sponsorship and a generally constructive policy purpose focused on protecting agricultural trade. Overall, the available context indicates a favorable or at least noncontroversial posture toward improving outbreak-related export continuity.
Contention
The main potential point of contention is the scope of federal trade diplomacy: some stakeholders may prefer advance agreements on regionalization and zoning to protect exports, while others may worry about how such arrangements interact with broader trade negotiations or foreign market access standards. The bill anticipates that concern by expressly preserving U.S. Trade Representative authority and by stating that other trade agreements are not required to include these provisions. Another possible issue is how much weight should be given to global research advances in negotiating disease-response terms, though no specific opposition is documented in the provided record.