Better CARE for Animals Act of 2025
HB3112, the Better CARE for Animals Act of 2025, would amend the Animal Welfare Act to significantly expand federal enforcement tools for animal welfare violations. The bill authorizes the Attorney General to bring civil actions in federal court against violators, seek injunctions, license revocation, animal removal or relocation, and civil penalties of up to $10,000 per violation per day. It also allows seizure and forfeiture of animals involved in violations, permits courts to issue warrants and other process for enforcement, and directs that penalty proceeds be used to cover temporary care costs for animals pending civil or criminal proceedings.
The bill also broadens and clarifies existing Animal Welfare Act enforcement provisions by updating definitions, strengthening inspection and investigation authority, and making clear that violations of rules, standards, and regulations promulgated under the Act are covered. It requires the Secretary of Agriculture and the Attorney General to enter into a memorandum of understanding within 180 days to coordinate enforcement and share information about repeat violators whose conduct seriously affects animal health or well-being. A severability clause is added, and a sense-of-Congress section states that federal court jurisdiction and DOJ enforcement authority already extend to regulatory violations under the Act.
If enacted, the bill would materially expand the federal government’s enforcement role under the Animal Welfare Act, shifting some enforcement capacity from the Department of Agriculture alone to a shared model that explicitly includes the Department of Justice and the Attorney General. It would affect dealers, exhibitors, and other regulated persons under the Act by exposing them to broader civil litigation, higher daily penalties, potential injunctions, and seizure/forfeiture of animals. It would also create new statutory language governing how penalty funds may be used for animal care and would require interagency coordination through a formal memorandum of understanding.
Because no committee transcript or vote record is provided, there is no recorded floor or committee sentiment to measure. Based on the bill text, the measure appears to be framed as a bipartisan animal welfare enforcement bill, with sponsors from both parties, suggesting a generally supportive or at least cross-party interest in stronger enforcement. The overall tone of the legislation is pro-enforcement and focused on improving compliance and animal protection.
The main points of potential contention are the expansion of Attorney General authority, the use of federal civil actions and seizure/forfeiture powers, and the size of the proposed penalties. Regulated industries or animal exhibitors may object to increased federal oversight, broader liability for regulatory violations, and the possibility of animals being removed or forfeited before final resolution. Supporters are likely to emphasize stronger accountability, better coordination between USDA and DOJ, and improved protection for animals, while critics may focus on due process concerns, federal overreach, and the practical burdens of compliance and enforcement.