To amend the Food Security Act of 1985 with respect to the feral swine eradication and control program, and for other purposes.
HB3457 would create a new federal feral swine eradication and control program within the Food Security Act of 1985. The Secretary of Agriculture would be directed to assess damage caused by feral swine, develop and implement eradication and control methods, restore damaged areas, and provide financial assistance to agricultural producers in affected areas. The bill defines “threatened areas” as parts of a state where feral swine are determined to threaten agriculture, native ecosystems, or human and animal health.
The bill also requires coordination between the Natural Resources Conservation Service and the Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service through state technical committees, and it directs those agencies to contract with eligible land-grant colleges or universities to support research, education, and field implementation. Those institutions would help identify threatened areas, study novel control and remediation methods, and coordinate with federal field and research staff. The bill sets a federal cost-share cap of 75 percent, allows in-kind contributions for the nonfederal share, and limits administrative expenses to 10 percent.
In addition to establishing the new program, HB3457 would repeal section 2408 of the Agriculture Improvement Act of 2018 and remove the related table-of-contents entry. It would also provide mandatory funding of $150 million for fiscal years 2026 through 2030, with 40 percent allocated to NRCS and 60 percent to APHIS, including support for on-farm trapping, capture technology, and population reduction methods.
The available context shows no recorded votes or committee debate, so there is no documented partisan or stakeholder sentiment in the materials provided. Based on the bill text alone, the measure appears aimed at addressing a widely recognized agricultural and ecological pest problem through a cooperative federal-state-research approach, suggesting a generally practical and programmatic policy intent rather than a controversial one.
The main points of potential contention are likely to be funding, federal program design, and implementation details. Questions could arise over the size and mandatory nature of the appropriation, the 75 percent federal cost share, the use of land-grant institutions and federal agencies, and whether repealing the prior 2018 provision changes existing control efforts in a meaningful way. Producers in affected areas, wildlife management interests, and federal budget watchers would be the most likely groups to focus on those issues.
The bill would amend the Food Security Act of 1985 to add a new statutory feral swine eradication and control program, while repealing the existing 2018 feral swine provision in the Agriculture Improvement Act of 2018. It would create a new federal framework for identifying threatened areas, funding control and restoration activities, coordinating USDA agencies, and contracting with land-grant colleges and universities. The bill would also authorize mandatory funding of $150 million over fiscal years 2026-2030 and establish cost-sharing, administrative, and allocation rules that would directly affect USDA program administration and agricultural producers in impacted states.
No committee transcript or vote record is available, so there is no direct evidence of support or opposition in the provided materials. The bill’s text suggests a broadly problem-solving approach focused on agriculture, ecosystem protection, and animal and human health, which typically attracts practical support from affected producers and resource managers. At the same time, the mandatory funding level and federal role in implementation could draw scrutiny from budget-conscious lawmakers or those concerned about program duplication.
The most likely areas of contention are the scale and mandatory nature of the funding, the 75 percent federal cost share, and the decision to repeal the prior 2018 feral swine provision in favor of a new structure. Stakeholders may also differ on whether USDA should rely on land-grant universities and federal agencies for implementation, how threatened areas should be designated, and whether the bill’s approach sufficiently balances eradication, research, and producer assistance. Because no hearing or vote record is provided, specific named opponents or supporters are not identified.