Referred to the Committee on Agriculture, and in addition to the Committee on Education and Workforce, for a period to be subsequently determined by the Speaker, in each case for…
The bill prohibits the Secretary of Agriculture or any federal official from reducing, eliminating, or suspending funding for land-grant colleges and universities unless Congress specifically authorizes such action by statute.
It references the definition of land-grant colleges and universities contained in section 1404 of the National Agricultural Research, Extension, and Teaching Policy Act of 1977 (7 U.S.C. 3103).
The text does not specify funding levels, exceptions, or enforcement mechanisms beyond the statutory prohibition.
Narrow, non-controversial protection increases chances, but it restricts executive flexibility and lacks appropriations detail, lowering net likelihood.
Relative to its intended legislative type, this bill clearly states a narrow substantive prohibition but lacks the detailed definitions, fiscal acknowledgement, procedural implementation, edge-case handling, and enforcement/accountability provisions that would be expected for a durable statutory constraint on federal funding actions.
Stability versus flexibility: locking funds vs agency management discretion
Stability versus flexibility: locking funds vs agency management discretion
Likely supportive because the bill protects federal support for agricultural research, extension, and teaching programs.
Viewed as preventing politically motivated or ideologically driven cuts that would harm rural communities and historically underfunded institutions.
Cautiously favorable about predictability and congressional control over funding, but concerned about operational inflexibility.
Would seek clarifications on interactions with appropriations law and emergency exceptions.
Skeptical because the bill constrains executive branch discretion and entrenches federal funding for universities.
Concerned about reduced accountability, expanded federal entanglement, and fiscal rigidities.
Reached or meaningfully advanced
Reached or meaningfully advanced
Still ahead
Still ahead
Still ahead
Narrow, non-controversial protection increases chances, but it restricts executive flexibility and lacks appropriations detail, lowering net likelihood.
The bill has not accumulated any surfaced votes yet.
Stability versus flexibility: locking funds vs agency management discretion
Narrow, non-controversial protection increases chances, but it restricts executive flexibility and lacks appropriations detail, lowering ne…
Relative to its intended legislative type, this bill clearly states a narrow substantive prohibition but lacks the detailed definitions, fiscal acknowledgement, procedural implementation, edge-case handling, and enforce…
Go beyond the headline summary with full stakeholder mapping, legislative design analysis, passage barriers, and lens-by-lens tradeoff breakdowns.