Brooke Rollins Confirmed as U.S. Secretary of Agriculture Amid Challenges and Controversies

Brooke Rollins Confirmed as U.S. Secretary of Agriculture Amid Challenges and Controversies

Written by: Tommy Williams
email:tommywhc@aol.com
931-492-2825
WHC Publisher-Williams Media Entertainment

WASHINGTON, D.C. — The U.S. Senate voted overwhelmingly on Thursday to confirm Brooke Rollins, a staunch ally of former President Donald Trump, as the nation’s 33rd Secretary of Agriculture. The 72-28 vote, which included support from 19 Democrats, marks a rare bipartisan consensus for a Trump cabinet nominee and positions Rollins to lead the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) during a period of economic strain, trade tensions, and a widening bird flu crisis .

A Conservative Policy Veteran Takes the Helm

Rollins, a Texas native and former head of the Trump-aligned America First Policy Institute (AFPI), brings a mix of political loyalty and policy expertise to the role. A lawyer by training, she previously served as Trump’s domestic policy adviser and acting director of the White House Domestic Policy Council during his first term, where she oversaw agriculture policy 3910. Her resume also includes a 15-year tenure leading the Texas Public Policy Foundation (TPPF), a conservative think tank that historically criticized ethanol subsidies and farm aid—positions she distanced herself from during her confirmation hearings 89.

Rollins’s agricultural roots run deep: she grew up in Glen Rose, Texas, and was active in the Texas FFA Association. She later became the first female student body president at Texas A&M University, where she earned a degree in Agriculture Development 10. Supporters, including Senate Agriculture Committee Chairman John Boozman (R-Ark.), praised her as a “policy wonk with a farmer’s heart” who understands rural America’s struggles 1115.

Immediate Challenges: Bird Flu, Trade Wars, and Labor Shortages

Rollins steps into the role at a critical juncture for American agriculture:

  1. Bird Flu Outbreak: The USDA is grappling with a devastating avian influenza outbreak affecting over 23 million birds and 968 dairy cattle across 16 states. The crisis has driven egg prices to nearly 5perdozen,upfrom2.04 in 2023 1115. Rollins pledged to prioritize disease containment and collaborate with state agricultural commissioners to mitigate losses 211.
  2. Trade and Tariff Risks: With Trump renewing threats of tariffs on Mexico, Canada, and China—key markets for U.S. crops—Rollins faces pressure to shield farmers from retaliatory measures. During her confirmation hearing, she vowed to advocate for rural communities caught in trade crossfires, though Democrats like Sen. Amy Klobuchar (D-Minn.) questioned whether she would challenge Trump’s protectionist agenda 314.
  3. Labor Shortages: Over 40% of U.S. farmworkers are undocumented, and Trump’s plans for mass deportations risk exacerbating labor gaps in sectors like dairy and produce. Rollins endorsed the president’s immigration stance but pledged to reform the H-2A visa program to address workforce needs 914.

Policy Priorities and Controversies

Rollins outlined an ambitious agenda for her first 100 days, including:

  • Disaster Aid Distribution: Accelerating $10 billion in congressionally approved relief for farmers hit by natural disasters and economic downturns 1115.
  • USDA Modernization: Streamlining remote work policies and restructuring agency operations to align with Trump’s broader government efficiency goals 914.
  • Nutrition Program Reforms: While supporting SNAP (food stamps) and school meal programs, Rollins echoed Republican calls for stricter work requirements and healthier food standards—a stance that drew skepticism from anti-hunger advocates 914.

Her confirmation hearing also revealed tensions over climate change. When pressed by Sen. Klobuchar, Rollins equivocated, stating, “The climate changes throughout the year, but the cause and solutions are not widely understood” 8. Environmental groups criticized this response as dismissive of science, though farm lobbyists applauded her focus on immediate economic concerns 811.

Bipartisan Support Amid Democratic Reservations

Despite reservations about her alignment with Trump’s divisive policies, Rollins secured unanimous approval from the Senate Agriculture Committee and support from prominent Democrats, including Sens. Cory Booker (D-N.J.) and Amy Klobuchar. Critics, however, warned that her loyalty to Trump’s agenda—such as freezing federal grants and slashing the workforce—could undermine USDA’s mission 81015.

Farm groups expressed cautious optimism. Zippy Duvall, president of the American Farm Bureau Federation, called Rollins a “champion” for rural America but urged swift action on labor and trade issues 211. Meanwhile, progressive activists condemned her ties to AFPI, which has advocated for deregulation and corporate-friendly policies 314.

A Vision for Rural Revival

In her post-confirmation remarks, Rollins emphasized her commitment to “revivifying rural America,” though she acknowledged the federal government’s limited role. “It will take an all-hands approach,” she said, promising partnerships with state governments and private stakeholders 1415. Her collaboration with Health Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr.—confirmed the same day—could also reshape school nutrition standards, targeting ultra-processed foods 215.

Looking Ahead

As Rollins assumes leadership of the 100,000-employee agency, her ability to balance Trump’s ideological priorities with the pragmatic needs of farmers will be closely watched. With a farm bill reauthorization looming and rural discontent simmering, her tenure may well determine the political landscape of American agriculture for years to come.

For further details, visit USDA News or review Senate voting records at Ballotpedia 1012.

This article synthesizes reporting from The New York Times, AP News, The Texas Tribune, and other sources cited throughout.



USDA postpones final rule to amend HPA regulations for 60 days

USDA postpones final rule to amend HPA regulations for 60 days
Friday, January 24, 2025

On January 23, 2025, USDA’s Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS) will temporarily postpone its final rule to amend the Horse Protection Act (HPA) regulations for 60 days from February 1, 2025 to April 2, 2025. APHIS published the final rule (89 FR 39194-39251) amending the horse protection regulations to provide, among other provisions, that the Agency will screen, train, and authorize qualified persons for appointment by the management of any horse show, horse exhibition, or horse sale or auction to detect and diagnose soring at such events for the purposes of enforcing the HPA.  With the exception of § 11.19, which went into effect on June 7, 2024 and authorized the training of horse protection inspectors, the remainder of the rule was scheduled to go into effect on February 1, 2025.

APHIS will issue guidance to stakeholders for the upcoming horse show season in light of the postponement of the new rule.

The HPA is a federal law that prohibits sored horses from participating in shows, exhibitions, sales or auctions. The HPA also prohibits the transportation of sored horses to or from any of these events.



TWH NEWS ALERT: REGULATORY FREEZE PENDING REVIEW January 20, 2025

REGULATORY FREEZE PENDING REVIEW

January 20, 2025

By the authority vested in me as President by the Constitution and the laws of the United States of America, I hereby order all executive departments and agencies to take the following steps:
(1) Do not propose or issue any rule in any manner, including by sending a rule to the Office of the Federal Register (the “OFR”), until a department or agency head appointed or designated by the President after noon on January 20, 2025, reviews and approves the rule. The department or agency head may delegate this power of review and approval to any other person so appointed or designated by the President, consistent with applicable law. The Director or Acting Director of the Office of Management and Budget (the “OMB Director”) may exempt any rule that he deems necessary to address emergency situations or other urgent circumstances, including rules subject to statutory or judicial deadlines that require prompt action.
(2) Immediately withdraw any rules that have been sent to the OFR but not published in the Federal Register, so that they can be reviewed and approved as described in paragraph 1, subject to the exceptions described in paragraph 1.
(3) Consistent with applicable law and subject to the exceptions described in paragraph 1, consider postponing for 60 days from the date of this memorandum the effective date for any rules that have been published in the Federal Register, or any rules that have been issued in any manner but have not taken effect, for the purpose of reviewing any questions of fact, law, and policy that the rules may raise. During this 60-day period, where appropriate and consistent with applicable law, consider opening a comment period to allow interested parties to provide comments about issues of fact, law, and policy raised by the rules postponed under this memorandum, and consider reevaluating pending petitions involving such rules. As appropriate and consistent with applicable law, and where necessary to continue to review these questions of fact, law, and policy, consider further delaying, or publishing for notice and comment, proposed rules further delaying such rules beyond the 60-day period.
(4) Following the postponement described in paragraph 3, no further action needs to be taken for those rules that raise no substantial questions of fact, law, or policy. For those rules that raise substantial questions of fact, law, or policy, agencies should notify and take further appropriate action in consultation with the OMB Director.
(5) Comply in all circumstances with any applicable Executive Orders concerning regulatory management.
As used in this memorandum, “rule” has the definition set forth in section 551(4), title 5, United States Code. It also includes any “regulatory action,” as defined in section 3(e) of Executive Order 12866 of September 30, 1993, as amended, and any “guidance document” as defined in section 2(b) of Executive Order 13891 of October 9, 2019 (Promoting the Rule of Law Through Improved Agency Guidance Documents), when that order was in effect. Thus, the requirements of this memorandum apply not only to “rules” as defined in section 551(4) of title 5, but also to any substantive action by an agency (normally published in the Federal Register) that promulgates or is expected to lead to the promulgation of a final rule or regulation, including notices of inquiry, advance notices of proposed rulemaking, and notices of proposed rulemaking. They shall also apply to any agency statement of general applicability and future effect that sets forth a policy on a statutory, regulatory, or technical issue or an interpretation of a statutory or regulatory issue.
The OMB Director shall oversee the implementation of this memorandum, and any communications regarding any matters pertaining to this review should be addressed to the OMB Director. The OMB Director is also authorized to establish a process to review pending collections of information under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, as codified in chapter 35, title 44, United States Code, and to take actions that the OMB Director deems appropriate based on that review, consistent with applicable law.
Should actions be identified that were undertaken before noon on January 20, 2025, that frustrate the purpose underlying this memorandum, I may modify or extend this memorandum, to require that department and agency heads consider taking steps to address those actions.
The OMB Director is authorized and directed to publish this memorandum in the Federal Register.
This memorandum shall be implemented consistent with applicable law.


President Trump to rollback regulations…how it works!

Trump wants 10 regulations eliminated for each new one issued. Will it actually work?

Experts argue that a similar policy during Trump’s first term didn’t lead to substantial deregulation but did slow rulemaking.

Sean Michael Newhouse

| 

December 20, 2024

During President-elect Donald Trump’s first term, he mandated that agencies eliminate two regulations for every new one issued. For his second term, he’s upping the ante.

“Already, preparations are underway to slash massive numbers of job-killing regulations — eliminating 10 old regulations for every new one,” Trump said during a press briefing on Monday. “You put a new regulation on, you have to get rid of 10.”

He promised to take this action during the campaign, saying in a Sept. 5 speech at the Economic Club of New York that a “one in, 10 out” regulation policy can be done “quite easily, actually.”

Even though Trump is proposing a more stringent policy on issuing new regulations, challenges officials faced during his first term will likely reemerge, rendering his deregulatory agenda less effective than he may make it seem.

“This is a tremendous workload to undo the regulatory state. It is not trivial by any means,” said Rachel Augustine Potter, a University of Virginia professor whose research is focused on bureaucracy.

Court challenges

In order to overturn a regulation, an agency often has to issue a new regulation. That process — which takes about a year, according to George Washington University’s Regulatory Studies Center — involves performing technical and economic analysis as well as soliciting public comments on the proposed action and responding to them.

Groups also can sue to block implementation of the new deregulatory action. And past performance doesn’t bode well for Trump.

Out of 77 major rules from his first administration that were challenged, Trump won 31.2% of the time and experienced a mixed outcome in 11.7% of cases, according to an analysis by New York University School of Law’s Institute for Policy Integrity. A major rule is generally one that has an annual effect on the economy of $100 million or more.

A difference between Trump’s first and second term, however, is the Supreme Court’s decision this summer to overturn the Chevron precedent that judges defer to agencies when interpreting and implementing unclear federal statute.

While the decision might seem anti-regulation, Bridget Dooling, a law professor at Ohio State University, argued it could hurt Trump’s deregulation efforts.

“It puts any administration that’s trying to come in and change things, whether it’s to make them more regulatory or less regulatory, to really explain why their new interpretation is better,” she said. “It really is adding to the workload of the executive branch to explain what they’ve done.”

Even if a court rules against a deregulation attempt, the attempt itself still can effectively block a regulation’s implementation.

For example, a panel of federal judges on the last full day of Trump’s first administration declared that his rule to unwind President Barack Obama’s Clean Power Plan for regulating power plant greenhouse gas emissions — which the Supreme Court already temporarily blocked in 2016 — was unlawful. But the research organization Brookings Institution noted in its 2022 analysis of Trump’s deregulation efforts that, while the court ruled against Trump, his actions did largely prevent Obama’s Clean Power Plan from taking effect.

Fudging the numbers

In guidance for implementing the “one in, two out” regulation policy during Trump’s first term, the Office of Management and Budget defined a regulatory action as the implementation of any significant rule (generally one that has an annual effect on the economy of $200 million or more). It provided a more expansive definition of what qualifies as a deregulatory action, including the elimination of any rulemaking, guidance documents and proposed Obama rules that were withdrawn by the Trump administration before being finalized.

Regulatory experts have criticized this classification system.

“The way that they ended up counting regulations versus deregulatory actions was kind of apples to oranges,” Potter said. “Regulations are kind of a funny unit. Like, what is a regulation? You can bundle a lot of policies into one giant regulation, or you can have lots of smaller ones. You can bundle or unbundle, so how you count that is very important.”

The Trump administration reported that between fiscal 2017 to 2020 agencies implemented 538 deregulatory actions and issued 97 significant regulations, which is a 5.5 to 1 ratio.

A 2021 paper titled “The Deregulation Deception,” however, casts doubt on the Trump administration’s claims about the effectiveness of its “one in, two out” regulation policy.

Looking at data from the Unified Agenda of Regulatory and Deregulatory Actions between 2017 and 2020, researchers from Yale University, the University of Pennsylvania and Rutgers University note that the Trump administration classified nearly 71% of its actions as neither regulatory nor deregulatory but rather as exempt or other.

“Much like golfers only counting the strokes that suit them, any administration seeking to proclaim to have issued more deregulatory actions than regulatory ones would have a strategic reason, at least at the margins, for not designating completed actions as regulatory,” they wrote. “After all, a ratio of deregulatory-to-regulatory actions could be inflated simply by eliminating rules counted as regulatory.”

The paper’s authors also found that, looking at all rules deemed significant, the Trump administration imposed twice as many regulations than it repealed.

“The problem is that when you take the lid off of what they actually did…it just does not overall paint a deregulatory picture,” Dooling said. “So it worked for their political purposes, meaning it gave them lots to talk about, but the results just don’t bear out.”

Slowing the pace of regulations

While experts dispute Trump’s claims that two or more regulations were repealed for every new one issued in his first term, they do agree that fewer rules were issued in Trump’s first administration.

“The ‘two for one’ served less to eliminate regulations than it slowed down the pace of new regulations,” said Susan Dudley, former director of GWU’s Regulatory Studies Center. “So when agencies had to find offsets, they were more likely to pause and think about whether regulation was necessary.”

An analysis by the Cato Institute, a libertarian think tank, in the summer of 2020 found that Trump issued approximately 40% fewer final regulations during his first two years in office than either Obama or George W. Bush.

American Action Forum, a center-right economic policy organization, reported in 2021 that the Trump administration added an annual average of $10.1 billion in net total regulatory costs to the U.S. in comparison to an annual average of $111 billion under Obama. Its analysis also found that, when removing independent agencies, Trump nearly reached $1 billion in net regulatory savings across his entire term.

Robert Weissman, co-president of the consumer advocacy organization Public Citizen, argued that blunted rulemaking is the true purpose of Trump’s “one in, 10 out” regulation policy.

“A ‘one in, 10 out’ rule is both nonsense and not going to be followed, but the signal that ‘we mean to end rulemaking’ or to suspend rulemaking for health and safety, environmental protection, worker rights, fair economy, I think they do mean that, and they’ve got the capacity to deliver on it,” he said.

Weissman also contended that Trump’s nongovernmental advisory entity tasked with cutting bureaucracy, which will be led by tech billionaire Elon Musk and former presidential candidate Vivek Ramaswamy, could become intertwined with his administration’s deregulatory agenda. Numerous federal investigations into Musk’s companies, as well as the billions of dollars they receive in government contracts, have prompted conflict of interest concerns about the Department of Government Efficiency initiative.

“When you connect this issue to the Musk-led project, it’s much less abstract and about regulatory orientation or ideology and much more plainly about doing favors for connected insiders and big business donors,” he said.

Initial revocations and staffing

When Trump and congressional Republicans are sworn in next month, they’ll have control of the White House and both chambers of Congress. As such, they’ll be able to use the Congressional Review Act to overturn by simple majority late-issued rules from Joe Biden’s administration. Trump in 2017 used the CRA to repeal 16 Obama regulations.

In addition, Dudley said that Trump’s administration will likely stop defending many regulations promulgated by the Biden administration that are currently being challenged in court.

“They could settle lawsuits and say ‘All right, we agree with the challengers. Let us go back to the drawing board and fix this,’” she said. “So that’s another way — short of going through the long notice and comment rulemaking process — to remove regulation.”

But the bulk of Trump’s deregulatory agenda will require substantial work and people to perform it, and many experts have argued that a lack of officials with relevant expertise was a factor that limited Trump’s effectiveness in eliminating regulations during his first term.

The authors of the 2021 paper noted “a shortfall of professional acumen and effective leadership within the Trump administration, exacerbated by vacancies in leadership positions.” Cato’s first recommendation for the Trump administration to better pursue deregulation was to fill empty agency leadership positions as soon as possible.

Dan Goldbeck, the director of regulatory policy at AAF, argued in a November blog that Trump’s plan to reinstitute Schedule F, which would strip civil service job protections for potentially tens of thousands of federal employees, could hinder his administrative agenda.

“The operational chaos that will almost certainly ensue at the agency level would delay the administration’s core rulemakings,” he wrote. “And, even if such an agenda ultimately proves largely successful, while the resulting agencies may be composed of more ideologically aligned personnel, the diminished levels of both sheer manpower and expertise may lead to fewer and less well-crafted rulemakings.”



Comer questions USDA enforcement of Horse Protection Act

WEHT Evansville

Comer questions USDA enforcement of Horse Protection Act

Seth Austin
Wed, October 9, 2024 at 10:31 AM CDT
1 min read

 

HENDERSON, Ky. (WEHT) – Congressman James Comer released a statement on Tuesday questioning the U.S. Department of Agriculture’s enforcement of the Horse Protection Act and claiming the agency may be exceeding its authority in inspections.

Congressman Comer said the Committee on Oversight and Accountability initiated its oversight following allegations that the assistant director of USDA’s Animal and Planet Health Inspection Service sent an email to horse show representatives on new competition inspection requirements two hours prior to a competition without warning or prior notification. Comer said he called on the Office of Inspector General to initiate a review of the USDA’s policies and practices regarding implementation of the HPA.

“It is imperative that USDA enforces HPA in a manner that is fair, consistent and within the bounds of its statutory authority,” Comer wrote in a release. “The Committee is concerned about USDA’s compliance with the HPA, particularly considering allegations received by the Committee of arbitrary enforcement, lack of due process, and potential retribution against horse trainers and owners and disqualifying horses or changing inspection procedures at the last minute as retribution for filing a lawsuit.”

Comer said the committee has also requested documents and information on the service’s role in enforcing the HPA, but so far they have received limited documents in response.

The Horse Protection Act authorizes the Secretary of Agriculture to proclaim regulations prohibiting the movement, showing, exhibition or sale of sore horses. For more information on the act and its changes, visit the federal register’s website.

Copyright 2024 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.



Congress Subpoenas Key USDA Official Over Arbitrary Enforcement of Horse Protection Act-TRENDING

Rep. Comer Subpoenas Key USDA Official Over Arbitrary Enforcement of Horse Protection Act

Wednesday, November 20, 2024

 

Editor’s Note: The following is a press release issued by the Committee on Oversight and Accountability and Chairman Rep. James Comer (R-Ky.)

 

WASHINGTON— House Committee on Oversight and Accountability Chairman James Comer (R-Ky.) today issued a subpoena to a key official at U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) to further investigate the USDA’s arbitrary enforcement of the Horse Protection Act (HPA) and the final rule titled Horse Protection Amendments. Information obtained by the Oversight Committee, along with recent actions at Tennessee Walking Horse shows, reveals USDA’s Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS) may be exceeding its authority in inspections related to horse shows. Today’s subpoena compels Dr. Aaron Rhyner, the Assistant Director of APHIS, to appear for a deposition to assist in the Committee’s investigation and determine whether new legislation is needed to ensure fair and consistent enforcement by USDA.

 

“The Committee initially requested documents and information from USDA regarding these matters on August 9, 2024. Among the materials sought by the Committee were lists of the horse shows attended by USDA’s Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS) inspectors, communications between APHIS officials and inspectors or other stakeholders in the horse show industry, documents and communications relating to HPA enforcement, and documents and communications related to the lawsuit filed by horse trainers against USDA. A response to the Committee’s requests was required by August 23. USDA failed to respond by the deadline or even acknowledge receipt of the Committee’s letter until several weeks later,” wrote Chairman Comer.

 

The Committee received allegations that the Assistant Director of USDA’s APHIS sent an e-mail to horse show representatives detailing new competition inspection requirements just two hours prior to a competition, without warning or prior notification of forthcoming guidance. On August 9, 2024, Chairman Comer launched an investigation and called on the USDA Office of the Inspector General to review the Department’s enforcement of the HPA. On October 8, 2024, Chairman requested that APHIS Director Dr. Rhyner be made available for a transcribed interview. However, USDA continues to refuse to provide the requested information and has not made Dr. Rhyner available for the interview.

 

“This lack of cooperation by USDA raises additional questions about the transparency and accountability of USDA’s operations related to enforcement of the HPA and the enactment of the final rule,” continued Chairman Comer. “It has now been over four weeks since the Committee’s initial request for the transcribed interview, and USDA has failed to make you available for a transcribed interview or a briefing. As a result, attached is a subpoena for a deposition pursuant to Rule XI, clause 2(m)(1)(B) of the Rules of the House of Representatives and Rule 12(g) of the Committee’s Rules. You are obligated to appear before the Committee on December 9, 2024.”

 

The letter and subpoena to APHIS Dr. Aaron Rhyner can be found here.



TODAYS HPA RULE BROADCAST- PLEASE REGISTER

CLICK LINK BELOW TO REGISTER FOR WEB BROADCAST ON HPA RULE

 

Click Here for USDA WEB BROADCAST

 



Tennessee Delegation Members lead letter with Rep. Rose to USDA defending Tennessee Walking Horse Industry Friday, August 9, 2024

Tennessee Delegation Members lead letter with Rep. Rose to USDA defending Tennessee Walking Horse Industry
Friday, August 9, 2024

 U.S. Representative John Rose (TN-06) and six other Members of Congress, five from the Tennessee Delegation, led a letter to the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) outlining serious concerns about USDA Veterinary Medical Officer (VMO) inspections and violation reports from recent Tennessee Walking Horse shows.

Representative Rose, who has spearheaded the defense of the Tennessee Walking Horse industry in Congress, urged USDA Secretary Tom Vilsack and Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS) Administrator Michael Watson to reconsider the assignments of VMO Kerry McHenry and VMO Amy Adams in the letter.

U.S. Rep. John Rose released the following statement:

“Despite attempts by USDA to decimate the Tennessee Walking Horse industry and those that depend on it, they will not go down without a fight,” said Rep. Rose. “The Tennessee Walking Horse Industry is rooted in tradition and strives to uphold the sensible and reasonable regulations in the Horse Protection Act. The industry condemns bad actors who are tarnishing its reputation. However, USDA is overstepping its boundaries and must reconsider the science behind horse inspections and VMOs’ authority and allow the Tennessee Waking Horse Industry the ability to continue to thrive.”

Read an excerpt from the letter here:

“Since the first notable Tennessee Walking Horse National Celebration in 1939, the Walking Horse industry has evolved and has embraced the provisions established in the HPA. Tennessee Walking Horse shows are the most regulated equestrian events across the U.S. Each animal exhibited is thoroughly inspected by a USDA-approved Designated Qualified Person (DQP) or Horse Industry Organization (HIO) representative or APHIS VMO prior to competing.

“The Tennessee Walking Horse and National Celebration event are vital contributors to the U.S. job market and economy. The Tennessee Walking Horse industry provides approximately 20,000 jobs to the market and has a nearly $3.2 billion economic impact. Walking Horses reside in all 50 states, and shows are held across the U.S. annually.  The Tennessee Walking Horse National Celebration is the largest Walking Horse show globally, hosting roughly 100,000 fans from more than 40 states annually over eleven days in Shelbyville, TN.  With over 1,300 animals expected, the late August event is a widely respected national show with nearly a century of deep-rooted traditions.

“As we approach the historic Celebration, breeders, trainers, exhibitors, and supporters are threatened by erroneous inspections. Compliance, safety, and wellness are integral to the traditions and standards upheld by the Walking Horse industry. However, outlier inspectors are using aggressively subjective measures of inspection and disqualifying compliant horses. We urge you to reconsider the assignments of VMO Kerry McHenry and VMO Amy Adams. Thank you for your immediate consideration of this important issue.”

Read the full letter here.

The letter was also led by Reps. Diana Harshbarger (TN-01), Chuck Fleischmann (TN-03), Scott DesJarlais (TN-04), Andy Ogles (TN-05), and Mark Green (TN-06). Rep. Harold Rogers (KY-05) also signed the letter.

Background:

The Horse Protection Act (HPA) was enacted in 1970 to outlaw the practice of “soring” horses. Despite being illegal for over 50 years, a very small, limited number of individuals still engage in soring, leading an overly ambitious USDA to establish stricter regulations for the compliant majority. The Tennessee Walking Horse industry has embraced HPA provisions, and the shows are among the most heavily regulated equestrian events in the United States, with thorough inspections before and after competitions.

In March 2024 during the National Trainers’ Show, the USDA unexpectedly announced plans to change inspection tactics, which caused major confusion. Since then, two specific VMO inspectors, Kerry McHenry and Amy Adams, have issued a disproportionately high number of violations, disrupting standard protocols, leading Members to send this letter to USDA Secretary Vilsack and APHIS Administrator Watson.

U.S. Representative John Rose is currently serving his third term representing Tennessee’s Sixth Congressional District and resides in Cookeville with his wife, Chelsea, and their two sons, Guy and Sam. The Sixth District includes Cannon, Clay, Cumberland, DeKalb, Fentress, Jackson, Macon, Overton, Pickett, Putnam, Smith, Sumner, Trousdale, Van Buren, and White counties as well as portions of Davidson, Scott, Warren, and Wilson counties. Representative Rose is an eighth-generation farmer, small business owner, and attorney, and currently serves on the House Financial Services Committee and House Agriculture Committee



Comer Calls on OIG to Initiate Review of USDA’s Enforcement of the Horse Protection Act

Comer Calls on OIG to Initiate Review of USDA’s Enforcement of the Horse Protection Act
Friday, August 9, 2024

Requests additional USDA documents and communications to better understand how the department has enforced the HPA

House Committee on Oversight and Accountability Chairman James Comer (R-Ky.) is conducting oversight of the U.S. Department of Agriculture’s (USDA) enforcement of the Horse Protection Act (HPA) and its promulgation of a final rule titled Horse Protection Amendments. Considering information obtained by the Oversight Committee and recent actions at Tennessee Walking Horse shows, it appears the USDA’s Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS) has, at times, exceeded its HPA authority in inspections related to horse shows. In a letter to Inspector General Phyllis K. Fong, Chairman Comer requests the Office of Inspector General (OIG) initiate a review of the USDA’s policies and practices regarding implementation of the HPA and its impact on the horse show industry. In a letter to USDA Secretary Thomas J. Vilsack, Chairman Comer seeks additional documents and communications to better understand how USDA has enforced the HPA and how it intends to enforce the HPA after the effective dates of the final rule.

“According to information received by the Committee, USDA officials have in fact arbitrarily changed commonly accepted practices through e-mail updates mere hours before a competition, haphazardly disqualified horses based on inconsistent inspection methodology, and refused to engage with industry stakeholders in a context where there is no appeals process for USDA-disqualified horses. The Committee has also received allegations that USDA disqualified horses for a competition without basis and as retribution for a lawsuit filed against USDA by impacted stakeholders in the horse show industry. We ask that you undertake a review of any retaliatory actions taken against the horse show industry by USDA in response to critical observations of USDA’s stewardship of the HPA or its new final rule titled Horse Protection Amendments,” Chairman Comer wrote to Inspector General Fong.

Specifically, the Committee has received allegations that the Assistant Director of USDA’s APHIS, sent an e-mail to horse show representatives on new competition inspection requirements two hours prior to a competition without warning or prior notification of forthcoming guidance.

“USDA’s delegation of authority to APHIS to administer pre-and post-show horse inspections appears to have been used as retribution against horse owners’ and trainers’ efforts to exercise their legal rights and harmed their ability to earn a living,” Chairman Comer wrote to Secretary Vilsack. “The Committee has concerns regarding USDA’s compliance with the HPA in light of recent actions at Tennessee Walking Horse shows. We write to request documents and communications to better understand how USDA has enforced the HPA and how it intends to enforce the HPA after the effective dates of the final rule.”

Read the letter to USDA Inspector General Fong here.

Read the letter to USDA Secretary Vilsack here



Despite Pending Lawsuits, APHIS is hiring New HPIs

APHIS seeks equine professionals for inspector roles

July 31, 2024

One of the changes to Horse Protection Act (HPA) regulations earlier this year, in an effort to end horse soring, meant the elimination of industry self-regulation and the role of lay person inspectors at horse shows, exhibitions, sales, and auctions.

 

Going forward, only U.S. Department of Agriculture’s (USDA) Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS) inspectors and independent non-APHIS–employed horse protection inspectors (HPIs) who are screened, trained, and authorized by APHIS will have inspection authority, beginning with the 2025 show season.

 

These third-party inspectors must be veterinarians, veterinary technicians, or state or local animal welfare officers; all must have equine knowledge and experience.

 

 

Updates to the Horse Protection Act remove the ability for horse industry organizations to train and license inspectors for horse shows, exhibitions, sales, and auctions. Instead, the U.S. Department of Agriculture’s (USDA) Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service will screen and train applicants, preferably veterinarians, to be horse protection inspectors.

“This puts the welfare of these competing horses in the best trained, knowledgeable, ethical, non-biased, and most qualified hands possible to conduct these important inspections,” said Keith Kleine, director of industry relations with the American Association of Equine Practitioners.

 

Individuals interested in applying to become an HPI can complete an application on the APHIS website.

 

While HPIs may not conduct inspections until the new rule goes into effect February 1, 2025, APHIS began the HPI application process on June 7, so that training and authorization of HPIs can occur beforehand.

 

Currently, horse show managers can voluntarily hire USDA-trained lay inspectors, known as designated qualified persons (DQPs) as chosen by certain horse industry organizations (HIOs). APHIS also has its own veterinary medical officers (VMOs) who perform inspections at some venues.

 

“While APHIS attended only a fraction of the events at which DQPs were appointed to inspect horses, APHIS consistently reported much higher rates of noncompliance at these events based on its VMO inspection findings when compared to DQP findings. Moreover, virtually all noncompliances were found in padded horses competing in the Performance division,” according to the Federal Register notice. This is also backed up by APHIS inspection data from 2017-22.

 

Soring is the practice of applying a substance or mechanical device to a horse’s forelegs that will create enough pain that the horse will exaggerate its gait to relieve the discomfort. The resulting high-stepping running walk, or “big lick,” is rewarded by horse show judges, although showing a sored horse is illegal.

 

Tennessee Walking Horses commonly suffer from the practice of soring. Other gaited breeds, such as Racking Horses, Spotted Saddle Horses, Rocky Mountain Horses, and Missouri Fox-Trotters, may also suffer from soring.

 

“The gaited horse discipline(s) and the equine industry cannot afford the risks and costs of continued ineffective supervision and enforcement of the Horse Protection Act,” said Kleine. “The independent inspection process in the new rule should strengthen the competition at these shows and benefit the many owners and trainers who do right by their animals.”

 

This change is one of the recommendations from the 2021 National Academy of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine Consensus report regarding, “A Review of Methods for Detecting Soreness in Horses.”

 

Now, all regulatory requirements concerning DQPs and HIOs will be removed. APHIS will take on program administration, HPI training, and HPI disciplinary actions as needed for enforcing the Horse Protection Act.

 

Because horse protection inspectors are not USDA employees, they set their own rates and schedules. At an event, the HPI will, at a minimum, physically inspect every Tennessee Walking Horse and Racking Horse in each gaited class. They will also inspect the first-place finisher of each gaited class. Each HPI will follow APHIS procedures to detect and diagnose soring and the use of any prohibited substances or devices, according to the USDA.

 

HPI applicants must abide by a Code of Conduct that includes complying with USDA-related laws, regulations, and policies. Applicants must agree to document and report all noncompliances