In August 2025, the Forced Labor Enforcement Task Force expanded UFLPA high-priority sectors to include agricultural products alongside caustic soda, copper, lithium, and steel. For food and agriculture companies, that single line in a federal notice is a reminder that agricultural trade policy is no longer background noise for the general counsel’s inbox. It is a board-level risk that sits next to tariff exposure, Section 301 investigations, and USMCA review cycles – and it is decided in rooms that most compliance teams never enter.
The Intersection of Trade Law and Agricultural Trade Policy Advocacy
Most companies experience international trade law as a defense function. A shipment gets detained at the border. A Section 301 exclusion request needs to be filed. A UFLPA disclosure needs review. Trade law defense answers “what do we do about the rule that already exists.” Trade policy advocacy answers a different question – who wrote this rule, and how do we get a voice before the next one is final.
OFW Law’s government relations team works upstream of the enforcement actions that our customs and trade attorneys later defend. The distinction matters because a company that only reacts to CBP detentions and Section 301 tariffs is always one step behind a rulemaking process it never influenced. The table below outlines where each function sits in a compliance program built around agricultural trade policy.
| Function | Trade Law Defense | Trade Policy Advocacy |
|---|---|---|
| Timing | Reactive, after a detention, penalty, or exclusion denial | Proactive, before a rule, tariff, or entity listing is final |
| Forum | CBP, Court of International Trade, WTO panels | USTR, USDA, congressional committees |
| Goal | Resolve the immediate enforcement matter | Shape the rule so fewer enforcement matters arise |
| Governing authority | 19 U.S.C. § 1307 (UFLPA), Section 301 of the Trade Act of 1974 | Farm Bill reauthorization, WTO Agreement on Agriculture, USTR advisory committee process |
Companies that treat these as separate, unconnected line items tend to fund the wrong one. They pay for compliance counsel and litigation defense while the policy decisions that produce next year’s enforcement actions get made without their input.
How USTR Conducts Trade Negotiations and Where Industry Has Input
The Office of the U.S. Trade Representative negotiates, implements, and enforces the agricultural provisions in U.S. free trade agreements and at the World Trade Organization, including the WTO Agreement on Agriculture and the Agreement on the Application of Sanitary and Phytosanitary Measures. A Chief Agricultural Negotiator within USTR’s Agricultural Affairs office leads this work, coordinating with USDA on tariff-rate quota allocation, biotechnology approvals, and the animal and plant health rules that determine whether a product clears a foreign border.
Industry input runs through a formal channel: the Agricultural Policy Advisory Committee for Trade and the Agricultural Technical Advisory Committees, jointly managed by USTR and the Secretary of Agriculture. These committees give commodity-specific representatives from the private sector a chance to state trade policy priorities before an agreement is signed, not after. A company that has never testified before an ATAC, met with USTR’s agricultural affairs staff, or filed comments during a WTO accession negotiation has, in practice, no advocacy position of its own – only a compliance posture once the rule is already final.
This is where our agriculture and agribusiness practice and government relations team intersect. Getting a company in front of the right ATAC, or in front of the right committee staff during a Farm Bill markup, calls for relationships built over years of Capitol Hill and agency work, not a single letter written after a rule is proposed.
Farm Bill Provisions That Affect International Market Access
The Farm Bill is reauthorized roughly every five years, and its provisions reach well past domestic commodity programs and crop insurance. Several titles fund the infrastructure of agricultural trade policy itself. USDA’s Foreign Agricultural Service administers market development and export promotion programs under Farm Bill authorization, including the Market Access Program and Foreign Market Development Program, which fund the trade missions and market intelligence that open export markets for U.S. agricultural products.
FAS also administers the sugar tariff-rate quota, works with USTR on enforcing existing trade agreement commitments, and provides the export credit guarantees that make overseas sales financeable in markets where private credit is thin. When a Farm Bill title expires or gets renegotiated, so does the funding and legal authority behind these programs. A company that exports commodities or processed food products has a direct stake in Farm Bill reauthorization even if it has never set foot in a congressional hearing room.
House and Senate Agriculture Committee staff draft this legislation with input from the same advisory committee structure that feeds USTR. Companies and trade associations that engage early, while provisions are still being drafted, have a genuine chance to shape market access language. Those that wait until the bill is signed are left responding to whatever Congress and USDA decided without them. The window for that early engagement typically opens well before a Farm Bill reaches committee markup, during the period when staff are soliciting stakeholder priorities and drafting section language – which is exactly why a standing relationship with committee staff matters more than a single well-timed comment letter.
Agricultural Trade Disputes: WTO, Bilateral Agreements, and Domestic Advocacy
Agricultural products sit at the center of some of the most contested areas of international trade law. Sanitary and phytosanitary measures, tariff-rate quotas, subsidy programs, and country-of-origin labeling rules all generate WTO disputes and bilateral friction on a regular basis. The current 2026 trade enforcement environment layers new forced labor provisions and Section 232 tariff actions on top of that existing dispute environment, and the USMCA six-year review is expected to put agricultural market access terms back on the table.
These disputes rarely resolve quickly. A WTO panel proceeding can run for years before a final ruling, and even a favorable outcome does not always translate into an immediate change in a trading partner’s behavior. That timeline is precisely why domestic advocacy matters as much as the formal dispute itself – a company waiting three years for a WTO panel report needs a parallel track that keeps pressure on USTR and the affected foreign government in the meantime.
Domestic advocacy runs in parallel with formal WTO dispute settlement. A company facing a foreign sanitary barrier, for example, can pursue relief through a WTO SPS Committee raised concern, direct USTR engagement, or a coordinated trade association campaign, often more than one at once. Understanding which forum moves fastest, and which one produces a result that survives a change in administration, is itself a form of legal judgment. This is also where trade and food distribution and international trade compliance work overlaps with government relations, since the same company facing a market access barrier abroad is often managing import compliance obligations at home.
UFLPA, Tariffs, and the Advocacy Response: What Companies Should Be Doing in Washington
The August 2025 FLETF strategy update added caustic soda, copper, lithium, red dates, and steel to the UFLPA high-priority sector list, and agricultural and food processing inputs accounted for a meaningful share of new entity additions. Combined with active UFLPA Entity List expansion and ongoing Section 301 tariff actions, forced labor and tariff exposure have moved from a customs compliance line item to a recurring board discussion.
Board-level framing: a UFLPA detention or a Section 301 tariff increase is not an isolated customs event. It is evidence of a policy direction that was set months or years earlier, in rooms the company was not in. The response to one detention should include a look at whether the underlying policy is still open to influence.
Companies facing this exposure benefit from a structured response rather than a case-by-case one:
- Compliance audit: map current supply chains against the UFLPA Entity List and Section 301 product lists, documenting the due diligence already in place.
- Risk identification: identify which upcoming rulemakings, tariff actions, or Farm Bill provisions could expand that exposure before it becomes an enforcement matter.
- Policy advocacy strategy: engage USTR, USDA, or the relevant congressional committee directly, or through a trade association, while the rule is still in draft form.
Waiting for a detention notice before building this record is the reactive approach. Companies that pair the customs and trade attorneys handling today’s enforcement matter with a government relations team working the policy side tend to see fewer of these notices arrive in the first place.
How OFW Combines Trade Law Defense with Policy Advocacy
OFW Law’s government relations team includes both attorneys and policy advisors, which allows the firm to advise on the legal implications of a policy decision while building the advocacy strategy to influence it. Eric J. Steiner, who leads much of this work, spent more than twenty years on Capitol Hill and inside USDA before joining the firm, including service on the U.S. Senate Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry under Chairmen Thad Cochran, Saxby Chambliss, and Pat Roberts, and as a USDA Food and Nutrition Service political appointee. That institutional background is what makes the difference between filing a comment letter and getting a meeting.
Tier-one international trade practices at large firms tend to compete for WTO panel litigation and multinational trade remedy work. OFW Law’s food and agriculture practice is built differently: it serves mid-sized to large agrifood companies, importers, and trade associations that need USTR and USDA-level advocacy paired with the CBP-level compliance defense those same companies already rely on, without retaining two separate firms that do not talk to each other.
Facing a trade policy decision that will affect your company’s market access or compliance exposure?
Connect with the OFW Law team about agricultural trade policy
FAQ
What is the difference between trade compliance and trade advocacy?
Trade compliance responds to a rule that already exists, such as a CBP detention or a Section 301 exclusion denial. Trade advocacy works to shape that rule before it is final, through USTR, USDA, or Congress. Companies need both, and the two functions work best when they are coordinated rather than handled in isolation.
How does the USTR influence agricultural export markets?
USTR’s Agricultural Affairs office, led by the Chief Agricultural Negotiator, negotiates and enforces the agricultural provisions of U.S. free trade agreements and WTO commitments, including market access, SPS measures, and tariff-rate quota allocation. Decisions made in this office directly determine which foreign markets are open to U.S. agricultural exporters and on what terms.
Can a law firm lobby for agricultural tariff changes?
Yes. Law firms with a registered government relations or lobbying practice can represent clients before Congress and federal agencies on tariff and trade policy matters, subject to federal lobbying disclosure requirements. OFW Law’s government relations team handles this work alongside its regulatory and enforcement defense practices.
What role does the USDA play in international trade disputes?
USDA coordinates with USTR on agricultural trade negotiations and disputes, and its Foreign Agricultural Service administers export promotion, market development, and export credit guarantee programs authorized under the Farm Bill. USDA also provides technical input on sanitary and phytosanitary issues that frequently underlie agricultural trade disputes.
How can food companies prepare for 2026 trade policy shifts?
Companies should map current UFLPA and Section 301 exposure against their supply chains, track Farm Bill reauthorization and USMCA six-year review developments that affect market access, and build a direct or association-based channel to USTR and USDA before a rule affecting their sector is finalized rather than after.
This article is for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Consult a qualified attorney about your specific situation.
