Addressing Security Risks from Price Fixing and Anti-Competitive Behavior in the Food Supply Chain

12/6/2025

Executive Orders

View Original

Action Summary

Purpose: Address national security and economic risks in the food supply chain caused by price fixing and anti-competitive practices, particularly by foreign-controlled companies.
Background: Highlights the importance of an affordable and secure food supply for national security; notes recent civil suits and vulnerabilities in sectors such as meat processing, seed, fertilizer, and equipment.
Establishment of Task Forces: Instructs the Attorney General and the FTC Chairman to create Food Supply Chain Security Task Forces to investigate anti-competitive behavior and its impact on food prices and national security.
Enforcement Actions: Empowers task forces to initiate enforcement actions, propose new regulatory measures, and start criminal proceedings for any uncovered criminal collusion.
Legislative Briefings: Requires joint briefings to congressional leaders (Speaker of the House, Senate Majority Leader, and relevant committee chairs) summarizing task force progress at 180 and 365 days, excluding details of ongoing investigations or non-public information.
General Provisions: Confirms that the order does not impair existing agency authorities or affect budgetary and administrative functions, and specifies that publication costs are borne by the Department of Justice.

Risks & Considerations

The Executive Order’s focus on addressing anti-competitive behaviors in the food supply chain highlights potential legal actions and regulatory changes. These actions could impact industries related to agriculture and food production, which may influence research and partnerships at Vanderbilt.
With increased scrutiny and potential regulation on foreign-controlled corporations, there may be shifts in the market dynamics of the food industry. Vanderbilt’s programs that collaborate with international corporations might need to reassess partnerships and agreements.
The establishment of task forces and potential legal proceedings could create an environment of uncertainty in industries reliant on international supply chains, affecting economic research initiatives and projects at Vanderbilt University.
This order may lead to increased demand for educational programs focused on antitrust law and economic policy analysis, providing opportunities for Vanderbilt Law School and the Department of Economics.

Impacted Programs

The Vanderbilt Law School may see increased interest in its antitrust and competition law courses, as well as demand for expertise in regulatory compliance and enforcement actions.
Vanderbilt’s Owen Graduate School of Management might need to adapt its curriculum to include more case studies and strategic management courses focused on navigating regulatory environments and international business relations.
The Department of Economics could explore new research opportunities related to the economic impacts of regulatory changes in the food supply chain.
Vanderbilt’s research centers focusing on food security and sustainability might need to consider potential changes in funding opportunities and partnerships, especially those involving foreign entities.

Financial Impact

Potential regulatory changes could affect funding streams for research projects related to agricultural economics and food security, requiring strategic shifts in grant applications and research focus.
Programs and partnerships involving foreign corporations may face financial uncertainties, particularly if new regulations limit international collaborations or require compliance adjustments.
Increased legal and regulatory focus on anti-competitive behavior might open up new funding opportunities for legal research and policy analysis, benefiting relevant departments at Vanderbilt.
Changes in the food supply chain could indirectly impact Vanderbilt’s operational costs, especially if procurement practices are affected by new regulatory landscapes.

Relevance Score: 3 (The order presents moderate risks typically involving compliance or ethics that necessitate strategic planning and adjustments to current programs and partnerships.)

Key Actions

Vanderbilt’s School of Law should engage with the legal aspects of anti-competitive behavior in the food supply chain by offering seminars and research opportunities focused on the implications of this executive order, potentially collaborating with the Department of Justice for insights and internships.
The Vanderbilt Institute for Economic Development should analyze the economic impacts of anti-competitive practices in the food supply sector. This research could inform policymakers and contribute to debates on regulatory measures, enhancing Vanderbilt’s role as a thought leader in economic policy.
Peabody College can explore the educational aspects by integrating case studies on food supply chain dynamics into its curriculum, particularly within economics and public policy courses, equipping students with critical insights into current economic challenges.
The Center for Environmental Management Studies at Vanderbilt should consider the environmental impacts associated with monopolistic practices in the food supply chain, providing data-driven insights that could support sustainable policy development and advocacy.

Opportunities

Vanderbilt can position itself as a leader in interdisciplinary research on food security by developing programs that address both legal and economic dimensions of anti-competitive practices, potentially attracting funding from federal agencies focused on national security.
By hosting conferences and workshops on food supply chain security, Vanderbilt can foster collaboration among academics, industry experts, and policymakers, establishing itself as a hub for knowledge and innovation in this critical field.
The university can leverage this executive order to seek partnerships with government agencies for research grants aimed at addressing vulnerabilities in the food supply chain, thereby enhancing its research portfolio and impact.

Relevance Score: 3 (Some adjustments are needed to processes or procedures, especially in research and curriculum development related to economic and legal aspects of anti-competitive behavior in the food supply chain.)

Average Relevance Score: 2.8

Timeline for Implementation

Within 180 days – The Food Supply Chain Security Task Forces are required to brief congressional leaders once within 180 days following the issuance of this order.
Within 365 days – A follow-up briefing to congressional leaders is required within 365 days following the order’s date.

The shortest compliance timeline is 180 days, which falls under category 1 (180 or more days to comply).

Relevance Score: 1

Impacted Government Organizations

Department of Justice (DOJ): The DOJ is directed to establish a Food Supply Chain Security Task Force led by the Attorney General to investigate and address anti-competitive behavior and potential national security threats in the food supply chain.
Federal Trade Commission (FTC): The FTC is tasked with forming a similar Food Supply Chain Security Task Force, working in tandem with the DOJ to examine price fixing and anti-competitive practices within the food sectors, particularly those involving foreign-controlled entities.
Office of Management and Budget (OMB): Although not directly involved in the investigation, the OMB’s role and functions are referenced in the order to ensure that budgetary, administrative, or legislative proposals remain unaffected.

Relevance Score: 2 (Between three and five Federal Agencies are directly or indirectly impacted by this order.)

Responsible Officials

Attorney General – Charged with establishing and managing the Department of Justice Food Supply Chain Security Task Force, investigating anti-competitive practices, and initiating criminal proceedings when evidence of collusion is found.
Chairman of the Federal Trade Commission – Responsible for forming the FTC Food Supply Chain Security Task Force and executing investigations into anti-competitive behaviors within food supply sectors.

Relevance Score: 5 (Impacts Cabinet-level and high-level agency heads with wide-reaching authority.)