INVESTIGATION: Multimillion-dollar Campaign Against US Pork Producers Traced to Silicon Valley and Animal Rights Network
By Joanna GuzaNov 2, 2026 | 3:17 PM
RealClearInvestigations follows the money and public records behind the fight against congressional action on California’s Proposition 12, calling into question the campaign’s financing and leadership.
WASHINGTON, D.C., Nov. 2, 2026 — A new RealClearInvestigations (RCI) report links a $40 million campaign against a congressional fix to California’s Proposition 12 to Silicon Valley wealth, animal rights activists, and a network of philanthropic organizations operating behind groups that present themselves as voices for American farmers.
In “The Bacon Wars: Pig Farmers Battle Tech Barons Over Animal Welfare,” James Varney examines the money, leadership and advertising behind the farm bill attack campaign. At the center is the American Meat Producers Association (AMPA), which has announced a $30 million effort opposing the Save Our Bacon provision that would correct Prop. 12 in the farm bill.
The investigation reveals a stark contrast with the campaign’s claims of representing farmers and raises these central questions: Who is paying for the campaign? Whose interests does it represent? And what are the consequences for American farmers and consumers?
Key findings:
1. Silicon Valley “tech barons” and Effective Altruism funders are financing the fight.
RCI traces major financial support to some of Silicon Valley’s largest fortunes and the Effective Altruism movement, whose followers use philanthropy to advance causes they believe will produce long-term good. Coefficient Giving, formerly Open Philanthropy and founded by Facebook co-founder Dustin Moskovitz and Cari Tuna, gave $10 million to the Navigation Fund, which is among AMPA’s funders.
An internal Navigation Fund memo obtained by RCI called the effort “the biggest fight we’ve ever waged in Congress.”
2. American “Meat Producers” Association’s financial records tell a different story from its farmer branding.
RCI reports that AMPA operates through three entities: a 501(c)(3), a 501(c)(4) that is not required to publicly disclose its donors, and a political action committee. On Oct. 2, the PAC received $3 million from AMPA’s 501(c)(4), accounting for more than 97% of all money raised by the PAC. Public filings to date identify only one donor whose reported occupation is “farmer,” and who contributed just $1,000.
The records also show that 12 days after the $3 million transfer, AMPA President Holly Bice said its donors had been “individual Americans stepping up to give independent farmers a voice” and that she expected filings to show donations from farmers and meat companies. The next PAC filing disclosed the 501(c)(4)’s $3 million contribution but only the one farmer contribution and no contribution from a meat company.
Public records reveal that another farmer in a recent AMPA political attack ad has spent years organizing against modern livestock production, including campaigns targeting Iowa farms.
3. Animal rights activists are deeply embedded in the campaign’s leadership and financing.
RCI reports that Bice is neither a farmer nor a meat producer and previously lobbied for Animal Wellness Action and the Humane Society Legislative Fund. The Navigation Fund is led by longtime animal advocacy leader David Coman-Hidy, while its leadership also includes a former senior vice president of Mercy For Animals.
As RCI makes clear, animal rights activists and “tech barons” are leading the fight to keep the California Prop. 12 mandate in place nationwide.
4. The network also includes a commercial interest in Proposition 12-compliant pork.
AMPA’s Maryland incorporation filing names Phil Gatto, CEO of California-based premium meat company True Story Foods, as one of its three founding directors. True Story Foods sells Proposition 12-compliant pork, identifies Russ Kremer—another farmer featured by AMPA—as a partner, and hired Bice as its Washington lobbyist.
As RCI describes it, AMPA’s public face features farmers specializing in luxury meat products, while its financial backing is tied to Silicon Valley executives.
5. The campaign’s claims of Chinese influence contrast sharply with the public record — while California consumers are paying more for pork.
AMPA and allied groups have spent millions on ads accusing pork producers and members of Congress of serving Chinese corporate interests. RCI reports that those accusations cited small, publicly disclosed contributions from HAMPAC, a federally registered political action committee funded by eligible U.S. employees of Smithfield Foods, not China. Records reviewed by RCI show Sen. Chuck Grassley has received $7,000 from HAMPAC since 2009, Sen. Roger Marshall received $1,000 in 2018 and Rep. Ashley Hinson received $1,250 in 2023 — amounts dwarfed by the tens of millions raised for the campaign attacking supporters of Save Our Bacon legislation.
Meanwhile, North Dakota State University research referenced by RCI found that pork prices in California increased an average of 20% following Proposition 12’s implementation, costing consumers an estimated $353 million while pork consumption fell 16%.
In comments to RCI, the National Pork Producers Council said, “A $30 million advertising campaign built on character attacks and misleading claims says far more about the people funding it than it does about the American farmers and members of Congress it is targeting.”
NPPC is the global voice for the U.S. pork industry, protecting the livelihoods of America’s 60,000+ pork producers who abide by ethical principles in caring for their animals, in protecting the environment and public health and in providing safe, wholesome, nutritious pork products to consumers worldwide. For more information, visit www.nppc.org.
Comments