The USDA pulled the plug on two big programs to help schools and food banks buy fresh food from local farms, abruptly stopping over $1 billion in federal spending.
The move has drawn an outcry from state officials and food security advocates who say that such cuts would be as devastating to struggling families as they would to small farmers.
What Just Got Cut?
The USDA officially shut down two programs:
- LFS Cooperative Agreement Program: The program discussed funding available for schools and child care institutions to acquire fresh food items directly from local farmers.
- Local Food Purchase Assistance (LFPA) Cooperative Agreement Program: The program funded food banks and other feeding organizations for the purchase of locally produced food.
Taken together, these programs were designed to make food supply chains more resilient by ending the reliance on giant food companies and instead focusing on fresh, locally grown produce. The Biden administration had expanded them in previous years as part of an ambitious vision to make the food system more resilient while helping to create economic opportunities for local farmers.
But last Friday, state officials learned those programs would not be funded in 2025. The USDA’s rationale? Programs designed under executive authority during the previous administration “no longer effectuate the goals of the agency.”
The Immediate Aftermath
These cuts will have wide – ranging impacts. Here’s what hangs in the balance:
- Schools Lose Fresh Food Funding: About $660 million that schools and child care centers had counted on to purchase locally grown food has been cut. That money had already been included in school nutrition officials’ meal budgets, so some districts may now have to make tough choices about sourcing or raise meal prices.
- Food Banks Take a Hit: The LFPA program, which gave vital funding to food banks, is also eliminated. Food insecurity has started to rise along with inflation, and organizations that depend on federal support to feed those in need will now have to scramble for alternatives.
- Local Farmers Lose a Major Buyer: Programs like this have been a source of dependable income for many small and mid-sized farms. Without them, some may struggle to sell their products-especially those lacking larger distribution networks.
Political Reactions & Controversy
Already, the decision has raised a political firestorm as lawmakers and state officials have criticized it.
Massachusetts Governor Maura Healey didn’t mince words, calling the decision a direct attack on school nutrition and local agriculture.
“Donald Trump and Elon Musk have said that feeding kids and supporting local farmers aren’t ‘priorities’ anymore, and it’s just the latest terrible cut with real impact on families across Massachusetts,” Healey said in a statement.
Critics, however, counter that such cuts come at a time when food insecurity and the costs of food remain high. Inflation may be cooling overall, but many families struggle to put meals on the table. Meanwhile, schools have been warning for months that federal meal reimbursements are not keeping up with rising costs, making this funding cut even harder to swallow.
On the other hand, supporters of the ruling said the programs were never intended to be permanent, and USDA should focus on more general food policy measures rather than what they see as temporary pandemic-era programs. But that will do little to comfort the school districts and food banks who are suddenly being hit with funding gaps.
What’s Next?
Grants outstanding, which were under the LFPA program and for which funds remain unexpended, remain active but will not be further funded. States and local groups will need to look elsewhere for support. Some school districts may resort to state governments for emergency funding, and yet there is no guarantee that states will have the capacity to fill the gap.
In turn, food banks may have to rely even more on private donations, further stretching their resources. For local farmers who have built business plans around these programs, this could mean an abrupt pivot; others might be forced to sell for lower prices, or cut production entirely.
Bigger Picture: What This Says About U.S. Food Policy
The decision to kill these programs speaks to a bigger debate over how the federal government approaches food security and agriculture policy. While the USDA still operates gigantic programs such as the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program-more commonly known as SNAP, or food stamps-this move away from direct-to-consumer purchasing of local foods suggests a system of large-scale food distribution over support for small farms.
It also raises serious questions about the future of federal support for such initiatives. Many schools and local organizations have worked hard to forge relationships with small farmers, which now stand to be upended. In all, major upheaval for schools, food banks, and farmers is in store, now that the USDA axed more than $1 billion in local food funding.
With no clear alternative funding ready, the impact will likely be felt across the country as states scramble to adjust. Whether it’s a course correction or a gut punch to food security efforts depends on what, if anything, replaces these programs in the future.
- Dolly’s Locations in Cincinnati and Dayton Closing Early Ahead of Final Day - October 24, 2025
- National Guard Deployment to San Francisco Put on Hold After Trump Talks With Tech Leaders - October 24, 2025
- Mayor Eric Adams Backs Andrew Cuomo to Halt Zohran Mamdani’s Rise in NYC Race - October 24, 2025
