Local Farmers Feeding our Communities Act
- Sponsor
- Rep. Bresnahan, Robert P. [R-PA-8]
- Committees
- Agriculture Committee (primary)
- Last action
- Jan 13, 2026
Bottom line
The bill creates a new, federally funded program within the USDA to bolster local food economies and enhance food security by channeling funds to state, local, and tribal entities for the procurement and distribution of locally sourced agricultural products.
What it actually does
This bill directs the Secretary of Agriculture to establish a new program, the 'Local Farmers Feeding our Communities Program,' which will enter into noncompetitive cooperative agreements with eligible State, local, or Tribal governments. These agreements will provide funds for these entities to purchase unprocessed or minimally processed local foods from covered producers, with a mandate that at least 25 percent of purchases come from small-size, mid-size, beginning, or veteran farmers or ranchers. The purchased foods are then distributed to organizations with food distribution experience to improve access to healthy and nutritious food, while also providing technical assistance to local producers and strengthening local food systems.
Proponents argue
Proponents argue that this bill will significantly strengthen local and regional food systems, providing vital economic opportunities for farmers and ranchers, particularly small, mid-size, beginning, and veteran producers. They contend it will improve food security by ensuring fresh, nutritious foods reach communities through established distribution networks, fostering more resilient and localized food supply chains less susceptible to national disruptions. Furthermore, supporters believe the technical assistance component will help producers meet food safety standards and grow their businesses.
Opponents contend
Opponents might raise concerns about the potential for administrative overhead and inefficiencies in establishing and managing numerous cooperative agreements with diverse eligible entities. They could argue that directing federal funds specifically to 'local' food purchases might distort market dynamics or be less cost-effective than existing large-scale food procurement and distribution programs. Some might also question the definition of 'local' (up to 400 miles) as being too broad, potentially diluting the intended benefits for truly hyper-local economies, or express concerns about the capacity of smaller eligible entities to manage the program effectively.
The bill is short and straightforward, making it accessible for a quick read and evaluation by an informed reader.
Section 2(a)
Establishment of Local Farmers Feeding our Communities Program
This provision directs the Secretary of Agriculture to create a program where the USDA enters into cooperative agreements with State, local, or Tribal governments. These agreements are noncompetitive and aim to support local producers, build partnerships for food distribution, and strengthen local and regional food security and systems. Essentially, it's the foundational authority for the entire program.
Supporters argue
Proponents argue that establishing this program is crucial for creating a dedicated federal mechanism to invest in local food systems, which are often overlooked by larger agricultural programs. They contend that noncompetitive agreements streamline the process for eligible entities to access funds, ensuring quicker implementation and direct support where it's needed most.
Critics contend
Critics might argue that noncompetitive agreements could lead to less scrutiny in fund allocation and potentially less efficient use of taxpayer dollars compared to a competitive grant process. They might also suggest that creating a new program adds to bureaucratic complexity rather than streamlining existing efforts.
Tradeoffs
The tension lies between the desire for efficient, direct funding to local entities (favored by noncompetitive agreements) and the potential for increased accountability and broader participation that a competitive process might offer.
Section 2(b)
Use of Funds for Local Food Purchases and Distribution
This section specifies how the funds from the cooperative agreements must be used. Eligible entities must purchase unprocessed or minimally processed local foods from 'covered producers' and distribute these foods to organizations experienced in food distribution to improve access to healthy food. A key requirement is that at least 25 percent of the total annual value of purchased products must come from small-size, mid-size, beginning, or veteran farmers or ranchers. Funds can also be used for technical assistance to producers and to grow the local agricultural value chain.
Section 2(c)
Limitation on Administrative and Technical Assistance Funds
This section caps the amount of funds an eligible entity can use for administrative expenses and technical assistance at 25 percent of the total amount received through a cooperative agreement. Furthermore, it mandates that at least 50 percent of that 25 percent (meaning 12.5% of the total funds) must be specifically used for technical assistance to covered local producers and efforts to grow the local agricultural value chain. This ensures a significant portion of the non-food purchase funds directly supports producer development.
Section 2(e)
Funding Allocation Formula
This provision outlines how the Secretary of Agriculture must allocate funds made available for the program each fiscal year. First, 10 percent of the total funds are allocated to Tribal governments using a formula determined by the Secretary. Second, after the Tribal allocation, 1 percent of the remaining funds is allocated to each State (excluding Tribal governments). Finally, the remaining amounts are allocated to other eligible entities (non-Tribal governments) by applying the formula described in section 214 of the Emergency Food Assistance Act of 1983 (7 U.S.C. 7515).
Section 2(g)
Mandatory and Authorized Funding
This section provides the funding for the program. It mandates that $200,000,000 from the funds of the Commodity Credit Corporation (CCC) be used annually for fiscal year 2026 and each fiscal year thereafter to carry out the program. In addition, it authorizes the appropriation of $200,000,000 for each of fiscal years 2026 through 2030, with these authorized funds remaining available until expended. This dual funding mechanism provides both a baseline of guaranteed funding and the potential for additional appropriations.
The definition of 'covered producer' includes a geographic limitation: the producer must be within the eligible entity's boundaries or not more than 400 miles from the food's delivery destination.
Section 2(f)(2)
Why it matters:This is standard legislative practice for defining terms that apply throughout a section, though the specific mileage is a substantive policy choice.
Case for: Proponents argue that a 400-mile radius is a practical definition of 'local' for many regions, allowing for sufficient producer diversity and scale while still supporting regional economies and reducing transportation footprints. It provides flexibility for states with sparse agricultural production or large geographic areas.
Case against: Critics might contend that 400 miles is too broad to genuinely qualify as 'local' in many contexts, potentially allowing large-scale, distant producers to benefit from a program intended for smaller, truly local operations. They might argue for a stricter mileage or in-state requirement to maximize local economic impact.
Estimated impact: This definition significantly shapes which producers are eligible to participate in the program, influencing the geographic scope of economic benefits and the types of food systems supported.
After specific allocations to Tribal governments and each State, the remaining funds are allocated to other eligible entities (non-Tribal governments) by applying the formula described in section 214 of the Emergency Food Assistance Act of 1983 (7 U.S.C. 7515).
Section 2(e)(3)
Why it matters:Referencing existing law is standard legislative drafting practice to avoid reprinting lengthy statutory text and to leverage established mechanisms, but it makes the bill less self-contained.
Case for: Proponents argue that using the TEFAP formula (which considers poverty and unemployment rates) ensures that a significant portion of the funds are directed to areas with the greatest need for food assistance, aligning the program's goals with existing federal efforts to combat food insecurity. It also leverages a familiar and established allocation mechanism.
Case against: Critics might argue that while the TEFAP formula is suitable for emergency food assistance, it may not be the optimal formula for a program focused on building local food economies and supporting local producers. They might suggest that a formula more directly tied to agricultural production capacity, farmer demographics, or local food system development metrics would be more appropriate.
Estimated impact: This formula determines the distribution of the majority of the program's funds to non-Tribal eligible entities, significantly influencing which states and localities receive the most resources for local food purchasing and distribution.