Farm to School Act of 2025
- Sponsor
- Sen. Welch, Peter [D-VT]
- Committees
- Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry Committee (primary)
- Last action
- Nov 6, 2025
Bottom line
The bill aims to substantially boost the federal Farm to School program, increasing its funding, expanding its reach to more educational institutions and activities, and making it more accessible, especially for Tribal communities and small-scale agricultural producers.
What it actually does
This bill reauthorizes and significantly expands the Patrick Leahy Farm to School Program under the Richard B. Russell National School Lunch Act. It triples the authorized annual funding from $5 million to $15 million, broadens the definition of eligible institutions to include land-grant colleges, and expands eligible activities to include research, evaluation, and educational activities. The bill also introduces flexibilities for matching requirements, particularly for Tribal agencies, and prioritizes projects that serve socially disadvantaged children and incorporate traditional foods from Tribal agricultural producers.
Proponents argue
Supporters argue that this bill strengthens a vital program that connects schools with local food sources, improves child nutrition, supports local economies, and provides valuable agricultural education. They emphasize that the increased funding and expanded scope will allow more communities, particularly underserved ones, to benefit from healthier food options and stronger local food systems.
Opponents contend
No specific organized opposition is typically raised against reauthorizing and expanding the Farm to School program, which generally enjoys bipartisan support. Potential concerns, if any, might revolve around the increased federal spending or administrative burden, though these are usually minor for this type of program given its relatively small scale.
The bill is concise and easily digestible, allowing for a quick and comprehensive understanding of its provisions.
Section 2(1) and (2) amending Section 18(g)(1) and (2)
Broadening Program Definitions and Eligible Institutions
This provision expands the definition of 'eligible institution' to include land-grant colleges and universities, alongside existing entities like schools. It also formally defines 'farm to school program' to encompass planting/maintenance of farms/gardens, procurement from local agricultural producers, and educational activities related to agriculture, nutrition, or food. The program's overall scope is expanded to include 'research and evaluation' in addition to grants and technical assistance.
Supporters argue
Supporters argue that including land-grant colleges and explicitly defining program activities will clarify and strengthen the program, allowing for more comprehensive and impactful farm-to-school initiatives across a wider educational spectrum.
Critics contend
No specific opposition is typically raised against expanding definitions to be more inclusive and explicit for a beneficial program.
Tradeoffs
The bill balances broad inclusion with targeted impact, aiming to ensure new eligible institutions align with the core mission of connecting local food to students.
Section 2(4) amending Section 18(g)(3)
Enhanced Grant Activities and Flexible Award Structure
This provision explicitly adds 'implementing educational activities relating to agriculture, nutrition, or food' as an allowable use for grant funds. It also modifies the grant award structure by setting a maximum of $500,000 per recipient and a term limit of 3 years. The Secretary is directed to make awards of diverse amounts and durations to best match project scope. Furthermore, the bill prohibits grants from being used solely for conferences and emphasizes improving local food procurement and distribution, including innovative approaches to aggregation, processing, transportation, and distribution.
Section 2(5) amending Section 18(g)(4)
Flexible Matching Requirements for High-Priority Projects and Tribal Agencies
This provision grants the Secretary the authority to waive or modify the non-Federal matching requirement for projects that meet specific high-priority criteria, aiming to reduce application barriers. Additionally, it permits Tribal agencies to use funds provided to their Indian Tribe through other Federal agencies (such as the Indian Health Service) to satisfy all or part of their non-Federal matching share, provided that such use is consistent with the original purpose of those federal funds.
Section 2(6) amending Section 18(g)(5)
Expanded Priority for Experiential Education, Local Commodities, and Tribal Foods
This provision expands the criteria for projects receiving highest priority under the program. New priorities include projects that incorporate experiential, traditional, and culturally appropriate food, nutrition, or agricultural education activities, and those that serve a high proportion of children from socially disadvantaged backgrounds. It also prioritizes projects that expand the selection of local commodities for eligible institutions and identify and address chronic diet-related health issues. Crucially, it adds a specific highest priority for projects serving Tribal communities that incorporate products, including traditional foods, from Tribal agricultural producers.
Section 2(7) amending Section 18(g)(7)
Enhanced Technical Assistance, Research, and Mandated Regulatory Review
This provision expands the Secretary's mandate to include 'research' in addition to technical assistance and information provided to program stakeholders. It also requires the Secretary to conduct a review and submit a report to Congress every three years, detailing progress in identifying and eliminating regulatory and other barriers to farm-to-school programs. This review must specifically examine direct and indirect regulatory compliance costs, barriers to local and regional market access for small-scale and Tribal producers, and obstacles to funding high-priority and Tribal projects.
Section 2(8) and (9) amending Section 18(g)(8) and (9)
Tripled Funding Authorization and Reauthorization Period
This provision significantly increases the authorized annual appropriation for the Farm to School program from $5,000,000 to $15,000,000. It also establishes a cap, allowing not more than 5 percent of these funds to be used for administrative costs incurred by the Secretary. The program is reauthorized for a period covering fiscal years 2026 through 2031.
Allows Tribal agencies to use funds provided to the Indian Tribe through other Federal agencies (e.g., Indian Health Service) to satisfy the non-Federal matching share for farm-to-school grants, provided the use is consistent with the original purpose of those funds.
Section 2(5)(D)
Why it matters:This is standard legislative practice to include specific exceptions or flexibilities within broader rules to address unique circumstances of certain groups.
Case for: Supporters argue this provision is crucial for reducing financial barriers for Tribal communities, enabling them to access farm-to-school funding more easily by leveraging existing federal resources without needing new local matching funds.
Case against: Some might express concerns about the principle of 'federal funds matching federal funds,' though the bill's requirement for consistency with the original purpose of the funds mitigates potential misuse.
Estimated impact: Potentially significant for Tribal communities, enabling more projects that might otherwise be financially unfeasible due to matching fund requirements.
Mandates that the Secretary's triennial report on barriers to farm-to-school programs specifically examine direct and indirect regulatory compliance costs, barriers to local and regional market access for small-scale and Tribal production, and barriers to funding high-priority and Tribal projects.
Section 2(7)(B)(ii)
Why it matters:This is standard legislative practice for specifying the detailed scope and focus of mandated reports, ensuring the agency addresses particular concerns identified by Congress.
Case for: Proponents argue that these specific mandates ensure the review is comprehensive and targeted at the most pressing issues affecting program implementation and equity, leading to more effective policy recommendations.
Case against: No specific opposition, but some might view such detailed mandates as potentially burdensome for the agency, requiring significant resources to thoroughly investigate each specified area.
Estimated impact: Could lead to significant policy changes and regulatory relief for producers and institutions if barriers are effectively identified and addressed, potentially streamlining operations and reducing costs.