%20(1).png)
In a move that has sparked widespread concern, the Trump administration has
frozen over $1 billion in federal funding aimed at supporting local schools, food
banks, and low-income families. The decision, which affects two critical programs
—the Local Food for Schools (LFS) initiative and the Local Food Purchase
Assistance Cooperative Agreement Program (LFPA)—has left state officials,
nutrition advocates, and families scrambling to address the sudden shortfall. With
rising food costs and increasing reliance on food assistance programs, this cut
threatens to exacerbate food insecurity across the United States.
The Cuts: What Happened and Why?
The U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) recently notified multiple states that
funding for the LFS and LFPA programs would be terminated. These programs,
initially launched under the Biden administration, were designed to strengthen
local food systems by supporting schools, childcare institutions, and food banks in
purchasing fresh produce from local farmers. The goal was twofold: to provide
nutritious meals to vulnerable populations and to bolster regional agricultural
economies.
According to the School Nutrition Association (SNA), more than 40 states had
signed agreements to participate in the LFS program in previous years. However,
the Trump administration has decided to halt the program for the current fiscal
year, citing a shift in agency priorities. A USDA spokesperson confirmed that the
funding, announced last October, “is no longer available,” and existing agreements
will be terminated following a 60-day notification period.
The spokesperson added, “These programs, created under the former
Administration via Executive authority, no longer align with the goals of the
agency.” While existing LFPA agreements with substantial remaining funds will
continue, no additional funding will be allocated for fiscal year 2025.
The Impact on Schools and Food Banks
The freeze on these programs comes at a time when schools and food banks are
already struggling to meet the growing demand for food assistance. Rising food
costs, exacerbated by inflation and supply chain disruptions, have made it
increasingly difficult for institutions to provide affordable, nutritious meals. The
LFS program, for example, was expected to allocate $660 million in 2025 to
support childcare institutions and schools in purchasing locally sourced food. This
funding would have helped build a more resilient food supply chain, emphasizing
purchases from historically underserved producers.
Similarly, the LFPA program, which supports food banks and organizations serving
underserved communities, was slated to receive $420 million in federal funds for
2025. The program’s cancellation leaves a significant gap in resources for food
banks, which have seen a surge in demand as more families turn to them to
supplement their grocery budgets.
Massachusetts Governor Maura Healey, a Democrat, criticized the decision, noting
that her state would lose $12 million in funding intended for school districts.
“Donald Trump and Elon Musk have declared that feeding children and supporting
local farmers are no longer ‘priorities,’” Healey said in a statement. “It’s just the
latest terrible cut with real impact on families across Massachusetts.”
A Broader Context: Food Insecurity and Rising Costs
The Trump administration’s decision to freeze these programs underscores a
broader issue: the growing challenge of food insecurity in the United States.
According to Feeding America, one in eight Americans—including millions of
children—struggles with hunger. The COVID-19 pandemic exacerbated this crisis,
and while federal relief efforts provided temporary support, many families
continue to face financial strain.
Rising food costs have further compounded the problem. Over the past few years,
grocery prices have surged, driven by factors such as inflation, labor shortages,
and supply chain disruptions. For schools and food banks, which operate on tight
budgets, these increases have made it difficult to maintain the same level of
service. The LFS and LFPA programs were designed to address these challenges by
providing much-needed funding and promoting local food systems.
Political Reactions and Public Outcry
The decision to freeze funding has drawn sharp criticism from lawmakers, advocacy
groups, and the public. Many argue that the cuts will disproportionately affect low-
income families, children, and small-scale farmers who rely on these programs for
their livelihoods.
“This is a devastating blow to communities that are already struggling,” said Diane
Pratt-Heavner, spokesperson for the School Nutrition Association. “Schools and
food banks are on the front lines of fighting hunger, and this decision undermines
their efforts.”
Some critics have also pointed to the timing of the cuts, which come as schools are
preparing for the upcoming academic year. Without the LFS program, many
schools may be forced to reduce the quality or quantity of meals they provide,
potentially leaving children without access to nutritious food.
What’s Next for Schools and Food Banks?
With the loss of federal funding, states and local organizations are now exploring
alternative solutions to address the shortfall. Some states may seek to reallocate
existing resources or secure additional funding through state budgets. However,
these efforts are unlikely to fully compensate for the $1 billion in federal aid that
has been frozen.
Advocates are also calling on Congress to intervene and restore funding for the LFS
and LFPA programs. “These programs are essential for ensuring that children have
access to healthy meals and that local farmers have a stable market for their
products,” said Pratt-Heavner. “We urge lawmakers to take action and prioritize the
needs of vulnerable communities.”
A Call to Action
The Trump administration’s decision to freeze $1 billion in food aid has far-
reaching implications for schools, food banks, and low-income families across the
country. As food insecurity continues to rise, the need for robust federal support
has never been greater. While the immediate future remains uncertain, one thing is
clear: the fight against hunger requires sustained investment and a commitment to
building resilient, equitable food systems.
For now, the focus remains on finding solutions to mitigate the impact of these cuts
and ensuring that no family is left behind. As Governor Healey aptly put it, “There
is nothing ‘appropriate’ about withholding essential funding. Our children, farmers,
and small businesses deserve better.”
