A wave of massive funding changes to school meal programs is sending shockwaves through districts across the country.
The Trump administration, in collaboration with Elon Musk’s Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE), recently announced the termination of critical USDA nutrition programs — moves that school nutrition leaders say will devastate access to healthy meals and local produce for millions of students.
The abrupt elimination of the $660 million Local Food for Schools (LFS) program and the FY25 Patrick Leahy Farm to School Grant Program cuts off a vital lifeline for schools working to feed children amid rising food costs.
These cuts have landed just as the School Nutrition Association (SNA) intensifies its lobbying efforts to preserve meal funding on Capitol Hill.
At the forefront of the opposition to proposed federal cuts is the School Nutrition Association (SNA), which represents 50,000 school meal professionals nationwide. The organization continues to press Congress to reject the budget reconciliation measures that threaten to undermine school meal programs.
In its 2025 Position Paper, the SNA outlines the far-reaching consequences these cuts would have on student health, local economies, and the long-term sustainability of meal services.
Among the proposals being considered are raising the threshold for the Community Eligibility Provision (CEP) from 25% to 60%, which would eliminate universal free meal access for over 24,000 schools and 12 million students; mandating income verification for every application, a move expected to increase administrative burdens and delay benefits for eligible families; and eliminating Broad-Based Categorical Eligibility (BBCE), which could deny automatic meal access to nearly 1 million students currently eligible through SNAP enrollment.
“School meals are a smart investment in the health and future of America’s children,” said SNA President Shannon Gleave, RDN, SNS. “Cash-strapped programs cannot bear the administrative burdens and financial gaps these cuts would impose.”
On the heels of these proposals came a second blow: the USDA’s decision to cancel FY25 applications for the Patrick Leahy Farm to School Grant Program, eliminating another $5 million in funding that supported school gardens, taste testing events, and local produce sourcing efforts.
“Farm to School grants foster community partnerships that support immersive learning,” Gleave said. “They educate students about where food comes from and encourage them to consume a variety of fresh, local options in school.”
This move was part of a broader USDA strategy to “return to long-term, fiscally responsible initiatives,” according to administration officials. But critics argue that dismantling successful, community-focused programs in the name of austerity does more harm than good.
These developments arrived on the heels of the SNA’s 53rd Annual Legislative Action Conference, held March 9–11 in Washington, DC. There, more than 850 school nutrition professionals gathered to urge lawmakers to increase funding and protect meal access.
The conference featured panel discussions on rising costs, administrative burdens, and threats to CEP. Advocacy culminated in direct meetings with legislators, where nutrition directors shared real-world stories of struggling to maintain meal quality amid inflation and staffing shortages.
“The proposals on the table will only widen the gap between what students need and what schools can afford to provide,” Gleave noted during the conference.
The loss of LFS and Farm to School funding isn’t just about lunch trays — it’s about livelihoods. The LFS program, funded during the pandemic, allowed districts to buy food directly from local farms and ranchers, boosting both nutrition and local economies.
One Arizona district reported losing $100,000 earmarked for fresh beef and vegetables, wiping out its ability to support regional farmers. “It’s a pretty big hit,” said nutrition director Patti Bilbrey. “It wasn’t just about keeping food costs low— it meant supporting your community.”
In Arkansas, a rural district used its grant to serve ground beef sourced locally, yielding better-tasting meals with less shrinkage and fewer additives. The district’s director, Amanda West, emphasized the ripple effect of these programs: “It helped a lot of districts, including mine. And it would be amazing if we could get it back.”
The ripple effects extend beyond schools. Food banks nationwide relied on USDA local food programs to supplement donations with high-quality goods — peanut butter with jelly, pasta with sauce. Now, with cuts to the Local Food Purchase Assistance Cooperative Agreement, many will be forced to scale back or turn to cheaper, processed alternatives.
“We’ll have to ration what little we have,” said Eric Cooper, CEO of the San Antonio Food Bank, which lost nearly $3 million in anticipated funding.
A recent SNA survey found that 80% of school districts say federal reimbursements don’t cover their meal costs. As prices for food, equipment, and labor soar, programs are facing existential threats.
In the face of these cascading cuts, the SNA is doubling down on its call for bipartisan action to safeguard school meals. They warn that without intervention, the nation risks undoing years of progress toward nutritional equity.
“The programs being cut are the very ones that help students learn how to eat well,” said Gleave. “They’re foundational. And when we dismantle them, we’re not just hurting today’s lunch menu — we’re jeopardizing long-term health outcomes.”
The Trump-Musk administration insists these cuts are part of a return to “fiscal responsibility.” But school districts, food banks, and advocates argue that the programs being eliminated delivered measurable results and addressed real community needs.
As Congress weighs its budget priorities, the voices of school nutrition professionals grow louder. Their message is clear: Feeding children isn’t wasteful spending — it’s an investment in the future.
