Assembly Joint Resolution 6 is a nonbinding statement from the California Legislature that opposes recent federal reductions to the Local Food for Schools and Child Care (LFSCC) program and asks the state’s congressional delegation and the President to support renewed investment in farm-to-school purchasing. The measure records the economic and nutritional rationale for local procurement and highlights specific federal cancellations announced in March 2025.
The resolution matters because it puts the full Legislature on record about a funding decision that directly affects California school food authorities, hundreds of farms and food producers, and the state’s local food supply chain. While it creates no new state spending or legal obligations, the text assembles data points — prior USDA allocations to California, the number of school food authorities served, and an economic multiplier estimate — that frame the case for restoring federal support.
At a Glance
What It Does
AJR 6 formally opposes cuts to the Local Food for Schools and Child Care program, asks California’s Representatives in Congress to continue backing LFSCC investments, and calls on the President to work with Congress to support family farmers who supply school meals. It also directs the Assembly Chief Clerk to transmit copies of the resolution to named federal officials.
Who It Affects
Primary stakeholders named in the resolution are California school food authorities that participate in federal meal programs, local and family farmers that sell into institutional markets, and the California Department of Education as a recipient of past LFSCC allocations. The resolution also targets California’s congressional delegation and federal executive leadership as the addressees of its requests.
Why It Matters
Although not legally binding, the resolution aggregates program data and economic claims to create a formal state-level policy position intended to influence federal funding priorities and public debate about farm-to-school procurement. For policy teams and compliance officers, the resolution signals priorities California may emphasize in federal advocacy and intergovernmental engagement.
More articles like this one.
A weekly email with all the latest developments on this topic.
What This Bill Actually Does
AJR 6 is a joint resolution that compiles background facts and then issues three formal requests: oppose cuts to the Local Food for Schools and Child Care (LFSCC) program, urge California’s Members of Congress to maintain LFSCC investments, and ask the President to coordinate with Congress to support family farmers who sell locally sourced food for school meals. The bill begins with a set of “whereas” clauses that summarize the program’s purpose, California’s agricultural scale, and recent federal funding actions.
The resolution cites concrete data points: it notes that in 2022 the USDA allocated more than $23 million to California from the Commodity Credit Corporation for LFSCC, serving 319 school food authorities; it also records that on March 7, 2025, the federal administration canceled over $70 million in anticipated LFSCC funding for 2025 and more than $1 billion in related local purchase programs nationally. These figures form the factual basis for the Legislature’s call to action.Mechanically, AJR 6 does not create new programs, change state law, or obligate funding.
Its practical effect is to put the California Legislature on record and to communicate that position to federal leaders via transmittal of copies. For stakeholders in the school-food ecosystem, the text provides a concise statement that California officials can use in advocacy, grant applications, or federal discussions about restoring or replacing the lost federal support.Finally, the resolution emphasizes the economic rationale for local procurement — citing an estimate that each dollar invested in local food systems generates roughly $2.16 in additional economic activity — and frames the funding cuts as a threat to the economic viability of farms and the stability of local food systems.
The measure leaves implementation choices and budgetary trade-offs to federal authorities; it instead focuses on persuasion and intergovernmental pressure.
The Five Things You Need to Know
AJR 6 is a joint resolution (nonbinding) that formally opposes cuts to the Local Food for Schools and Child Care program rather than creating new state law or spending.
The resolution records that the USDA allocated over $23 million to California in 2022 from the Commodity Credit Corporation, supporting 319 school food authorities.
It states that on March 7, 2025, the federal administration canceled more than $70 million in anticipated LFSCC funding for 2025 and over $1 billion nationally across related local food programs.
The Legislature calls on California’s Representatives in Congress to continue supporting LFSCC investments and asks the President to work with Congress to back family farmers who supply school meals.
AJR 6 requires the Assembly Chief Clerk to transmit copies of the resolution to the President, Vice President, Speaker of the House, Senate Majority Leader, and all California Members of Congress.
Section-by-Section Breakdown
Every bill we cover gets an analysis of its key sections.
Context and data the Legislature relied on
This opening section assembles the factual record that the resolution uses to justify its requests: national school lunch participation, California’s agricultural footprint, the 2022 USDA allocation to California, and the economic multiplier cited for local food investment. Practically, these clauses do the work of framing the Legislature’s argument by pairing nutritional and economic rationales — which makes the resolution useful as advocacy material for state officials or stakeholders seeking to persuade federal lawmakers.
Formal opposition to LFSCC cuts and call to California’s congressional delegation
This operative line states the Legislature’s opposition to reductions in the LFSCC program and explicitly asks California’s Representatives in Congress to back continued investments. Because this is a resolution, the instruction is persuasive rather than compulsory: it creates a clear, public policy stance the state can cite when its officials lobby or testify before Congress.
Request that the President coordinate with Congress to support family farmers
This paragraph asks the President to work with Congress to help family farms that supply fresh, locally sourced food for school meals. The language targets executive-congressional action rather than proposing state-level alternatives or contingencies, leaving federal budget and statutory authority intact while signaling California’s preference for federal solutions to stabilizing farm-to-school markets.
Direction to transmit copies to federal leaders
The final operative line instructs the Chief Clerk of the Assembly to send the resolution to the President, Vice President, House Speaker, Senate Majority Leader, and each California Member of Congress. That transmittal both circulates the state’s position to named decisionmakers and creates a paper trail for stakeholders who want to cite the Legislature’s stance in advocacy or grant discussions.
This bill is one of many.
Codify tracks hundreds of bills on Agriculture across all five countries.
Explore Agriculture in Codify Search →Who Benefits and Who Bears the Cost
Every bill creates winners and losers. Here's who stands to gain and who bears the cost.
Who Benefits
- Family farmers and local food producers in California — the resolution explicitly advocates restoring federal purchases that provide institutional market demand and revenue streams for farms that sell to school programs.
- California school food authorities and districts that relied on LFSCC funds — the measure highlights past allocations that helped schools buy local produce, which could support continued access to locally sourced items if federal funding is reinstated.
- Rural and regional food-system businesses (processors, distributors, packers) — the resolution frames LFSCC funding as supporting jobs and downstream revenues in the local supply chain that process and move farm products into school cafeterias.
Who Bears the Cost
- Federal budget-makers and USDA program managers — the resolution pressures Congress and the Administration to reallocate or identify funds, creating a political demand without specifying funding sources or offsets.
- School food authorities facing funding gaps — if federal support is not restored, districts that had depended on LFSCC allocations may need to find alternative procurement funds or reduce local purchases, shifting budgetary pressure onto local food services.
- Small advocacy and state agency staff — the resolution increases expectations for outreach, reporting, and lobbying activities by state education and agriculture officials, which may require staff time and resources even though the bill itself has no appropriations.
Key Issues
The Core Tension
The bill pits two legitimate priorities against each other: the desire to preserve federal investment that supports local farmers, jobs, and nutritious school meals, and the practical constraints of federal budgeting and program design — funding restorations may be politically costly and, without parallel reforms to procurement and distribution, may not reach the small producers the resolution aims to help.
AJR 6 is an advocacy instrument, not an implementation plan. Its central effect is reputational and political: it aggregates background data and transmits a request to federal officials, but it does not identify funding sources, statutory fixes, or state-level contingencies if the federal funds are not restored.
That gap matters in practice because stakeholders who rely on LFSCC — school districts, small farmers, distributors — need operational certainty and cashflow, not just statements of support.
The resolution relies on contested empirical claims (for example, the $2.16 economic multiplier per dollar invested in local food systems) and on figures about cancelled funding that will be debated in federal budget and administrative contexts. It also does not address procurement barriers that often keep small farms out of institutional markets: contracting rules, insurance requirements, food safety standards, and distribution logistics.
Restoring grant funding may be necessary but not sufficient to scale local procurement; operational frictions could blunt the intended economic or nutritional benefits and in some cases favor larger producers who can meet institutional contracting demands.
Try it yourself.
Ask a question in plain English, or pick a topic below. Results in seconds.