The STORE Act of 2025 overhauls the Emergency Food Assistance Program infrastructure grants to better serve rural communities. It shifts eligibility to state-designated agencies, broadens the permitted uses of grant funds to include distribution and mobile delivery, and expands preferences to Tribal, low-income, and remote communities.
It also raises funding and imposes a cap on administrative costs. In addition, the bill requires a national study on cold-storage infrastructure and refrigerated transport needs with a modest initial appropriation.
The combined provisions aim to improve the capacity of food banks and pantries to store, transport, and deliver food to people in need, particularly in underserved areas, while improving oversight and accountability across the program.
At a Glance
What It Does
Section 2 rewrites EFAP infrastructure grants: designates the State agency named in the state plan as recipient, renames a grant category to “PREFERENCE,” adds “Tribal, low income, and remote” communities, broadens allowable uses (including mobile/home delivery) and updates language to emphasize distribution efficiency and inter-organizational collaboration. It also caps administrative costs at 10% and increases funding to $25 million annually from 2026–2030. Section 3 requires a two-year study by the Secretary of Agriculture on refrigerated storage and transport needs, with a $1 million appropriation.
Who It Affects
State agencies administering EFAP grants; emergency food organizations (food banks and pantries); Tribal governments and Tribal nonprofit partners; rural and underserved communities; logistics and transportation providers supporting refrigerated storage and mobile delivery.
Why It Matters
Redesigning grant eligibility and expanding uses should improve the reach and speed of food distribution in rural areas. The funding uplift coupled with a cap on admin costs aims to maximize on-the-ground impact while preserving program integrity. The national storage and transport study will quantify gaps and cost, guiding future investments.
More articles like this one.
A weekly email with all the latest developments on this topic.
What This Bill Actually Does
The STORE Act of 2025 is designed to make emergency food assistance infrastructure more capable of serving rural communities. It changes who administers EFAP infrastructure grants by requiring the state-designated agency in each state’s plan to be the grant recipient and introducing a formal preference for Tribal, low-income, and remote communities.
The bill also redefines how grants can be used, moving toward support for efficient distribution and outreach activities, including the expansion of mobile and home-delivery options and the inclusion of collaborations with governmental and Tribal entities.
The Five Things You Need to Know
The grant-issuing entity changes from a broad category to the State agency designated by state plans.
The bill adds a guaranteed preference for Tribal, low-income, and remote communities.
Grants may now fund activities aimed at expanding mobile and home-delivery capabilities.
Administrative costs for each grant are capped at 10%.
Annual EFAP infrastructure funding rises to $25 million for 2026–2030.
Section-by-Section Breakdown
Every bill we cover gets an analysis of its key sections.
Improvements to EFAP Infrastructure Grants
This section amends Section 209 of the Emergency Food Assistance Act of 1983. It replaces the original recipient with the state-designated agency and renames the grant category to “PREFERENCE.” It adds Tribal, low-income, and remote communities to the priority groups, broadens the grant purposes to include distribution activities and outreach assessments, and expands allowable partnerships to governmental and Tribal nonprofits. It also introduces a cap of 10% on administrative costs and modifies the cost language to support expansion of mobile and home-delivery options. Finally, it raises the annual authorization to $25 million for 2026–2030.
National Cold Storage Needs Report
Requires the Secretary of Agriculture to conduct a two-year study and produce a nationwide assessment of shortages in refrigerated storage, refrigerated trucks, and other delivery vehicles used by emergency food organizations. The study defines shortages in terms of meeting total emergency food needs and projects costs to address these gaps, with a $1 million appropriation to support the effort. The definition of emergency food organization remains tied to the EFAP framework, ensuring alignment with existing programs.
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
- State agencies administering EFAP grants gain clearer authority and state-aligned processes for distributing funds.
- Emergency food organizations (food banks and pantries) receive more funding and a broader set of eligible activities to improve storage and delivery.
- Tribal governments and Tribal nonprofit partners gain preferential access to grants and opportunities to participate in expanded distributions.
- Rural and underserved communities benefit from expanded delivery options and more reliable food access.
- Logistics providers and equipment suppliers may see increased demand for cold storage upgrades and refrigerated transport.
Who Bears the Cost
- State agencies will incur administrative responsibilities to implement expanded grant rules and reporting.
- Emergency food organizations may face up-front costs to adopt new storage and delivery capabilities guided by the grants.
- Tribal governments and Tribal partners may need to align with updated grant processes and reporting requirements.
- The federal budget must accommodate higher annual appropriations for EFAP infrastructure (2026–2030).
- Suppliers of refrigeration equipment and refrigerated transport may experience demand shifts and capital investment requirements.
Key Issues
The Core Tension
Balancing targeted equity and state-level administration with the need for rapid, scalable deployment of funds and robust oversight; ensuring the admin cost cap does not undercut program management while expanding access and capacity; and using the study results to justify ongoing investments without stalling progress due to budgetary or bureaucratic hurdles.
The bill’s shifts in grant administration and expanded use cases introduce new administrative demands and potential implementation delays as programs adjust to the state-based model and expanded partners. While the admin cost cap is designed to prevent excessive overhead, it could constrain staffing and oversight if grant activity grows rapidly.
The targeted preferences for Tribal, low-income, and remote communities are laudable for equity, but they require careful implementation to ensure funding reaches the intended beneficiaries and that states do not deprioritize other eligible communities. The two-year storage and transport study is a useful planning tool, but its usefulness hinges on timely completion and subsequent action if gaps are found.
Try it yourself.
Ask a question in plain English, or pick a topic below. Results in seconds.