The Farm to School Act of 2025 amends Section 18(g) of the Richard B. Russell National School Lunch Act to reauthorize the federal farm to school program, modernize the program’s scope, and direct USDA to expand support services.
The bill replaces older program text with a clearer statutory definition of a “farm to school program” and broadens who can participate and receive assistance.
The change refocuses the program on three activities—on-site farming/gardens, procurement of local foods, and educational activities—and directs USDA to use grants, technical assistance, research, and evaluation to improve local procurement and distribution. The measure also builds in explicit priorities for Tribal communities and requires the department to identify and address regulatory barriers to local sourcing and Tribal participation.
At a Glance
What It Does
The bill creates a statutory definition of 'farm to school program,' directs USDA to award grants and deliver technical assistance, and authorizes USDA to fund projects that improve aggregation, processing, transportation, and distribution of local foods. It instructs the department to prioritize projects that serve Tribal communities and supports experiential food and agriculture education.
Who It Affects
School food authorities and eligible institutions (expanded to include land-grant colleges and universities), local and Tribal agricultural producers and producer groups, nonprofit partners, and USDA's program offices that administer grants, technical assistance, and research. Small-scale producers and regional processors seeking school contracts will be especially affected.
Why It Matters
The bill shifts the program from narrowly supporting procurement to a broader, infrastructure-aware approach that explicitly targets Tribal communities and small producers. Agencies and applicants will need to adapt to new application priorities, expanded technical-assistance expectations, and a new reporting requirement aimed at removing regulatory barriers.
More articles like this one.
A weekly email with all the latest developments on this topic.
What This Bill Actually Does
The bill re-frames the federal farm to school program around three core activities: establishing and maintaining farms or gardens connected to institutions, procuring food from local agricultural producers (including fish), and running educational activities tied to agriculture, nutrition, or food. It sets these activities out in statute so USDA has clear authority to fund them and to describe what counts as eligible programming.
It also widens the set of entities the program can serve. The statutory definition now explicitly includes land-grant colleges and universities alongside schools and nonprofit organizations, and it defines 'agricultural producer' to encompass farmers, ranchers, and fishers, including farm-raised fish.
That change is meant to put higher education partners and a broader set of producers squarely inside the program’s remit for training, research, and partnership projects.On the grant side the bill retools award objectives: USDA must prioritize projects that improve local procurement and distribution, and it may fund activities that address aggregation, processing, transportation, and distribution constraints that typically block small or regional suppliers from serving school markets. The statute requires award diversity to match project scope and purpose and bars grants whose only use is to host conferences.The bill builds procedural and equity-focused mechanisms into the program.
USDA can waive or modify matching requirements to reduce barriers for high-priority projects and must publish the waiver process. For Tribal projects it creates an explicit priority pathway and allows Tribal agencies, under certain conditions, to count other federal benefits as the non-Federal share.
Finally, the statute directs USDA to provide technical assistance and to review regulatory and funding barriers and report to Congress at regular intervals so the department can identify persistent obstacles to scaling farm-to-school activity.
The Five Things You Need to Know
The statute defines a 'farm to school program' to include (i) planting and maintaining farms or gardens, (ii) local procurement from agricultural producers, and (iii) educational activities about agriculture, nutrition, or food.
A single grant recipient may receive up to $500,000 per award, and the maximum award term is 3 years; the Secretary must seek a mix of award sizes and durations tied to project scope.
USDA may waive or modify match requirements to lower application barriers and may allow Tribal agencies to use other federal funds or benefits as all or part of the non-Federal share when consistent with those funds’ purposes.
The bill gives highest priority to farm to school projects that serve Tribal communities and that incorporate Tribal agricultural products and traditional foods into school and early childhood programs.
It increases the program's funding authorization to $15,000,000 (up from $5,000,000 in prior text) and caps USDA administrative spending on the program at 5% of those funds; it also requires a report to Congress about regulatory and market barriers within one year and every three years thereafter.
Section-by-Section Breakdown
Every bill we cover gets an analysis of its key sections.
New statutory definitions for program terms
The bill inserts a compact definitions block. 'Agricultural producer' now covers farmers, ranchers, and fishers (explicitly including farm-raised fish). 'Eligible institution' is left to the Secretary but the amendment adds land-grant colleges and universities to the list of potential partners elsewhere. Most consequential is the new statutory definition of 'farm to school program,' which anchors the program to three discrete activities—farms/gardens, local procurement, and education—giving USDA clear statutory permission to fund and evaluate that mix of activities.
Broader list of partners and expanded uses of funds
The bill expands the named partners to include land-grant colleges and universities alongside schools, nonprofits, and State/Tribal/local agencies and replaces the old 'grants and technical assistance' language with 'grants, technical assistance, research, and evaluation.' That shifts the program toward evidence-building as well as project funding. The grant purposes explicitly include support for distribution solutions—aggregation, processing, transport—as well as training and education tied to food and agriculture.
Funding for aggregation/processing and new award rules
USDA is instructed to prioritize improving local procurement and distribution and may fund projects with innovative aggregation, processing, or transport components. The bill places practical limits and guardrails on awards: it requires USDA to seek award diversity to match scope and purpose, sets a ceiling on total funding for any recipient and on award length, and bars the use of grant funds solely for conference activities—measures designed to focus dollars on operational capacity rather than one-off events.
Match waiver authority and Tribal-match accommodation
The Secretary can waive or modify non-Federal matching requirements when needed to reduce barriers for projects that meet top-priority criteria, and must publish an application process for such waivers. Separately, the statute authorizes USDA to let Tribal agencies count compatible Federal benefits (for example, funds from Indian Health Service or other federal programs) toward the non-Federal share when consistent with those funds’ purposes—an administrative accommodation aimed at expanding Tribal access to grants.
Explicit priorities: experiential education and Tribal food systems
The priority language now reaches beyond simple procurement goals. Projects that embed experiential, traditional, or culturally appropriate food and agricultural education and that serve a high proportion of children from socially disadvantaged backgrounds receive priority. The bill also adds a separate, highest-priority bucket for projects serving Tribal communities and requires USDA to consider incorporation of Tribal and traditional foods when evaluating those proposals.
Expanded TA to reach diverse producers and a recurring barrier review
USDA must provide technical assistance and research aimed at increasing awareness and participation among agricultural and aquaculture producers, specifically calling out beginning, veteran, and socially disadvantaged producers. The department must also conduct periodic reviews to identify regulatory compliance costs, market-access barriers (including those facing Tribal producers), and funding obstacles that limit participation, then report those findings to the Agriculture committees. That review provision is designed to generate a recurring evidence base for regulatory or programmatic fixes.
Increased authorization, administrative cap, and reauthorization window
The bill replaces the prior funding figure with a larger authorization and adds a short administrative cap so that most of the appropriation flows to projects rather than federal overhead. It also updates the authorization window in statute to cover a new multi-year period. These adjustments change the program’s fiscal scale and the department’s allocation decisions between grants and program administration.
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
- School food authorities and eligible institutions — The statutory expansion to include gardens, education, and procurement projects plus the agency’s ability to fund aggregation and distribution capacity makes it easier for school districts and institutions to source local food and run experiential programs.
- Tribal communities and Tribal producers — The bill creates an explicit highest-priority pathway for projects serving Tribal communities and permits Tribal agencies to count compatible federal benefits toward matching requirements, lowering financial and administrative barriers to participation.
- Small, beginning, veteran, and socially disadvantaged farmers and fishers — Targeted outreach, technical assistance, and grant priorities are designed to increase access to institutional markets and to support producers who typically face higher transaction costs and market-entry barriers.
- Land-grant colleges and universities and nonprofit partners — Their explicit inclusion opens new collaboration opportunities for applied research, processing and aggregation pilots, and workforce or curriculum initiatives tied to school nutrition and local supply chains.
Who Bears the Cost
- USDA (implementing agencies) — USDA must set up a waiver process, expand technical assistance and outreach, run the competitive grant process with new priority rules, and produce recurring barrier reports; some of this work will require staff time and administrative resources within the department.
- Local applicants and small organizations — Even with waiver authority, applicants will need to develop project scopes that match grant size and duration expectations and may incur application and startup costs that are not directly covered by grant dollars.
- State and Tribal agencies administering complementary programs — Agencies that coordinate local procurement or provide matching funds will face new coordination demands, especially when Tribal agencies seek to use other federal benefits as match and when projects cross jurisdictional funding streams.
- Regional processors and distributors — The bill encourages USDA to fund aggregation and processing projects, which could require private-sector partners to alter operations or accept grant-funded pilots that change contract terms or expectations.
Key Issues
The Core Tension
The central dilemma is targeting limited federal resources to expand local procurement and support small and Tribal producers while simultaneously requiring the large, sustained investments needed to build regional aggregation and processing capacity—the bill empowers USDA to fund infrastructure and waive matches, but the authorization level and administrative constraints may not be sufficient to scale solutions without clear prioritization and durable coordination across agencies.
The bill trains programmatic attention on the right operational bottlenecks—aggregation, processing, and distribution—but it does so while keeping the program’s overall appropriation modest. That creates a scaling tension: grants intended to build durable, regional supply-chain capacity often require multi-year, higher-dollar investments; the statutory changes encourage that kind of work but the total pot is likely to be spread thin across applicants.
The requirement that USDA seek award diversity helps, but it also means smaller grants will be used for pilot projects rather than large-scale infrastructure.
The Tribal accommodations (priority status and permitting other federal benefits to count as match) increase access but raise implementation questions. Allowing federal benefits to satisfy matching obligations will require careful legal and OMB-style analysis to ensure compatibility with the original purposes of those funds, and USDA will need clear guidance to avoid double-dipping or violating interagency restrictions.
The waiver authority for match requirements lowers application barriers but also places discretionary power in the Secretary; applicants will want transparent, predictable criteria to avoid uneven outcomes.
Finally, several key terms and thresholds are left to the Secretary’s discretion—'eligible institution' in some respects, how to determine a 'high proportion of children from socially disadvantaged backgrounds,' and what qualifies as 'traditional foods' for Tribal priority status. Those definitional choices will drive who benefits in practice and could be the locus for disputes between districts, Tribal governments, producers, and USDA if guidance is not specific and administrable.
Try it yourself.
Ask a question in plain English, or pick a topic below. Results in seconds.