A Democratic bill with 2 Republican cosponsors · See all 3 cosponsors
Last activity — Referred to the House Committee on Education and Workforce.
In committee
Introduced and handed to a committee in the chamber it started in.
The committee holds it, and most bills are never heard from again. A hearing or a committee vote would be news; silence is the usual outcome, and it kills the bill without anyone voting against it.
Its path through Congress
- Introduced
- In Committee
What this bill would do
The Farm to School Act of 2025 reauthorizes and expands the Patrick Leahy Farm to School Program. It updates definitions for agricultural producers and eligible institutions, including the addition of land-grant colleges and universities. The bill provides grants for local food procurement, gardens, and educational activities, while increasing funding to $10 million. It also creates specific priorities for Tribal communities and requires regular reports to identify and eliminate barriers to these programs.
Yes· 3 of 24
- Scored +9
Would Native Americans be better off under this?
Gives highest priority to Tribal community projects and eases matching fund requirements for Tribes.
- Scored +8
Would children be better off under this?
Improves nutrition and provides educational agricultural experiences in schools.
- Scored +8
Would farmers be better off under this?
Increases demand for local produce and provides technical assistance to various farmer types.
The opposite
- Scored -2
Does this reduce what the federal government spends?
It doubles the funding allocation for the Patrick Leahy Farm to School Program.
- Scored -1
Does this reduce what the federal government owes?
The bill increases federal spending for the program from $5 million to $10 million.
Who it would affect, and how
Potential Positive Impacts for People
-
Increased Funding: The bill increases the funding amount from $5,000,000 to $10,000,000, which provides more resources for program implementation (Section 2, paragraph 8).
-
Support for Tribal Communities: The Secretary is directed to give highest priority to projects serving Tribal communities that use products from Tribal agricultural producers (Section 2, paragraph 5(B)).
-
Expanded Eligibility: Land-grant colleges and universities are now included as eligible institutions (Section 2, paragraph 2(B)).
-
Flexible Funding for Tribes: Tribal agencies may use other Federal benefits or funds to satisfy non-Federal share requirements (Section 2, paragraph 4(D)).
-
Focus on Health and Education: The bill prioritizes projects that address chronic diet-related health issues of children and incorporate culturally appropriate food and nutrition education (Section 2, paragraph 5(A)(iii) and (vii)).
-
Support for Diverse Farmers: The Secretary must provide technical assistance to increase participation for beginning, veteran, and socially disadvantaged farmers and ranchers (Section 2, paragraph 7(A)(iv)).
-
Removal of Barriers: The bill requires the Secretary to report every three years on the progress of eliminating regulatory barriers and compliance costs for small-scale and Tribal producers (Section 2, paragraph 7(B)).
Potential Negative Impacts for People
-
Grant Limitations: The total amount any single grant recipient can receive is capped at $500,000, and the award term cannot exceed 3 years (Section 2, paragraph 3(D)).
-
Restriction on Use of Funds: Grant funds cannot be used if they are intended solely for carrying out a conference (Section 2, paragraph 3(E)).
Groups and Interests Ranking
Every group the model scored this bill for, from -10 to +10. Tap or hover a score for the reason it gave.
- Demographic And Interest Groups
- Would Native Americans be better off under this? — Gives highest priority to Tribal community projects and eases matching fund requirements for Tribes. Would children be better off under this? — Improves nutrition and provides educational agricultural experiences in schools. Would farmers be better off under this? — Increases demand for local produce and provides technical assistance to various farmer types. Would people in rural areas be better off under this? — Strengthens the local agricultural economy and rural producer networks. Would students be better off under this? — Provides better access to healthy local foods and hands-on agricultural education. Would households on low incomes be better off under this? — Prioritizes children from socially disadvantaged backgrounds for nutrition programs. Would Black Americans be better off under this? — Supports socially disadvantaged farmers and Tribal communities. Would business owners be better off under this? — Provides more opportunities for small-scale agricultural producers to sell to institutions. Would Hispanic Americans be better off under this? — Supports socially disadvantaged farmers and Tribal communities. Would veterans be better off under this, taking everything together? — Specifically mandates technical assistance for veteran farmers and ranchers. Would people in their twenties and thirties be better off under this? — Extends eligibility to land-grant colleges and universities.
- Environment Energy And Infrastructure
- Does this invest in rural communities? — Supports rural agricultural producers and improves local food distribution infrastructure. Does this cut the pollution that drives climate change? — Promotes local procurement, which generally reduces food miles and associated transport emissions.
- Social Issues And Justice
- Does this narrow racial gaps in how people are treated? — Prioritizes socially disadvantaged farmers and Tribal communities in grant assistance. Is this likely to lift people out of poverty? — Targets projects serving children from socially disadvantaged backgrounds.
- Economy And Finance
- Does this make it easier to run a small business? — Directly supports small-scale producers and mandates the identification of barriers to market access for them. Is this likely to grow the economy? — Boosts local agricultural economies by increasing procurement from local producers. Is this likely to create jobs? — Increased funding for local food procurement supports agricultural producers and local distribution networks. Does this reduce what the federal government spends? — It doubles the funding allocation for the Patrick Leahy Farm to School Program. Does this reduce what the federal government owes? — The bill increases federal spending for the program from $5 million to $10 million.
- Education And Technology
- Does this put more money into public schools? — Provides grants for school gardens and nutrition education activities. Does this put more money into scientific research? — Adds research and evaluation as an eligible activity for program funding.
- Healthcare
- Does this put more money into medical research? — Expands the scope of grants to include research and evaluation of farm to school programs. Does this make health care easier to get in general? — Addresses chronic diet-related health issues through improved nutrition in schools.
- Governance And Ideology
- Does this make what the government does easier for the public to see? — Requires reporting every three years on the elimination of regulatory barriers. Does this give the federal government more power? — Increases the scope and funding of a federal grant program.
- 11/17/2025
- Referred to the House Committee on Education and Workforce.
- 3 Cosponsors added.
- Introduced in House
One bill Congress.gov lists as related to this one — companions in the other chamber, earlier versions, and bills this one absorbed or was folded into.
Robert BresnahanRepublican · Pennsylvania
Brian FitzpatrickRepublican · Pennsylvania
Josh RileyDemocrat · New York