A Democratic bill with 1 Republican cosponsor · See all 3 cosponsors
Last activity — Read twice and referred to the Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry.
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 the Patrick Leahy Farm to School Program through 2031. It expands the program by adding land-grant colleges and universities as eligible institutions and increasing funding to $15,000,000. The bill focuses on improving local food procurement, funding educational activities, and providing technical assistance. It specifically prioritizes projects serving socially disadvantaged backgrounds and Tribal communities. Additionally, it requires the Secretary to report on regulatory barriers affecting local food production and marketing.
Yes· 3 of 24
- Scored +8
Would children be better off under this?
Improves access to healthy, local foods and nutrition education for children.
- Scored +8
Would Native Americans be better off under this?
Gives highest priority to projects serving Tribal communities and Tribal agricultural producers.
- Scored +8
Would farmers be better off under this?
Increases demand for local produce and provides technical and financial support for producers.
The opposite
- Scored -2
Does this reduce what the federal government spends?
The bill increases the appropriation for the Farm to School program.
- Scored -1
Does this reduce what the federal government owes?
The bill increases government spending by raising the program funding to $15 million.
Who it would affect, and how
Potential Positive Impacts for People
-
Increased Funding: The bill increases the funding amount to $15,000,000, which provides more resources for the program (Section 2(8)(A)).
-
Expanded Eligibility: Land-grant colleges and universities are now included as eligible institutions for grants and assistance (Section 2(3)(B)).
-
Support for Tribal Communities: The Secretary must give highest priority to projects serving Tribal communities that use products from Tribal agricultural producers (Section 2(6)(B)).
-
Reduced Application Barriers: The Secretary can waive or modify matching requirements to help projects that meet high-priority criteria apply more easily (Section 2(5)(C)(i)).
-
Health and Education Focus: The program will prioritize identifying and addressing chronic diet-related health issues in children and incorporating culturally appropriate food and nutrition education (Section 2(6)(E) and (G)(viii)).
-
Aid for Diverse Farmers: Technical assistance will be provided to increase participation for beginning, veteran, and socially disadvantaged farmers and ranchers (Section 2(7)(A)(iv)).
-
Improved Infrastructure: Funding may be provided for innovative ways to handle the aggregation, processing, transportation, and distribution of local foods (Section 2(4)(B)(C)(ii)).
Potential Negative Impacts for People
-
Grant Limits: There is a maximum cap of $500,000 per grant recipient, which may limit the scale of larger projects (Section 2(4)(D)(i)).
-
Time Constraints: Grants are limited to a term of no more than 3 years (Section 2(4)(D)(ii)).
-
Use of Funds Restriction: Grant funds cannot be used solely to hold a conference (Section 2(4)(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 children be better off under this? — Improves access to healthy, local foods and nutrition education for children. Would farmers be better off under this? — Increases demand for local produce and provides technical and financial support for producers. Would Native Americans be better off under this? — Gives highest priority to projects serving Tribal communities and Tribal agricultural producers. Would people in rural areas be better off under this? — Strongly supports rural agricultural production and local economic development. Would households on low incomes be better off under this? — Prioritizes projects serving children from socially disadvantaged backgrounds. Would students be better off under this? — Provides better food options and agricultural education for students. Would Black Americans be better off under this? — Provides targeted support for socially disadvantaged farmers and marginalized communities. Would business owners be better off under this? — Creates more market opportunities for local agricultural business owners. Would Hispanic Americans be better off under this? — Provides targeted support for socially disadvantaged farmers and marginalized communities. Would veterans be better off under this, taking everything together? — Specifically targets veteran farmers and ranchers for technical assistance. Would people in their twenties and thirties be better off under this? — Expands program eligibility to land-grant colleges and universities.
- Environment Energy And Infrastructure
- Does this invest in rural communities? — Increases support for local agricultural producers and rural food distribution systems. Does this cut the pollution that drives climate change? — Promoting local food procurement reduces the distance food travels, potentially lowering transport emissions.
- Social Issues And Justice
- Does this narrow racial gaps in how people are treated? — Prioritizes projects serving socially disadvantaged backgrounds and provides assistance to disadvantaged farmers. Is this likely to lift people out of poverty? — Supports nutrition and food access for children from socially disadvantaged backgrounds.
- Economy And Finance
- Does this make it easier to run a small business? — Provides technical assistance and procurement opportunities for small-scale, beginning, and socially disadvantaged farmers. Is this likely to grow the economy? — Stimulates local agricultural economies through increased institutional procurement. Is this likely to create jobs? — Increased funding for local food procurement and distribution can create jobs for local agricultural producers. Does this reduce what the federal government spends? — The bill increases the appropriation for the Farm to School program. Does this reduce what the federal government owes? — The bill increases government spending by raising the program funding to $15 million.
- Education And Technology
- Does this put more money into public schools? — Provides grants to schools for gardens and nutrition education. Does this put more money into scientific research? — Includes funding for research and evaluation of farm to school programs.
- Healthcare
- Does this make health care easier to get in general? — Prioritizes identifying and addressing chronic diet-related health issues in children. Does this put more money into medical research? — Expands the program's scope to include research and evaluation of farm to school initiatives.
- Governance And Ideology
- Does this make what the government does easier for the public to see? — Requires the Secretary to report on regulatory barriers affecting local food production. Does this give the federal government more power? — Expands the scope of a federal program administered by the Secretary.
- 7/15/2026
- 1 Cosponsor added.
- 11/6/2025
- Read twice and referred to the Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry.
- 2 Cosponsors added.
- Introduced in Senate
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.
Lisa Blunt RochesterDemocrat · Delaware
Susan CollinsRepublican · Maine
Elissa SlotkinDemocrat · Michigan