Lisa Murkowski (R-AK)
A bill to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to exclude micro-grants for food security from gross income.
A Republican bill with no cosponsors
Last activity — Read twice and referred to the Committee on Finance.
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
This bill aims to change the Internal Revenue Code of 1986. It would prevent micro-grants for food security from being counted as gross income. Specifically, it applies to subgrants or financial assistance received by eligible entities. These entities are defined by the Agriculture Improvement Act of 2018. The changes would apply to taxable years starting after the bill is enacted.
Yes· 3 of 28
- Scored +7
Would households on low incomes be better off under this?
Directly benefits those relying on food security grants and assistance.
- Scored +4
Would children be better off under this?
Children are primary beneficiaries of food security programs.
- Scored +4
Would people over 65 be better off under this?
Seniors are a high-risk group for food insecurity.
The opposite
- Scored -1
Does this reduce what the federal government owes?
Tax exclusions slightly reduce federal tax revenue.
Who it would affect, and how
Potential Positive Impacts for People
- Tax Exclusion for Food Security Grants: Eligible entities would not have to include subgrants or financial assistance for food security in their gross income, as stated in Section 1 (a). This could allow these entities to keep more of their funding to address food security.
Potential Negative Impacts for People
- No negative impacts for people are mentioned in the provided text.
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 households on low incomes be better off under this? — Directly benefits those relying on food security grants and assistance. Would children be better off under this? — Children are primary beneficiaries of food security programs. Would Native Americans be better off under this? — Highly beneficial for tribal communities facing food deserts. Would retired people be better off under this? — Seniors on fixed incomes benefit from food security grants. Would people in rural areas be better off under this? — High impact on rural communities with limited food access. Would people over 65 be better off under this? — Seniors are a high-risk group for food insecurity. Would Black Americans be better off under this? — Disproportionately affects communities with higher food insecurity rates. Would farmers be better off under this? — Integrates with agricultural acts to support food distribution. Would Hispanic Americans be better off under this? — Disproportionately affects communities with higher food insecurity rates. Would immigrants be better off under this? — Immigrant populations often utilize food security services. Would people with disabilities be better off under this? — People with disabilities may face higher barriers to food access. Would students be better off under this? — Student food insecurity is a growing issue addressed by such grants. Would people in cities be better off under this? — Benefits those in urban food deserts. Would veterans be better off under this, taking everything together? — Veterans are a key demographic for food security assistance. Would Asian Americans be better off under this? — Provides general support for food security initiatives. Would business owners be better off under this? — Positive for those owning entities that manage food security grants. Would LGBTQ people be better off under this? — General benefit to food security systems. Would men be better off under this? — General benefit to food security systems. Would people in middle age be better off under this? — Increases resources for food assistance programs. Would white Americans be better off under this? — Provides general support for food security initiatives. Would women be better off under this? — Women often manage household food security. Would people in their twenties and thirties be better off under this? — Increases resources for food assistance programs.
- Economy And Finance
- Does this make it easier to run a small business? — Reduces tax burden on eligible entities managing food security micro-grants. Does this cut taxes for small businesses? — Provides tax exclusions for eligible entities receiving food security micro-grants, which may include small non-profits or businesses. Is this likely to grow the economy? — Increases available funds for food security initiatives. Does this reduce what the federal government owes? — Tax exclusions slightly reduce federal tax revenue.
- Social Issues And Justice
- Is this likely to lift people out of poverty? — Increasing funds for food security entities directly supports poverty reduction by addressing hunger. Is this likely to reduce homelessness? — Food security initiatives often overlap with services for the homeless population.
- Environment Energy And Infrastructure
- Does this invest in rural communities? — Food security micro-grants often target rural areas and agricultural communities.
- 6/15/2026
- Read twice and referred to the Committee on Finance.
- 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.