USDA Ends Local Food Programs: Impact on Farmers and Schools

In March 2025, the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) announced the termination of two significant programs: the Local Food for Schools (LFS) Cooperative Agreement Program and the Local Food Purchase Assistance (LFPA) Cooperative Agreement Program. These initiatives, established during the COVID-19 pandemic, collectively provided over $1 billion in funding to schools and food banks to purchase food directly from local farmers and producers.

The LFS program allocated approximately $660 million to schools and childcare centers, enabling them to source fresh, locally produced foods for student meals. The LFPA program provided around $500 million to food banks and other organizations to procure local food for communities in need. The USDA cited a shift in agency priorities and a return to "long-term, fiscally responsible initiatives" as reasons for ending these programs. A USDA spokesperson stated, "The COVID era is over—USDA’s approach to nutrition programs will reflect that reality moving forward."

The termination of these programs has raised significant concerns among school nutrition advocates and local farmers. The School Nutrition Association highlighted that the $660 million LFS program would be discontinued in 2025, affecting the ability of schools to provide fresh, locally sourced meals to students.

In Wisconsin, nearly 300 farmers and numerous school districts relied on the LFS and LFPA programs. The abrupt end of these programs has left farmers scrambling for new buyers and has caused major supply chain disruptions for schools and food banks. Tommy Enright, communications director for the Wisconsin Farmers Union, noted, "Some farmers made critical business decisions based on this program continuing. Now, they’re left without those guaranteed buyers."

The cessation of these programs is expected to have far-reaching economic and social consequences. Many small and mid-sized farmers had planned their production schedules and financial forecasts around the guaranteed market these programs provided. The sudden loss of this market threatens their financial stability and could lead to farm closures. Chris Schwartz, executive director of the Iowa Food System Coalition, expressed concern that this situation "sends farms into foreclosure" and causes people to "lose their homes."

Schools may struggle to afford local, fresh foods amid rising costs, potentially leading to a reliance on more processed foods. This shift could negatively impact student nutrition and health. The Wisconsin Department of Public Instruction warned that without LFS funding, school meal programs could suffer, with districts possibly reducing fresh food purchases or adjusting meal plans.

Food banks that depended on LFPA funding to provide fresh, local produce to underserved communities now face significant supply shortages. Heather Paquette, President of Good Shepherd Food Bank in Maine, stated that the reduction of these funds will have a "significant negative impact on farmers who plan on this income continuity, and neighbors who benefit from this nutritious local produce."

The decision has prompted a strong response from lawmakers and advocacy groups. A group of Democratic U.S. senators, including Adam Schiff, Ben Ray Luján, and Amy Klobuchar, urged the USDA to reinstate the canceled programs. In a letter to Agriculture Secretary Brooke Rollins, they expressed "grave concerns" that the cancellation poses "extreme harm to producers and communities in every state across the country."

In Maine, Senator Angus King, along with local organizations like the Maine School Nutrition Association and Good Shepherd Food Bank, called for the reversal of the USDA's decision, emphasizing the critical role these programs play in supporting local farmers and feeding vulnerable populations.

These programs were initially established as part of the federal response to the COVID-19 pandemic, aiming to bolster local food systems and provide nutritious food to schools and food banks during a time of crisis. Their termination reflects a broader shift in federal policy away from pandemic-era emergency measures toward long-term fiscal strategies.

The abrupt end of these programs has left many stakeholders unprepared, highlighting the need for more sustainable and predictable support systems for local food economies. The situation underscores the delicate balance between federal budgetary decisions and their tangible impacts on local communities, farmers, and vulnerable populations.