States Can Buy Local Foods for Food Banks

Summary#

This bill would change the Emergency Food Assistance Act to let states use federal funds to buy food from local and regional suppliers for food banks and other emergency feeding organizations (nonprofits that give out free food). It sets rules for which businesses states can buy from and what kinds of foods count. It also creates a USDA working group to align food purchases with goals like nutrition security and culturally relevant foods.

• Allows states to run projects that buy “priority agricultural products” (fruits, vegetables, dairy, meat, seafood, grains, poultry, and similar foods) that are appropriate and culturally or religiously relevant for local communities.
• Limits purchases to “eligible entities”: small businesses that grow, pack, process, distribute, or aggregate food (including food hubs and co-ops) that are underserved (such as women- or veteran-owned) or source from beginning farmers or small- and mid-sized family farms; can deliver to selected food providers; and are committed to serving communities in need.
• Directs USDA to issue guidance within 180 days, set public reporting and minimum performance standards, and allocate funds to states using the existing TEFAP formula; unspent state funds may be reallocated to other states.
• Requires states to file a plan listing partners (suppliers and emergency feeding organizations), a timeline, and how they will meet standards; and to provide regular financial reports.
• Authorizes $200 million per year for fiscal years 2026–2030 for these purchases, available through the end of the following year; requires a USDA report to Congress within four years evaluating results.
• Creates a USDA cross-agency working group to review how department-wide food purchasing can better support small producers, culturally relevant foods, resilient local/regional food systems, and rural jobs, with annual reports to Congress.

What it means for you#

• People who rely on food banks and pantries

  • You could see more fresh and culturally or religiously relevant foods offered, depending on what your state buys and local availability.
  • Availability may vary by state and by season because purchases focus on local and regional supply.

• Small farms and food businesses

  • If you are a small grower, packer, processor, distributor, food hub, or co-op that meets the bill’s criteria, your state may be able to buy your products for distribution to people in need.
  • You would need to be able to deliver to designated emergency feeding organizations and work closely with them and public agencies.
  • Priority goes to underserved businesses (including women- or veteran-owned) and those involving beginning farmers and small- or mid-sized family farms.

• Emergency feeding organizations (food banks, food pantries, community fridges, and similar nonprofits)

  • You may receive more locally sourced foods funded by this program.
  • You may need to coordinate more closely with state agencies and new suppliers, and meet any reporting or performance expectations set under the program.

• State agencies

  • You can apply for and use federal funds to buy priority foods from eligible entities for emergency feeding organizations.
  • You must submit a plan, follow USDA guidance and performance standards, manage partnerships, and file regular financial reports.
  • You may enter cooperative agreements with other states to use commodities more efficiently and must share those agreements with USDA.

• USDA and federal partners

  • You must issue guidance within 180 days, allocate funds, set minimum performance standards and public reporting, oversee projects, and report to Congress on results.
  • A new working group will review department-wide procurement to better support small producers and culturally relevant, nutritious foods, and report annually to Congress.

Expenses#

Estimated public cost: Authorizes up to $200 million per year for fiscal years 2026–2030; actual spending would depend on future appropriations.

• Funds may pay states’ costs to carry out purchasing projects and distribute food, subject to USDA guidance.
• USDA will have administrative costs to develop guidance, allocate and oversee funds, and produce required reports.
• States will have planning, partnership, and reporting duties; the bill allows federal funds to cover project costs, but specific allowable administrative costs will depend on USDA guidance.
• No new fees or fines are created by the bill.
• No state matching requirement is stated in the bill.
• If Congress does not appropriate funds in a given year, the program would not be funded that year.

Proponents' View#

• The bill appears intended to increase access to nutritious and culturally or religiously relevant foods for people in need by allowing targeted state purchases.
• It could strengthen local and regional food supply chains and make them more resilient by building steady relationships between states, small producers, and emergency feeding groups.
• It aims to expand economic opportunity for small, underserved, and beginning farmers and for small- and mid-sized family farms by directing procurement toward them.
• Using the existing TEFAP allocation formula may speed implementation and distribute funds fairly among states.
• Public reporting and minimum performance standards could improve accountability and help measure results.
• The USDA working group could align broader federal food buying with goals like nutrition security, resilient food systems, and rural job creation.

Opponents' View#

• One concern is that limiting suppliers to certain small or underserved entities may reduce competition, which could raise prices or limit available volume for emergency feeding groups.
• Buying more perishable foods (produce, dairy, meat, seafood) may strain storage, refrigeration, and distribution capacity for food banks and pantries.
• The program adds planning and reporting duties for states and partners, which may be challenging for smaller agencies and nonprofits.
• “Culturally or religiously relevant” foods are determined by states; criteria may vary and could be hard to apply consistently.
• The bill authorizes funds but does not guarantee annual appropriations, so the real impact depends on future budgets.
• It is unclear how USDA will define minimum performance standards and measure success, and how differences among states will be handled; slower states risk reallocation of their funds.