Trump's USDA Slashes Food Aid Hitting Schools and Farmers
Trump’s USDA cancels $1 billion in food aid, ending support for schools, food banks, and farmers, sparking outrage and fears of worsening hunger.
Setting the Stage
In a move that could leave schools, food banks, and farmers reeling, the Trump administration has cut over $1 billion in food assistance programs. The funding, which was intended to help schools and food banks purchase locally grown food, has been abruptly halted by the Department of Agriculture (USDA), with officials claiming that these initiatives "no longer effectuate agency priorities."
According to the School Nutrition Association, multiple states have been notified that the Local Food for Schools (LFS) program—which was set to receive $660 million in 2025—will no longer be funded. Similarly, the Local Food Purchase Assistance Cooperative Agreement Program (LFPA), which supports food banks and underserved communities, has lost $420 million in expected funding.
The decision, part of what the administration calls a “Department of Government Efficiency-led effort,” has sparked bipartisan condemnation from state leaders. Massachusetts Governor Maura Healey lambasted the move, declaring:
“Donald Trump and Elon Musk have declared that feeding children and supporting local farmers are no longer ‘priorities.’”
Illinois Governor JB Pritzker echoed similar concerns, calling the USDA’s actions a “slap in the face to Illinois farmers and the communities they feed.”
The political and economic consequences of these cuts are now coming into focus, with school meal programs, struggling farmers, and food-insecure communities poised to suffer the most.
The Power at Play
The USDA’s rationale for slashing these programs is murky at best. Official statements cite a reassessment of priorities, yet this decision clearly aligns with broader conservative strategies to shrink government social programs—even at the cost of increased food insecurity.
Project 2025 includes plans to cut funding for school meals and nutrition programs. The document argues that federal meal programs have "strayed far from their original objective" and should be scaled back or eliminated for students who aren't in poverty. It criticizes efforts to expand these programs as an example of "federal overreach" and calls for a rollback of policies that allow more students to access free or reduced-price meals.
Additionally, Project 2025 portrays programs like the Community Eligibility Provision (CEP)—which allows entire schools to offer free meals if a significant portion of students qualify—as wasteful and in need of restriction. It suggests that school meal programs should return to their original intent of serving only the poorest students, meaning that middle- and working-class families would lose access to these benefits.
These cuts disproportionately affect low-income families, farmers, and small businesses. The LFS and LFPA programs were designed to create stable markets for small farmers while ensuring that schoolchildren and food banks had access to fresh, local produce. By canceling this funding, the administration is handing a devastating financial blow to farmers who relied on these contracts and a nutritional crisis to families who depended on these meals.
Moreover, this decision is not happening in isolation. Congress is already considering cuts to school meal programs (CEP), adding further strain on struggling communities. Instead of addressing systemic issues in food access, the administration is deliberately dismantling programs that work.
The USDA’s move also follows a growing trend of deregulation and privatization under Trump. Conservative policymakers have long sought to shift responsibility for food aid from the government to the private sector despite overwhelming evidence that public programs are more efficient in combating hunger and food insecurity.
A Lens of Justice
At its core, this decision reinforces a harsh class divide. Wealthier children will continue to have access to nutritious meals, while lower-income students—particularly those who rely on free and reduced-price school meals—will face increased food insecurity.
The impact also falls heavily on farmers of color and small-scale food producers, who often lack the financial cushion to absorb these losses. The USDA’s own description of the LFS program acknowledges that it was meant to “expand local and regional markets with an emphasis on purchasing from historically underserved producers and processors.” Cutting the program, then, disproportionately hurts Black, Indigenous, and other marginalized farmers—who already face systemic barriers in agriculture.
The irony is staggering: the administration claims to be supporting American farmers, yet it is gutting the very programs that help small and mid-sized agricultural businesses stay afloat.
Reframing the Debate
Let’s be clear: this isn’t about fiscal responsibility—it’s about ideology.
Conservatives constantly complain about how the U.S. sends money abroad instead of "helping our own citizens," yet when the government slashes domestic food assistance, they celebrate. Before Trump and the Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE) “ran USAID through the wood chipper”, it funded vital programs such as disaster relief, global food security, and public health initiatives that helped stabilize struggling regions—reducing the need for future foreign aid. But now that those funds are being cut at home too, it raises a question: Were the cuts to USAID ever really about spending money overseas, or was it just another step in dismantling government programs altogether? The same people who railed against foreign aid are perfectly fine with letting millions of American children and families go hungry—proving that their concern was never about "helping our own" in the first place.
Instead of funding programs that feed children and support small farmers, they direct money to:
Massive Tax Cuts for the Wealthy and Corporations
Endless Military Spending
Subsidies for Billionaires and Big Businesses
Expanding the Police and Prison Industrial Complex
This is not about nationalism or America First. It’s about ensuring resources flow upward while working-class Americans get nothing.
Building the Conversation
Democrats do not control any part of the federal government right now. There is no cavalry coming to save us. If people want these cuts reversed, they have to demand it.
Expose the harm: School administrators, farmers, and food bank organizers need to loudly share the real-world consequences of these cuts.
Reject the "budget cut" excuse: The government has plenty of money; it's just choosing to prioritize billionaires over children.
Mobilize pressure on Congress: Lawmakers must feel the political cost of letting these programs disappear. Calls, emails, and protests can help push back.
Reframe the discussion: This isn’t about "government overreach"—it's about whether America believes in basic human dignity and food security.
The Counterpoint Trap
Conservatives defending these cuts will rely on bad faith arguments to shift blame and distract from the real issue. Here are some of the most common ones:
“These programs were never meant to be permanent.” → False Equivalence
They claim these programs were a temporary fix, ignoring the fact that hunger and food insecurity are not temporary problems. If anything, long-term funding should be expanded, not eliminated.
Takeaway: Reframe the issue—food security is a continuous need, not a one-time emergency.“The free market can handle food distribution better than the government.” → Magical Thinking
They assume private charities and businesses will step up, despite decades of evidence showing that markets do not prioritize feeding the poor unless they can profit from it.
Takeaway: Point out that government programs exist because the free market has already failed to address food insecurity.“This is just about cutting wasteful spending.” → Deflection
They refuse to cut tax breaks for billionaires or corporate subsidies but target programs that help the most vulnerable. If it were really about fiscal responsibility, they’d be cutting from the top, not the bottom.
Takeaway: Ask why the government is prioritizing corporate welfare, over feeding children.
Deeper Dive
For those who want to understand the broader context of food insecurity and policy failures, here are some must-reads:
"Cadillac Desert" by Marc Reisner – Examines the history and politics of water and agriculture in the American West, showing how mismanagement and greed exacerbate crises.
"Food Politics" by Marion Nestle – A deep dive into how corporate influence shapes U.S. food policy, often to the detriment of public health.
"Stuffed and Starved" by Raj Patel – Explores the paradox of global hunger in an age of food abundance, detailing who controls the global food system and why inequality persists.
The Last Laugh
Donald Trump claims he wants to support American farmers, yet his USDA just killed funding that helped small farmers survive. Maybe he thinks the free market will step in and feed kids instead. That has worked out great for private healthcare, right?