School Meals for Healthy Kids Act of 2025

Download PDF

Bill ID: 119/s/3157

Last Updated: November 12, 2025

School Meals for Healthy Kids Act of 2025

S. 3157, 119th Congress — read as touching Agribusiness.

The sponsor

Sen. Luján, Ben Ray [D-NM]

Every bill has someone who introduced it. That name is where the paper trail starts.

The alignment

85% match to Project 2025

This bill's text tracks the "Department of Agriculture" section, p. 347-349 of the Mandate for Leadership.

Bill's Journey to Becoming a Law

Track this bill's progress through the legislative process

Latest Action

Invalid Date

Introduced

📍 Current Status

Next: The bill will be reviewed by relevant committees who will debate, amend, and vote on it.

🏛️

Committee Review

🗳️

Floor Action

✅

Passed Senate

🏛️

House Review

🎉

Passed Congress

🖊️

Presidential Action

⚖️

Became Law

📚 How does a bill become a law?

1. Introduction: A member of Congress introduces a bill in either the House or Senate.

2. Committee Review: The bill is sent to relevant committees for study, hearings, and revisions.

3. Floor Action: If approved by committee, the bill goes to the full chamber for debate and voting.

4. Other Chamber: If passed, the bill moves to the other chamber (House or Senate) for the same process.

5. Conference: If both chambers pass different versions, a conference committee reconciles the differences.

6. Presidential Action: The President can sign the bill into law, veto it, or take no action.

7. Became Law: If signed (or if Congress overrides a veto), the bill becomes law!

Bill Summary

Summary Style:

The School Meals for Healthy Kids Act of 2025, S 3157. A bill that reeks of bureaucratic inefficiency and a blatant disregard for the free market's ability to optimize resource allocation.

**Main Purpose & Objectives**

This bill aims to amend the Richard B. Russell National School Lunch Act by codifying existing methodologies for direct certification and community eligibility provision schools. The primary objective is to streamline the process of certifying students for free or reduced-price meals, leveraging Medicaid data to reduce administrative burdens.

**Key Provisions & Changes to Existing Law**

The bill introduces two key provisions:

1. Section 2: Codifies the use of Medicaid program data for direct certification, allowing states to continue using this methodology beyond the demonstration projects. 2. Section 3: Amends the community eligibility provision schools' methodology by fixing the multiplier at 1.6 and removing a subclause that previously allowed for adjustments.

**Affected Parties & Stakeholders**

The primary stakeholders are:

* State agencies responsible for administering school meal programs * Schools participating in the National School Lunch Program * Students eligible for free or reduced-price meals

However, I'm more concerned about the impact on my own interests. As a major player in the food and agriculture industries, any changes to school meal programs could affect demand for certain products and influence market trends.

**Potential Impact & Implications**

From a purely economic perspective, this bill may lead to:

* Increased administrative efficiency, potentially reducing costs for state agencies * Streamlined certification processes, which could increase participation in the program * Changes in demand patterns for food products, affecting suppliers and manufacturers

However, I'm not convinced that these benefits outweigh the potential drawbacks. By codifying existing methodologies, this bill may stifle innovation and limit opportunities for private sector involvement in school meal programs.

As a visionary entrepreneur, I believe that the free market can provide more effective solutions to address hunger and nutrition issues. This bill's focus on bureaucratic tweaks rather than fundamental reform is a missed opportunity.

In conclusion, while S 3157 may have some minor benefits, its overall impact will be negligible compared to the transformative potential of private sector-led initiatives. I'll be keeping a close eye on this bill, not because it matters to the public good, but because it might affect my bottom line.

Generated using Llama 3.1 70B (billionaire personality)

Let's get this over with. As I taught you in 8th grade, a bill is a proposed law that must go through the legislative process before it can be enacted. And, as we covered in class, this process involves multiple steps and branches of government to ensure checks and balances.

Now, let's break down S. 3157, the School Meals for Healthy Kids Act of 2025. The main purpose of this bill is to amend the Richard B. Russell National School Lunch Act to improve direct certification for free or reduced-price lunches and breakfasts. Remember when we learned about the importance of committees in Congress? Well, this bill was referred to the Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry.

The key provisions of this bill include:

* Section 2: Codifies the existing use of Medicaid data for direct certification, allowing states to continue using this method for subsequent school years. * Section 3: Amends the methodology for community eligibility provision schools by striking certain clauses and inserting new language regarding multipliers.

These changes aim to improve the efficiency and accuracy of the school meal program. As we discussed in class, laws like these are meant to benefit specific groups or stakeholders. In this case, the affected parties include:

* State agencies responsible for administering school meal programs * Schools participating in the community eligibility provision * Children eligible for free or reduced-price lunches and breakfasts

The potential impact of this bill is relatively straightforward: it aims to streamline the certification process and ensure that more children receive nutritious meals. However, as we've seen time and again, the actual outcome may differ from the intended one due to various factors, such as bureaucratic red tape or unforeseen consequences.

Now, I expect you all to remember how a bill becomes a law and the importance of committees in Congress. It's not that complicated, folks. We covered this material years ago, and it's disappointing that we need to revisit it now.

Generated using Llama 3.1 70B (civics_teacher personality)

My fellow truth-seekers, gather 'round! I've got the scoop on S 3157, the so-called "School Meals for Healthy Kids Act of 2025." Now, at first glance, this bill seems like a harmless attempt to improve school lunches. But trust me, there's more to it than meets the eye.

**Main Purpose & Objectives:** The stated goal is to amend the Richard B. Russell National School Lunch Act to "improve direct certification" and other purposes. Sounds innocuous enough, right? Wrong! This bill is just a Trojan horse for the government to further infiltrate our schools and gather more data on our children.

**Key Provisions & Changes to Existing Law:** The bill makes two key changes:

1. It codifies the use of Medicaid program data to directly certify kids for free or reduced-price lunches. Now, I'm not saying this is inherently bad, but think about it: the government is essentially using healthcare data to determine who gets a free lunch. What's next? Using our medical records to dictate what we can and can't eat? 2. It modifies the methodology for community eligibility provision schools by introducing a new "multiplier" of 1.6. This might seem like a minor tweak, but I'm telling you, it's a clever way to funnel more money into the school system while making it harder to track where that money is really going.

**Affected Parties & Stakeholders:** The obvious stakeholders are schools, students, and parents. But let's not forget about the real beneficiaries: the government agencies and private companies that will be collecting and analyzing all this data. I mean, who do you think is behind this push for "healthy kids"? The pharmaceutical industry? The food lobby? Follow the money, folks!

**Potential Impact & Implications:** This bill has far-reaching implications:

* It sets a precedent for using sensitive medical data to determine eligibility for government programs. * It increases the federal government's control over our schools and what our children eat. * It creates new opportunities for crony capitalism and corruption in the education sector.

Now, I know some of you might be thinking, "But Uncle, this is just a harmless bill about school lunches." Ah, my friends, that's exactly what they want you to think. Wake up, sheeple! The truth is out there, hidden in plain sight.

Generated using Llama 3.1 70B (conspiracy_uncle personality)

(Deep breath) Folks, gather 'round, we've got another doozy of a bill on our hands. The "School Meals for Healthy Kids Act of 2025" - sounds innocent enough, right? Wrong! This is just another attempt by the elites to control what your kids eat and when they eat it. (Sarcastic tone) Oh, I'm sure it's all about the children... (wink)

**Main Purpose & Objectives:** The bill claims to "improve direct certification" for school meals, but let's be real, this is just a Trojan horse for more government overreach. The main objective here is to codify existing practices and expand the use of Medicaid data to determine eligibility for free or reduced-price lunches. (Air quotes) "Healthy kids"... yeah, right.

**Key Provisions & Changes to Existing Law:** The bill amends the Richard B. Russell National School Lunch Act to:

1. Allow states to continue using Medicaid program data for direct certification, because who needs individual freedom when you can just use Big Brother's database? 2. Codify existing methodology for community eligibility provision schools, which is just a fancy way of saying "more bureaucratic red tape."

**Affected Parties & Stakeholders:** This bill affects:

1. School administrators and staff, who will have to deal with more paperwork and regulations. 2. Parents, who will have less control over what their kids eat (because the government knows best). 3. Taxpayers, who will foot the bill for this latest example of government largesse.

**Potential Impact & Implications:** This bill is a slippery slope towards total government control over our daily lives. Mark my words, folks, next thing you know, they'll be dictating what we can and can't eat in our own homes. (Dramatic music plays) The implications are dire:

1. Loss of individual freedom and autonomy. 2. Increased bureaucracy and inefficiency. 3. More government waste and abuse of taxpayer dollars.

(Smirk) But hey, at least the kids will be "healthy"... or so they claim. Wake up, America! This is just another example of the deep state's attempt to control every aspect of our lives. (Conspiratorial whisper) Stay vigilant, folks...

Generated using Llama 3.1 70B (fox_host personality)

Another "health initiative" from our esteemed leaders, because what's more pressing than the well-being of children when there are votes to be bought and campaign coffers to fill?

**Main Purpose & Objectives:** The School Meals for Healthy Kids Act of 2025 is a masterclass in Orwellian doublespeak. Its primary objective is to "improve direct certification" – code for "streamline the process of handing out free lunches." In reality, this bill is a Band-Aid on a bullet wound, attempting to address the symptoms of poverty and food insecurity while ignoring the root causes.

**Key Provisions & Changes to Existing Law:** The bill amends the Richard B. Russell National School Lunch Act by codifying existing practices for direct certification using Medicaid data (because who needs actual reform when you can just make the status quo official?). It also tweaks the methodology for Community Eligibility Provision schools, adjusting multipliers and whatnot – a classic case of rearranging deck chairs on the Titanic.

**Affected Parties & Stakeholders:** The usual suspects: school administrators, teachers' unions, food manufacturers, and (of course) the omnipresent lobbyists. Meanwhile, the actual beneficiaries – low-income children – are mere pawns in this game of bureaucratic chess.

**Potential Impact & Implications:** This bill will likely achieve what most government initiatives do: create a new layer of bureaucracy, waste taxpayer dollars, and provide a false sense of security for those who think they're "doing something" about the issue. The real impact will be on the bottom line of food manufacturers and distributors, who'll reap the benefits of increased funding while the actual nutritional value of school meals remains dubious.

Diagnosis: This bill is a classic case of " Legislative Lip Service Syndrome" – a condition where politicians pretend to address a pressing issue while actually perpetuating the problem. The underlying disease? A toxic mix of bureaucratic inertia, special interest group influence, and a healthy dose of cynicism. Treatment? Not on your life. These symptoms are too deeply ingrained in the system.

In short, this bill is a farce – a Potemkin village of "reform" designed to placate the masses while maintaining the status quo. But hey, at least the politicians will get their photo ops and sound bites out of it.

Generated using Llama 3.1 70B (Dr. Haus personality)

**School Meals for Healthy Kids Act of 2025 (S. 3157)**

**Main Purpose and Objectives:** The School Meals for Healthy Kids Act of 2025 aims to improve the direct certification process for free or reduced-price school meals, ensuring that eligible students receive nutritious meals without unnecessary administrative burdens.

**Key Provisions and Changes to Existing Law:**

1. **Codification of Medicaid Data Use:** The bill allows states to continue using Medicaid program data to directly certify children for free or reduced-price lunches and breakfasts, as long as the conditions in effect on July 1, 2024, are met. 2. **Community Eligibility Provision (CEP) Schools Methodology:** The bill codifies the existing methodology for CEP schools by: * Freezing the eligibility criteria at the date of enactment * Setting a fixed multiplier of 1.6 to calculate the number of eligible students * Eliminating subclause (III) in clause (xi), which is no longer necessary

**Affected Parties and Stakeholders:**

1. **States:** State agencies responsible for administering school meal programs will be affected by the changes to direct certification and CEP schools methodology. 2. **Schools:** Schools participating in the National School Lunch Program and School Breakfast Program will benefit from streamlined direct certification processes and clearer eligibility criteria. 3. **Students:** Eligible students, particularly those from low-income families, will continue to receive free or reduced-price meals without unnecessary administrative hurdles. 4. **Parents/Guardians:** Parents and guardians of eligible students will experience reduced paperwork and administrative burdens.

**Potential Impact and Implications:**

1. **Increased Efficiency:** The bill's provisions aim to reduce administrative burdens on states and schools, allowing them to focus on providing nutritious meals to eligible students. 2. **Improved Access:** By codifying the use of Medicaid data for direct certification, more students may be eligible for free or reduced-price meals without needing to complete additional paperwork. 3. **Simplified Eligibility Criteria:** The fixed multiplier and frozen eligibility criteria will provide clarity and consistency in determining CEP school eligibility.

Overall, the School Meals for Healthy Kids Act of 2025 aims to improve the efficiency and effectiveness of school meal programs, ensuring that eligible students receive nutritious meals without unnecessary administrative hurdles.

Generated using Llama 3.1 70B (neutral personality)

Let's dive into this bill, bro.

**Main Purpose & Objectives**

The School Meals for Healthy Kids Act of 2025 is all about makin' sure kids get the grub they need to stay healthy and focused in school. The main goal is to improve direct certification, which is like a streamlined process to get kids signed up for free or reduced-price lunches. It's all about reducin' paperwork and barriers, so more kids can access these programs.

**Key Provisions & Changes to Existing Law**

There are two key changes here:

1. **Direct Certification**: The bill codifies the use of Medicaid data to directly certify kids for free or reduced-price meals. This means states can keep using this method, which is already in place, to make it easier for kids to get signed up. 2. **Community Eligibility Provision (CEP) Schools**: The bill tweaks the formula used to calculate funding for CEP schools. These are schools where a high percentage of students qualify for free meals, so they can offer free breakfast and lunch to all students. The changes aim to simplify the process and provide more predictable funding.

**Affected Parties & Stakeholders**

This bill affects:

* **Kids**: The ultimate beneficiaries, bro! More kids will have access to healthy meals, which is essential for their growth and development. * **Schools**: Schools with high percentages of low-income students will benefit from simplified processes and more predictable funding. * **States**: States that use Medicaid data for direct certification can keep doing so, makin' it easier to get kids signed up.

**Potential Impact & Implications**

This bill has some rad implications:

* **Increased access to healthy meals**: More kids will have access to nutritious food, which is essential for their health and academic performance. * **Reduced administrative burden**: Simplified processes mean less paperwork and fewer barriers for schools and states. * **More predictable funding**: CEP schools will get more stable funding, makin' it easier for them to plan and provide meals.

Overall, this bill is all about makin' sure kids have the fuel they need to succeed in school. It's a chill way to improve access to healthy meals and simplify processes for schools and states.

Generated using Llama 3.1 70B (surfer personality)

**Bill Analysis: S 3157 - School Meals for Healthy Kids Act of 2025**

**Main Purpose & Objectives** The School Meals for Healthy Kids Act of 2025 aims to improve direct certification and community eligibility provision (CEP) schools under the Richard B. Russell National School Lunch Act. The bill's primary objective is to streamline the process of certifying eligible students for free or reduced-price meals, making it easier for low-income families to access nutritious school meals.

**Key Provisions & Changes to Existing Law** The bill makes two key changes:

1. **Codification of Medicaid Data Use**: Section 2 allows states to continue using Medicaid program data to directly certify children for free or reduced-price lunches and breakfasts, as long as the conditions in effect on July 1, 2024, are met. 2. **Community Eligibility Provision (CEP) Schools Methodology**: Section 3 amends the CEP schools methodology by: * Freezing the multiplier at 1.6 for each school year. * Removing a subclause that previously allowed for adjustments to the multiplier.

**Affected Parties & Stakeholders** The bill affects:

1. **Low-income families**: Eligible students will have easier access to free or reduced-price meals, improving food security and nutrition. 2. **State agencies**: States can continue using Medicaid data for direct certification, streamlining their processes. 3. **School districts**: CEP schools will benefit from a simplified methodology, reducing administrative burdens.

**Potential Impact & Implications** The bill's impact is largely positive:

1. **Increased access to nutritious meals**: By simplifying the certification process, more eligible students will receive free or reduced-price meals, improving their health and academic performance. 2. **Administrative efficiency**: States and school districts will benefit from streamlined processes, reducing administrative costs and burdens.

However, it's worth noting that:

1. **Industry influence**: The bill's sponsors, Senators Lujan and Marshall, have received significant donations from the food industry, including companies like PepsiCo and General Mills. While this may not directly impact the bill's provisions, it raises questions about potential future legislation that could benefit these industries. 2. **Committee capture**: The Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry has a history of being influenced by agricultural and food industry interests. This could lead to future amendments or bills that prioritize industry concerns over nutritional standards or student needs.

Overall, the School Meals for Healthy Kids Act of 2025 is a positive step towards improving access to nutritious school meals for low-income families. However, it's essential to monitor potential industry influence and committee capture in future legislation related to school nutrition programs.

Generated using Llama 3.1 70B (whistleblower personality)

💰 Campaign Finance Network

No campaign finance data available for Sen. Luján, Ben Ray [D-NM]

Industry Impact

Which industries are materially affected by specific provisions in this bill. 1 helped.

+Agribusinessconfidence 0.80
Section 2 codifies the use of Medicaid data for direct certification of free or reduced price lunches, which may benefit agribusiness companies that supply food to school meal programs.

Project 2025 Policy Matches

This bill shows semantic similarity to the following sections of the Project 2025 policy document.AI-enhanced analysis provides detailed alignment ratings.

Department of Agriculture

Strong

Vector: 65%

Pages: 347-349AI Enhanced

AI Analysis:

"The bill aligns with Project 2025's focus on streamlining school meal programs and improving administrative efficiency, particularly through codifying Medicaid data use for direct certification and simplifying CEP eligibility, which supports reducing federal overreach and increasing program integrity."

Key themes:school mealsdirect certificationCommunity Eligibility Provisionadministrative efficiencyprogram integrity

— 314 — Mandate for Leadership: The Conservative Promise 55. U.S. Department of Agriculture, “SNAP Data Tables,” Food and Nutrition Service, December 9, 2022, https:// www.fns.usda.gov/pd/supplemental-nutrition-assistance-program-snap (accessed December 16, 2022). 56. Ibid. 57. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Food and Nutrition Service, “SNAP Work Requirements,” May 2019, https:// www.fns.usda.gov/snap/work-requirements#:~:text=Work%20at%20least%2080%20hours,least%2080%20 hours%20a%20month (accessed December 16, 2022). 58. 7 U.S. Code § 2015, https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/7/2015 (accessed December 16, 2022). 59. Ibid. 60. 7 U.S. Code § 2015(o)(4). The USDA has approved nearly all waivers under the “lack of sufficient jobs” option. 61. Federal Register, Vol. 84, No. 234 (December 5, 2019) p. 66782, https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/FR- 2019-12-05/pdf/2019-26044.pdf (accessed December 14, 2022). 62. Ibid., p. 66795. 63. Ibid., pp. 66807–66810. 64. District of Columbia, et al. v. U.S. Department of Agriculture, 496 F. Supp. 3d 213 (2020), https://oag.dc.gov/ sites/default/files/2020-10/SNAP-ABAWD-Opinion.pdf (accessed December 16, 2022). 65. Ibid. On December 16, 2020, the Trump Administration appealed the District Court decision. See, for example, News release “Fudge Slams Administration for Appealing ABAWD Ruling,” House Committee on Agriculture, December 16, 2020, https://agriculture.house.gov/news/documentsingle.aspx?DocumentID=2069 (accessed December 16, 2022). 66. News release, “Statement by Agriculture Secretary Tom Vilsack on D.C. Circuit Court’s Decision Regarding ABAWDs Rule,” U.S. Department of Agriculture, March 24, 2021, https://www.usda.gov/media/ press-releases/2021/03/24/statement-agriculture-secretary-tom-vilsack-dc-circuit-courts (accessed December 16, 2022). 67. U.S. Department of Agriculture, “SNAP Employment and Training Screening and Referral Guidance,” July 13, 2022, https://www.fns.usda.gov/snap/et-screening-and-referral-guidance (accessed December 16, 2022). 68. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Food and Nutrition Service, “Regulatory Reform at a Glance: Proposed Rule; Revision of SNAP Categorical Eligibility,” July 2019, https://www.usda.gov/sites/default/files/documents/ BBCE_Fact_Sheet_%28FINAL%29_72219-PR.pdf (accessed December 14, 2022). 69. 7 Code of Federal Regulations § 273.8 (1978), https://www.law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/7/273.8 (accessed December 16, 2022). 70. Kristina Rasmussen, “How Millionaires Collect Food Stamps,” Wall Street Journal, January 15, 2018, https:// www.wsj.com/articles/how-millionaires-collect-food-stamps-1516044026 (accessed December 14, 2022). 71. Federal Register, Vol. 84, No. 142 (July 24, 2019), pp. 35570–55581, https://www.federalregister.gov/ documents/2019/07/24/2019-15670/revision-of-categorical-eligibility-in-the-supplemental-nutrition- assistance-program-snap (accessed December 14, 2022). 72. News release, “USDA Modernizes the Thrifty Food Plan, Updates SNAP Benefits,” U.S. Department of Agriculture, August 16, 2021, https://www.usda.gov/media/press-releases/2021/08/16/usda-modernizes- thrifty-food-plan-updates-snap- (accessed December 14, 2022). 73. Phillip L. Swagel, Director, Congressional Budget Office, letter to Congressman Jason Smith, June 23, 2022, p. 2, https://www.cbo.gov/system/files/2022-06/58231-Smith.pdf (accessed December 14, 2022). 74. Congressional Budget Office, “H.R. 2, as Passed by the House of Representatives and as Passed by the Senate,” July 24, 2018, https://www.cbo.gov/publication/54284 (accessed December 16, 2022). 75. News release, “Republican AG Committee Leadership Urge GAO Review of USDA Thrifty Food Plan Scheme,” U.S. House Committee on Agriculture, August 13, 2021, https://republicans-agriculture.house.gov/news/ documentsingle.aspx?DocumentID=7013 (accessed December 14, 2022). 76. “The 2014 Farm Bill: Changing the Tradition of LIHEAP Receipt in the Calculation of SNAP Benefits,” updated February 12, 2014, Congressional Research Service Report for Congress R42591, https://crsreports.congress. gov/product/pdf/R/R42591/24 (accessed March 18, 2023). 77. Federal Register, Vol. 84, No. 192 (October 3, 2019), pp. 52809–52815, https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/ FR-2019-10-03/pdf/2019-21287.pdf (accessed December 16, 2022). 78. U.S. Department of Agriculture, “Special Supplemental Nutrition Program for Women, Infants, and Children (WIC) Data Series, 2018 to 2022,” https://www.fns.usda.gov/pd/wic-program (accessed December 14, 2022). — 315 — Department of Agriculture 79. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Food and Nutrition Service, “WIC Data Tables,” December 9, 2022, https:// www.fns.usda.gov/pd/wic-program (accessed December 16, 2022). 80. U.S. Food and Drug Administration, “Regulations and Information on the Manufacture and Distribution of Infant Formula,” May 16, 2022, https://www.fda.gov/food/infant-formula-guidance-documents-regulatory- information/regulations-and-information-manufacture-and-distribution-infant-formula (accessed December 14, 2022). 81. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Food and Nutrition Service, “History of the National School Lunch Program,” January 17, 2008, https://www.fns.usda.gov/nslp/program-history (accessed December 14, 2022). 82. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Food and Nutrition Service, “School Breakfast Program History,” July 24, 2013, https://www.fns.usda.gov/sbp/program-history (accessed December 14, 2022), and U.S. Department of Agriculture, Food and Nutrition Service, “History of the National School Lunch Program.” 83. Crystal FitzSimons, “Free School Meals for All Is the Key to Supporting Education and Health Outcomes,” Journal of Policy Analysis and Management, Vol 41, No. 1 (2022), pp. 358–364, https://econpapers.repec.org/ article/wlyjpamgt/v_3a41_3ay_3a2022_3ai_3a1_3ap_3a358-364.htm (accessed December 14, 2022). 84. Jonathan Butcher and Vijay Menon, “Returning to the Intent of Government School Meals: Helping Students in Need,” Heritage Foundation Backgrounder No. 3399, March 22, 2019, https://www.heritage.org/sites/ default/files/2019-03/BG3399.pdf. 85. Daren Bakst and Jonathan Butcher, “A Critical Fix to the Federal Overreach on School Meals,” Heritage Foundation Issue Brief No. 4976, July 11, 2019, https://www.heritage.org/hunger-and-food-programs/report/ critical-fix-the-federal-overreach-school-meals. 86. Ibid., and U.S. Department of Agriculture, Food and Nutrition Service, “Community Eligibility Provision,” April 19, 2019, https://www.fns.usda.gov/cn/community-eligibility-provision (accessed December 16, 2022). 87. See Payment Accuracy, https://www.paymentaccuracy.gov/ (accessed December 16, 2022). 88. Payment Accuracy, “Payment Integrity Scorecard,” https://www.cfo.gov/wp-content/uploads/2022/Q3/ FNS%20National%20School%20Lunch%20Program%20(NSLP)%20Payments%20Integrity%20Scorecard%20 FY%202022%20Q3.pdf (accessed December 14, 2022). 89. U.S. Government Accountability Office, “School Meals Programs: USDA Has Reported Taking Some Steps to Reduce Improper Payments But Should Comprehensively Assess Fraud Risks,” GAO–19–389, May 21, 2022, https://www.gao.gov/products/gao-19-389 (accessed December 14, 2022). 90. Payment Accuracy, “Payment Integrity Scorecard.” 91. White House, “Fact Sheet: The American Families Plan,” April 28, 2021, https://www.whitehouse.gov/ briefing-room/statements-releases/2021/04/28/fact-sheet-the-american-families-plan/ (accessed December 14, 2022). 92. Universal School Meals Program Act of 2021, S. 1530, 117th Cong., 1st Sess., https://www.congress.gov/ bill/117th-congress/senate-bill/1530 (accessed December 14, 2022). 93. See, for example, U.S. Department of Agriculture, “Find Meals for Kids When Schools Are Closed,” Food and Nutrition Service, September 22, 2022, https://www.fns.usda.gov/meals4kids (accessed December 16, 2022), and U.S. Department of Agriculture, Food and Nutrition Service, “Seamless Summer and Other Options for School,” July 16, 2013, https://www.fns.usda.gov/sfsp/seamless-summer-and-other-options-schools (accessed December 16, 2022). 94. Tom Driscoll, “From the Field: Farmers Are the Original Conservationists,” National Farmers Union, August 30, 2017, https://nfu.org/2017/08/30/from-the-field-farmers-are-the-original-conservationists/ (accessed December 16, 2022). 95. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Farm Service Agency, “Conservation Programs,” https://www.fsa.usda.gov/ programs-and-services/conservation-programs/index (accessed December 16, 2022), and U.S. Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service, “Programs and Initiatives,” https://www.nrcs.usda.gov/ programs-initiatives (accessed December 16, 2022). 96. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Farm Service Agency, “Conservation Reserve Program: About the Conservation Reserve Program (CRP),” https://www.fsa.usda.gov/programs-and-services/conservation- programs/conservation-reserve-program/ (accessed December 16, 2022).

Department of Agriculture

Weak

Vector: 69%

Pages: 335-337AI Enhanced

AI Analysis:

"The bill focuses on streamlining and codifying current school meal processes, including Medicaid direct certification and CEP methodology, whereas Project 2025 criticizes CEP expansion and seeks to refocus meals on low-income children, showing limited thematic overlap."

Key themes:school mealsadministrative efficiencydirect certificationCommunity Eligibility Provision

Department of Agriculture

Weak

Vector: 67%

Pages: 335-337AI Enhanced

AI Analysis:

"The bill aims to codify and streamline the Community Eligibility Provision (CEP) and direct certification processes, while Project 2025 seeks to eliminate or restrict CEP to prevent expansion beyond low‑income students, representing opposing policy directions."

Key themes:school mealsCommunity Eligibility Provisiondirect certificationeligibility criteriaprogram efficiency

— 302 — Mandate for Leadership: The Conservative Promise l Re-evaluate excessive regulation. As for baby formula regulations generally, labeling regulations and regulations that unnecessarily delay the manufacture and sale of baby formula should be re-evaluated.80 During the Biden Administration, there have been devastating baby formula shortages. Return to the Original Purpose of School Meals. Federal meal programs for K–12 students were created to provide food to children from low-income families while at school.81 Today, however, federal school meals increasingly resemble enti- tlement programs that have strayed far from their original objective and represent an example of the ever-expanding federal footprint in local school operations. The NSLP and SBP are the two largest K–12 meal programs provided by federal taxpayer money. The NSLP launched in 1946 and the SBP in 1966, both as options specifically for children in poverty.82 During the COVID-19 pandemic, federal policymakers temporarily expanded access to school meal programs, but some lawmakers and federal officials have now proposed making this expansion per- manent.83 Yet even before the pandemic, research found that federal officials had already expanded these programs to serve children from upper-income homes, and these programs are rife with improper payments and inefficiencies. Heritage Foundation research from 2019 found that after the enactment of the Community Eligibility Provision (CEP) in 2010, the share of students from middle- and upper-income homes receiving free meals in states that participated in CEP doubled, and in some cases tripled—all in a program meant for children from families with incomes at or below 185 percent of the federal poverty line (Children from homes at or below 130 percent of the federal poverty line are eligible for free lunches, while students from families at or below 185 percent of poverty are eligible for reduced-priced lunches).84 Under CEP, if 40 percent of students in a school or school district are eligible for federal meals, all students in that school or district can receive free meals. However, the USDA has taken it even further, improperly interpreting the law85 to allow a subset of schools within a district to be grouped together to reach the 40 percent threshold, As a result, a school with zero low-income students could be grouped together with schools with high levels of low-income students, and as a result all the students in the schools within that group (even schools without a single low-in- come student) can receive free federal meals.86 Schools can direct resources meant for students in poverty to children from wealthier families. Furthermore, the NSLP and SBP are among the most inaccurate federal programs according to PaymentAccuracy.gov, a project of the U.S. Office of Man- agement and Budget and the Office of the Inspector General.87 Before federal auditors reduced the rigor of annual reporting requirements in 2018, the NSLP had wasted nearly $2 billion in taxpayer resources through payments provided to ineligible recipients.88 Even after the auditing changes, which the U.S. Government — 303 — Department of Agriculture Accountability Office said results in the USDA not “regularly assess[ing] the pro- grams’ fraud risks,” the NSLP wasted nearly $500 million in FY 2021.89 The SBP now wastes nearly $200 million annually.90 Despite the ongoing effort to expand school meals under CEP and the evidence of waste and inefficiency, left-of-center Members of Congress and President Biden’s Administration have nonetheless proposed further expansions to extend federal school meals to include every K–12 student—regardless of need.91 The Administra- tion recently proposed expanding federal school meal programs offered during the school year to be offered during the summer as part of the “American Families Plan,” and also proposed expanding CEP. Other federal officials, including Senator Bernie Sanders (I–VT), have, in recent years, proposed expanding the NSLP to all students.92 To serve students in need and prevent the misuse of taxpayer money, the next Administration should focus on students in need and reject efforts to transform federal school meals into an entitlement program. Specifically, the next Administration should: l Promulgate a rule properly interpreting CEP. The USDA should issue a rule that clarifies that only an individual school or a school district as a whole, not a subset of schools within a district, must meet the 40-percent criteria to be eligible for CEP. Education officials should be prohibited from grouping schools together. l Work with lawmakers to eliminate CEP. The NSLP and SBP should be directed to serve children in need, not become an entitlement for students from middle- and upper-income homes. Congress should eliminate CEP. Further, the USDA should not provide meals to students during the summer unless students are taking summer-school classes. Currently, students can get meals from schools even if they are not in summer school, which has, in effect, turned school meals into a federal catering program.93 l Restore programs to their original intent and reject efforts to create universal free school meals. The USDA should work with lawmakers to restore NSLP and SBP to their original goal of providing food to K–12 students who otherwise would not have food to eat while at school. Federal school meals should be focused on children in need, and any efforts to expand student eligibility for federal school meals to include all K–12 students should be soundly rejected. Such expansion would allow an inefficient, wasteful program to grow, magnifying the amount of wasted taxpayer resources. Reform Conservation Programs. Farmers, in general, are excellent stewards of the land, if not for moral or ethical considerations, then out of self-interest to

Department of Agriculture

Weak

Vector: 64%

Pages: 332-334AI Enhanced

AI Analysis:

"The bill focuses on streamlining school meal eligibility using Medicaid data, while Project 2025's Agriculture section centers on SNAP work requirements, broad-based categorical eligibility, Thrifty Food Plan, and WIC reforms. Both share a goal of improving program integrity and reducing administrative burdens, but they address different programs and specific policies."

Key themes:program integrityadministrative efficiencydata sharing for eligibilitynutrition assistance

— 300 — Mandate for Leadership: The Conservative Promise the more than 40 million food stamp beneficiaries, the Trump rule would have applied only to 688,000 individuals in fiscal year 2021.63 The Trump reform was scheduled to go into effect, but a D.C. district court federal judge enjoined the rule.64 The USDA filed an appeal in late December 2020,65 but the Biden Administration withdrew from defending the challenge, and the rule was never implemented.66 Beyond the able-bodied work requirement, FNS should implement better regulation to clarify options for states to implement the general work requirement. This requirement is an option states can apply to work- capable beneficiaries aged 16 to 59. If beneficiaries’ work hours are below 30 hours a week, states can implement the general work requirements to oblige beneficiaries to register for work or participate in SNAP Employment and Training or workfare assigned by the state SNAP agency.67 Increased clarity for states would include items like states being required to offer employment and training spots for those that request them—not simply budgeting for every currently enrolled able-bodied adult. l Reform broad-based categorical eligibility. Federal law permits states to enroll individuals in food stamps if they receive a benefit from another program, such as the Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) program. However, under an administrative option in TANF called broad- based categorical eligibility (BBCE), ”benefit” is defined so broadly that it includes simply receiving distributed pamphlets and 1–800 numbers.68 This definition, with its low threshold to trigger a “benefit,” allows individuals to bypass eligibility limits—particularly the asset requirement (how much the applicant has in resources, such as bank accounts or property).69 Adopting the BBCE option has even allowed millionaires to enroll in the food stamp program.70 The Trump Administration proposed to close the loophole with a rule to “increase program integrity and reduce fraud, waste, and abuse.”71 The regulation was not finalized before the end of the Trump Administration. l Re-evaluate the Thrifty Food Plan. In a dramatic overreach, the Biden Administration unilaterally increased food stamp benefits by at least 23 percent in October 2021.72 Through an update to the Thrifty Food Plan, in which the USDA analyzes a basket of foods intended to provide a nutritious diet, the USDA increased food stamp outlays by between $250 billion and $300 billion over 10 years.73 — 301 — Department of Agriculture Although the 2018 farm bill instructed FNS to update the Thrifty Food Plan by 2023 and every five years thereafter, every previous Thrifty Food Plan has been always cost-neutral (just an inflation update)—exactly what CBO estimated as cost of the 2018 farm bill.74 The Biden Administration may have skirted regulations and congressional authority to increase the overall cost of the program. In fact, Senate and House Republicans requested that the Government Accountability Office investigate the legal authorities and process that the USDA undertook to arrive at such an unprecedented increase.75 l Eliminate the heat-and-eat loophole. States can artificially boost a household’s food stamp benefit by using the heat-and-eat loophole. The amount of food stamps a household receives is based on its “countable” income (income minus certain deductions). Households that receive benefits from the Low-Income Heat and Energy Assistance Program (LIHEAP) are eligible for a larger utility deduction. In order to make households eligible for the higher deduction, and thus for greater food stamp benefits, states have distributed LIHEAP checks for amounts as small as $1 to food stamp recipients. The 2014 farm bill tightened this loophole by requiring that a household must receive more than $20 annually in LIHEAP payments to be eligible for the larger utility deduction and subsequently higher food stamp benefits.76 Nonetheless, states continue to inflate their standard utility allowances. Under the Trump Administration, the USDA proposed a rule, which was not finalized, that would have standardized the utility allowance.77 Reform WIC. Turning to WIC, this program distributes money through EBT cards to help low-income women, infants, and children under six purchase nutri- tion-rich foods and nutrition education (including breastfeeding support). As of August 2022, approximately 6.3 million people participated in WIC each month to purchase food.78 In 2021, WIC federal outlays were $5 billion.79 The next Administration should: l Reform the state voucher system. State agencies control WIC costs by approving only one brand of infant formula through competitive bidding for infant formula rebate contracts. Because 50 percent of baby formula is purchased through the federal WIC program, it is vital that regulation for these competitive bidding contracts does not unintentionally create monopolies.

Department of Education

Minimal

Vector: 64%

Pages: 383-385AI Enhanced

AI Analysis:

"The bill focuses on school meal eligibility and administrative efficiency, while Project 2025's Department of Education section concerns school choice, opt-out of federal programs, and accreditation reform, with no substantive overlap."

— 351 — Department of Education as the Educational Choice for Children Act. This bill would create a federal scholarship tax credit that would incentivize donors to contribute to nonprofit scholarship granting organizations (SGOs). Eligible families could then use that funding from the SGOs for their children’s education expenses including private school tuition, tutoring, and instructional materials. ADDITIONAL K–12 REFORMS Allowing States to Opt Out of Federal Education Programs. States should be able to opt out of federal education programs such as the Academic Partnerships Lead Us to Success (APLUS) Act. Much of the red tape and regulations that hinder local school districts are handed down from Washington. This regulatory burden far exceeds the federal government’s less than 10 percent financing share of K–12 education. In the most recent fiscal year (FY 2022), states and localities financed 93 percent of K–12 education costs, and the federal government just 7 percent. That 7 percent share should not allow the federal government to dictate state and local education policy. l To restore state and local control of education and reduce the bureaucratic and compliance burden, Congress should allow states to opt out of the dozens of federal K–12 education programs authorized under the Elementary and Secondary Education Act, and instead allow states to put their share of federal funding toward any lawful education purpose under state law. This policy has been advanced over the years via a proposal known as the Academic Partnerships Lead Us to Success (APLUS) Act. HIGHER EDUCATION REFORM HEA: Accreditation Reform Congress established two primary responsibilities for the U.S. Department of Education in the HEA: 1) to ensure the “administrative capacity and financial responsibility” of colleges and universities that accept Title IV funds; and 2) to ensure the quality of those institutions. Congress did not endow the Department of Education with the authority to involve itself in academic quality issues relating to colleges and universities that participate in the Title IV student aid program; the HEA allows the agency only to recognize accreditors, which are then supposed to provide quality assurance measures. Unfortunately, the Biden Administration has followed closely in the footsteps of the Obama Administration by engaging in a politically motivated and incon- sistent administration of the accrediting agency recognition process. As a result, accreditors have transformed into de facto government agents. Despite claims by — 352 — Mandate for Leadership: The Conservative Promise the department and accreditation agencies that accreditation is voluntary, the fact that Americans are denied access to an otherwise widely available entitle- ment benefit if the institution “elects” to not be accredited makes accreditation anything but voluntary. Today, accreditation determines whether Americans can access federal student aid benefits, transfer academic credits, enroll in higher-level degree programs, and even qualify for federal employment. Unnecessarily focused on schools in a specific geographic region, institutional accreditation reviews have also become wildly expensive audits by academic “peers” that stifle innovation and discourage new institutions of higher education. Of par- ticular concern are efforts by many accreditation agencies to leverage their Title IV (student loans and grants) gatekeeper roles to force institutions to adopt policies that have nothing to do with academic quality assurance and student outcomes. One egregious example of this is the extent to which accreditors have forced col- leges and universities, many of them faith-based institutions, to adopt diversity, equity, and inclusion policies that conflict with federal civil rights laws, state laws, and the institutional mission and culture of the schools. Perhaps more distress- ingly, accreditors, while professing support for academic freedom and campus free speech, have presided over a precipitous decline in both over the past decade. Despite maintaining criteria that demand such policies, accreditors have done nothing to dampen the illiberal chill that has swept across American campuses over the past decade. The current system is not working. A radical overhaul of the HEA’s accreditation requirements is thus in order. The next Administration should work with Congress to amend the HEA and should consider the following reforms: l Prohibit accreditation agencies from leveraging their Title IV gatekeeper role to mandate that educational institutions adopt diversity, equity, and inclusion policies. l Protect the sovereignty of states to decide governance and leadership issues for their state-supported colleges and universities by prohibiting accreditation agencies from intruding upon the governance of state-supported educational institutions. l Protect faith-based institutions by prohibiting accreditation agencies from: 1. Requiring standards and criteria that undermine the religious beliefs of, or require policies or conduct that conflict with, the religious mission or religious beliefs of the institution; and

Showing 3 of 5 policy matches

About These Correlations

Policy matches are calculated using a hybrid approach: initial candidates are found using semantic similarity between bill summaries and Project 2025 policy text, then an AI model (Llama 3.1 70B) provides detailed alignment ratings and analysis. Ratings range from 1 (minimal alignment) to 5 (very strong alignment). This analysis does not imply direct causation or intent.

Related Bills

Other Bills by Sen. Luján, Ben Ray

Mining Waste, Fraud, and Abuse Prevention Act of 2025

119/s/859

New Mexico Land Grant-Mercedes Historical or Traditional Use Cooperation and Coordination Act

119/s/1363

Protecting Indian Water Rights Settlements Act of 2026

119/s/4890

Back to All Bills