Trump’s Push to End Federal School Food Programs: A Case for Local Control

President Trump’s recent push to shutter the federal Department of Education is part of a broader campaign to streamline and reduce the size of the federal bureaucracy, a move he’s described as necessary due to what he calls “breathtaking failures” within the system. While Congress would need to take action to make such cuts permanent, the idea of scaling back federal involvement in education is long overdue, particularly when it comes to school food programs.

These federal programs, managed primarily through the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA), spend a staggering $35 billion annually. Established in 1946, the school lunch program has expanded over the decades to include breakfast, after-school, and summer meals, serving roughly 30 million children. However, there are mounting arguments that it’s time to reconsider this massive federal expenditure.

While it's difficult to point to clear, quantifiable outcomes such as falling test scores to assess the program's effectiveness, there are several compelling reasons to reassess federal school food programs and hand control back to state governments.

1. Expanding to Higher-Income Households: A Misguided Subsidy

The original intent behind federal school food programs was to support children from low-income families. However, over time, the scope of these programs has expanded, and today, a significant portion of school meals go to children from higher-income households. In 1969, just 15% of school lunches were provided at a free or reduced price; by 2024, that number has skyrocketed to 72%.

Left-wing policymakers have continually pushed to broaden the provision of free meals, arguing that this helps alleviate hunger. But the reality is that these programs are often funded through deficit spending, which makes them seem costless on paper. States, however, are required to balance their budgets and are far more likely to run efficient, targeted programs that directly serve those in need. Devolving control to states could allow for more tailored and sustainable solutions.

2. Rising Obesity Rates: Is the Program Contributing to the Problem?

The original goal of school food programs was to combat hunger, but today’s nutritional crisis looks very different. Instead of food scarcity, the U.S. is facing an obesity epidemic, with childhood obesity rates soaring. In the 1970s, 5% of children were obese; by 2023, that number had climbed to 21%. The obesity rate is particularly high among low-income children, with 26% of children from families below 135% of the poverty level classified as obese, compared to just 12% in households earning more than 350% of the poverty level.

Some argue that the federal school lunch program plays a role in this health crisis. Despite efforts to improve food quality in recent years, children continue to discard healthy items, and studies on the program’s impact on nutrition and obesity have yielded mixed results. State-based programs may be more equipped to innovate and create strategies that encourage healthier eating habits tailored to local needs, rather than a one-size-fits-all federal model.

3. Fraud, Waste, and Mismanagement: The Federal School Food System is Broken

The inefficiencies and vulnerabilities of the federal school food programs have been well-documented. Local administrators have little incentive to ensure the accuracy of enrollment, and the ease of applying for free meals without providing proof of household income has opened the door to widespread fraud.

In recent years, numerous scandals have exposed the systemic problems plaguing the program. In 2023, a USDA contractor in Dallas stole $2.3 million by inflating meal counts in the summer food program. In Los Angeles, the school district's food services program has been plagued by mismanagement and ethical breaches. Perhaps most infamously, a former New York City school official was sentenced to prison for accepting bribes from a contractor, which resulted in children being served tainted chicken.

Most notably, a massive fraud operation in Minnesota in 2021 involved a group called Feeding Our Future, which siphoned off $250 million in federal school food aid. Prosecutors secured 45 convictions, but neither federal nor state authorities took full responsibility for the debacle. Removing federal involvement would clarify accountability and encourage more efficient local management.

4. The Case for Local, Community-Driven Innovation

In a diverse and evolving society, the needs and preferences of students are no longer one-size-fits-all. Children come from a wide variety of cultural backgrounds, each with distinct food traditions, making standardized federal meals less appealing. Meanwhile, local communities have increasingly turned to innovative solutions such as farm-to-school programs, which bring fresh, locally sourced foods into schools. These efforts are often driven by private funds and volunteer work, yet federal regulations and bureaucratic red tape can stymie these initiatives.

As the school choice movement gains traction, with millions of students moving to private schools, the relevance of federal food programs is rapidly diminishing. Private schools, which generally don't participate in these programs, are serving as an example of how food services can be handled more flexibly and efficiently without federal involvement.

Conclusion: Time for a Change

Given the nation’s soaring federal deficits and the increasing inefficiency of federal school food programs, the time has come for Congress to consider devolving these responsibilities to the states. Local and state governments are better positioned to create tailored, cost-effective programs that align with the needs of their communities. With the landscape of education evolving through school choice reforms, it makes more sense than ever to allow families, communities, and state governments to address child nutrition challenges in a way that fits their unique circumstances. It’s time to end the overreach of federal school food programs and hand that responsibility back to where it belongs: the states.