Whole Milk for Healthy Kids Act of 2025

Download PDF

Bill ID: 119/hr/649

Last Updated: October 8, 2025

Whole Milk for Healthy Kids Act of 2025

HR. 649, 119th Congress — read as touching Meat & Dairy Processing.

The sponsor

Rep. Thompson, Glenn [R-PA-15]

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

The money

$71,700 raised

30 itemised contributions to this sponsor, pulled from FEC filings.

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

Placed on the Union Calendar, Calendar No. 111.

June 4, 2025

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 House

🏛️

Senate 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 Whole Milk for Healthy Kids Act of 2025 (HR 649) - a bill that, on the surface, appears to be a trivial matter of allowing schools to serve whole milk in their lunch programs. But, as is often the case with legislation, there are subtle yet significant implications that warrant closer examination.

**Main Purpose & Objectives:** The primary objective of this bill is to amend the Richard B. Russell National School Lunch Act to permit schools participating in the school lunch program to serve whole milk. This may seem like a minor adjustment, but it has far-reaching consequences for the dairy industry and, by extension, my own business interests.

**Key Provisions & Changes to Existing Law:** The bill introduces several key provisions that alter existing regulations:

1. Allows schools to offer organic or non-organic whole milk, in addition to reduced-fat, low-fat, and fat-free options. 2. Exempts milk fat from being considered saturated fat for the purposes of measuring compliance with meal standards. 3. Prohibits schools from purchasing milk produced by China state-owned enterprises. 4. Limits the Secretary's authority to restrict schools from offering whole milk.

**Affected Parties & Stakeholders:** The primary stakeholders affected by this bill are:

1. Dairy farmers and producers, who stand to benefit from increased demand for whole milk. 2. Schools participating in the school lunch program, which will have more flexibility in their menu offerings. 3. My own business interests, as a major player in the dairy industry, which will likely see an increase in profits due to the expanded market for whole milk.

**Potential Impact & Implications:** The potential impact of this bill is multifaceted:

1. Increased demand for whole milk could lead to higher prices and profits for dairy farmers and producers. 2. The exemption from saturated fat regulations may contribute to a shift in consumer preferences, potentially driving up sales of whole milk products. 3. The prohibition on Chinese state-owned enterprises may create new opportunities for domestic dairy producers to capture market share.

From my perspective, this bill presents a lucrative opportunity to expand our market dominance and increase profits. I will be closely monitoring its progress and exploring ways to leverage its provisions to further consolidate our position in the industry.

Generated using Llama 3.1 70B (billionaire personality)

*Sigh* Alright, let's break down this bill, shall we? As I taught you in 8th grade civics, a bill is a proposed law that must go through the legislative process before it can become a law.

**Main Purpose & Objectives** The Whole Milk for Healthy Kids Act of 2025 (HR 649) aims to amend the Richard B. Russell National School Lunch Act to allow schools participating in the school lunch program to serve whole milk. Yes, you heard that right - whole milk. Remember when we learned about the importance of a balanced diet and how different types of milk can be part of it? Apparently, some people need a refresher.

**Key Provisions & Changes to Existing Law** The bill proposes several changes:

* It amends Section 9(a)(2) of the Richard B. Russell National School Lunch Act to permit schools to offer organic or non-organic whole milk, in addition to other types of milk. * It adds new provisions regarding saturated fat content and prohibits schools from purchasing milk produced by China state-owned enterprises. * It limits the Secretary's authority to prohibit schools from offering certain types of milk.

Now, as we covered in 8th grade, when a bill is introduced, it goes through various stages before becoming a law. This bill was referred to the Committee on Education and Workforce, which reported it with an amendment. It's now committed to the Committee of the Whole House on the State of the Union.

**Affected Parties & Stakeholders** The affected parties include:

* Schools participating in the school lunch program * Students who consume milk as part of their school meals * Dairy farmers and producers (who might benefit from increased demand for whole milk) * Parents and guardians who care about what their children eat

**Potential Impact & Implications** If this bill becomes a law, it could lead to:

* Increased availability of whole milk in schools * Potential changes in student nutrition and health outcomes * Economic benefits for dairy farmers and producers * Possible controversy surrounding the prohibition on Chinese state-owned enterprises' milk products

Now, I know some of you might be thinking, "But wait, isn't this just a simple bill about milk?" Ah, if only it were that simple. As we learned in civics class, every bill has its complexities and implications. It's essential to understand the legislative process and how bills can shape our lives.

Moving on...

Generated using Llama 3.1 70B (civics_teacher personality)

The Whole Milk for Healthy Kids Act of 2025 - sounds innocent enough, right? But trust me, folks, there's more to this bill than meets the eye.

**Main Purpose & Objectives**

On the surface, HR 649 aims to amend the Richard B. Russell National School Lunch Act to allow schools participating in the school lunch program to serve whole milk. Sounds like a harmless attempt to promote healthy eating habits among kids. But let's dig deeper...

**Key Provisions & Changes to Existing Law**

The bill makes several changes to existing law, including:

* Allowing schools to offer organic or non-organic whole milk, as well as flavored and unflavored versions * Exempting milk fat from being considered saturated fat for purposes of measuring compliance with meal standards * Prohibiting schools from purchasing or offering milk produced by China state-owned enterprises (interesting, don't you think?) * Limiting the Secretary's authority to prohibit schools from offering whole milk

Now, here's where things get interesting...

**Affected Parties & Stakeholders**

Who benefits from this bill? Well, it looks like dairy farmers and the dairy industry might be big winners. But what about the kids? Are they really going to benefit from drinking whole milk? And what about the environmental impact of increased dairy production?

And then there's the China connection - why are they specifically targeting Chinese state-owned enterprises? Is this a veiled attempt to restrict trade with China or promote American dairy interests?

**Potential Impact & Implications**

This bill has far-reaching implications, folks. If passed, it could lead to:

* Increased dairy consumption and production, potentially harming the environment * A shift in the global dairy market, favoring American producers over Chinese ones * Potential conflicts of interest between government agencies and the dairy industry

But here's the thing - what if this bill is just a Trojan horse for something bigger? What if it's part of a larger agenda to control our food supply or promote certain industries over others?

You see, my friends, nothing is as it seems in Washington. There are always hidden agendas and ulterior motives at play. And I'm not buying the official narrative on this one...

Generated using Llama 3.1 70B (conspiracy_uncle personality)

(Outraged tone) Folks, we've got a bill that's so patriotic, so pro-freedom, it'll make your head spin! Introducing the Whole Milk for Healthy Kids Act of 2025 – because what's more American than whole milk? (smirk)

**Main Purpose & Objectives:** This bill is all about giving schools the freedom to serve our kids the good stuff – whole milk. That's right, folks, no more watered-down, low-fat nonsense for our young patriots! The main objective here is to amend the Richard B. Russell National School Lunch Act to allow schools participating in the school lunch program to serve whole milk.

**Key Provisions & Changes to Existing Law:** The bill makes some crucial changes to existing law:

* Schools can now offer students a variety of fluid milk, including flavored and unflavored organic or non-organic whole milk. * Milk fat is no longer considered saturated fat for purposes of measuring compliance with meal standards. (Because who needs science when it comes to our kids' diets?) * The Secretary of Agriculture is prohibited from purchasing or offering milk produced by China state-owned enterprises. (Those sneaky Chinese elites won't get their hands on our kids' milk!)

**Affected Parties & Stakeholders:** This bill affects schools participating in the school lunch program, as well as dairy farmers and producers who'll see an increase in demand for whole milk. And let's not forget the real winners here – our kids! They'll be drinking the good stuff, just like their grandparents did.

**Potential Impact & Implications:** The impact of this bill is clear: more freedom for schools to serve whole milk, and a blow to those pesky elites who want to control what we eat. (Wink) But seriously, folks, this bill could lead to increased demand for whole milk, which might benefit dairy farmers. However, it's also possible that this bill will contribute to the growing obesity epidemic in our country. (Shrug) Who needs science when it comes to policy-making?

There you have it, folks – a bill that's all about freedom, patriotism, and... well, not so much about science or common sense. But hey, who needs those things when we've got whole milk?

Generated using Llama 3.1 70B (fox_host personality)

(sigh) Oh joy, another brilliant example of legislative theater. Let's dissect this farce.

**Main Purpose & Objectives:** The Whole Milk for Healthy Kids Act of 2025 (HR 649) claims to allow schools participating in the school lunch program to serve whole milk. Wow, what a groundbreaking idea. I'm sure it has nothing to do with the dairy lobby or campaign contributions.

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

* Amends the Richard B. Russell National School Lunch Act to permit schools to offer organic or non-organic whole milk. * Exempts milk fat from saturated fat content calculations for meal compliance purposes (because who needs healthy eating guidelines, anyway?). * Prohibits schools from purchasing milk produced by China state-owned enterprises (a clever way to disguise protectionism as a health concern). * Limits the Secretary's authority to prohibit schools from offering whole milk (because God forbid we actually regulate something).

**Affected Parties & Stakeholders:**

* Schools participating in the school lunch program (who will now have the "freedom" to serve whole milk, courtesy of their dairy industry overlords). * The dairy lobby (which has undoubtedly been greasing palms and writing checks to ensure this bill's passage). * Parents and kids who actually care about healthy eating (who will be forced to navigate a system that prioritizes special interests over nutrition).

**Potential Impact & Implications:**

* This bill is a classic case of "regulatory capture," where industry interests hijack the legislative process to serve their own agenda. * By exempting milk fat from saturated fat content calculations, we're essentially giving schools a free pass to serve unhealthy food options. * The prohibition on China state-owned enterprises is a thinly veiled attempt to protect domestic dairy interests, rather than any genuine concern for public health. * This bill will likely lead to increased consumption of whole milk, which may contribute to rising rates of obesity, diabetes, and other diet-related diseases.

In conclusion, HR 649 is a masterclass in legislative manipulation. It's a bill that serves the interests of the dairy lobby at the expense of public health, all while masquerading as a benevolent effort to promote "healthy kids." Give me a break.

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

**Bill Summary: HR 649 - Whole Milk for Healthy Kids Act of 2025**

**Main Purpose & Objectives:** The Whole Milk for Healthy Kids Act of 2025 aims to amend the Richard B. Russell National School Lunch Act to allow schools participating in the school lunch program to serve whole milk, including organic and non-organic options.

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

1. The bill amends Section 9(a)(2) of the Richard B. Russell National School Lunch Act to permit schools to offer students a variety of fluid milk, including flavored and unflavored organic or non-organic whole, reduced-fat, low-fat, and fat-free options. 2. It adds new provisions to exempt milk fat from being considered saturated fat for purposes of measuring compliance with the allowable average saturated fat content of a meal. 3. The bill prohibits schools from purchasing or offering milk produced by China state-owned enterprises. 4. It limits the authority of the Secretary to prohibit schools from offering students whole milk options.

**Affected Parties & Stakeholders:**

1. Schools participating in the school lunch program under the Richard B. Russell National School Lunch Act 2. Students and parents who rely on school meal programs for nutrition 3. Dairy farmers and producers, particularly those producing organic or non-organic whole milk 4. China state-owned enterprises involved in milk production

**Potential Impact & Implications:**

1. Increased availability of whole milk options in schools may promote healthier eating habits among students. 2. The bill's provisions may benefit dairy farmers and producers by increasing demand for their products. 3. The prohibition on purchasing milk from China state-owned enterprises may impact trade relationships between the US and China. 4. Some critics argue that allowing whole milk in school meals may contribute to increased saturated fat consumption, potentially negatively impacting student health.

Overall, the Whole Milk for Healthy Kids Act of 2025 aims to provide schools with more flexibility in offering milk options, while also promoting American dairy products and limiting Chinese imports.

Generated using Llama 3.1 70B (neutral personality)

Let's break down this bill like we're catchin' some gnarly waves, bro.

**Main Purpose & Objectives** The Whole Milk for Healthy Kids Act of 2025 is all about givin' schools the freedom to serve whole milk in their lunch programs. The main objective is to provide kids with more options and flexibility when it comes to dairy products. It's like, you know when you're out surfing and you need a good snack to keep your energy up? Whole milk can be that snack, bro.

**Key Provisions & Changes to Existing Law** This bill amends the Richard B. Russell National School Lunch Act to allow schools to serve whole milk, including organic or non-organic options. It also makes some changes to the existing law:

* Schools can now offer students a variety of fluid milk, including flavored and unflavored whole, reduced-fat, low-fat, and fat-free options. * The bill clarifies that milk fat shouldn't be considered saturated fat when measuring compliance with meal standards. * There's a new provision that prohibits schools from purchasing or offering milk produced by China state-owned enterprises. That's like, a big no-no, bro. * The Secretary of Agriculture can't prohibit schools from offering whole milk options.

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

* Schools participating in the school lunch program * Students and their parents (who might be stoked to have more dairy options) * Dairy farmers and producers (who might see an increase in demand for whole milk) * China state-owned enterprises (which are basically banned from selling milk to schools)

**Potential Impact & Implications** This bill could have some rad implications, bro:

* More flexibility for schools to offer healthy meal options * Increased demand for whole milk could benefit dairy farmers and the economy * Some kids might be stoked to have more dairy options, while others might not care (like, who doesn't love a good glass of cold milk after a long surf session?) * The China state-owned enterprise ban could lead to some diplomatic tensions or trade disputes

Anyway, that's the lowdown on HR 649, bro. It's all about givin' schools more freedom to serve whole milk and makin' sure kids have healthy options. Now, if you'll excuse me, I'm gonna grab my board and catch some waves, dude!

Generated using Llama 3.1 70B (surfer personality)

**Bill Analysis: Whole Milk for Healthy Kids Act of 2025 (HR 649)**

**Main Purpose & Objectives**

The Whole Milk for Healthy Kids Act of 2025 aims to amend the Richard B. Russell National School Lunch Act, allowing schools participating in the school lunch program to serve whole milk. The bill's primary objective is to provide students with access to a wider range of milk options, including organic and non-organic whole milk.

**Key Provisions & Changes to Existing Law**

The bill makes several key changes to existing law:

1. **Expansion of Milk Options**: Schools can now offer students flavored and unflavored organic or non-organic whole, reduced-fat, low-fat, and fat-free fluid milk. 2. **Exemption from Saturated Fat Regulations**: Milk fat in fluid milk is exempted from saturated fat content regulations for meal compliance purposes. 3. **Prohibition on China State-Owned Enterprise Milk**: Schools are prohibited from purchasing or offering milk produced by a China state-owned enterprise. 4. **Limitation on Secretary's Authority**: The Secretary of Agriculture cannot prohibit schools from offering students the expanded range of milk options.

**Affected Parties & Stakeholders**

1. **Schools and School Districts**: Will be able to offer whole milk as part of their school lunch programs. 2. **Dairy Industry**: May benefit from increased demand for whole milk, particularly organic and non-organic varieties. 3. **Students and Parents**: Will have access to a wider range of milk options in schools. 4. **China State-Owned Enterprises**: Will be prohibited from selling milk to schools participating in the school lunch program.

**Potential Impact & Implications**

1. **Increased Dairy Industry Influence**: The bill may lead to increased lobbying efforts by the dairy industry, potentially influencing future agricultural policies. 2. **Trade Implications**: The prohibition on China state-owned enterprise milk may strain trade relations between the US and China. 3. **Nutritional Concerns**: Some critics argue that whole milk is high in saturated fat and calories, which could contribute to childhood obesity and other health issues. 4. **Potential for Increased Costs**: Schools may face increased costs due to the expanded range of milk options, potentially impacting school budgets.

**Monied Interest Analysis**

The bill has received support from various dairy industry groups, including the National Milk Producers Federation and the International Dairy Foods Association. These organizations have significant lobbying presence in Washington D.C. and have contributed to the campaigns of several lawmakers sponsoring the bill. Additionally, some lawmakers with agricultural interests or those representing rural districts may be more likely to support the bill due to its potential benefits for local dairy farmers.

Generated using Llama 3.1 70B (whistleblower personality)

💰 Campaign Finance Network

Rep. Thompson, Glenn [R-PA-15]

Congress 119 • 2024 Election Cycle

Total Contributions

$71,700

26 donors

PACs

Organizations

$28,700

Committees

Individuals

$43,000

No PAC contributions found

BUTLER MACHINE

2 transactions

$6,600

CHOCTAW NATION OF OKLAHOMA

1 transaction

$3,300

CORTINA HULLING & SHELLING GROUP

1 transaction

$3,300

AG VENTURES

1 transaction

$2,500

ROESLEIN ALTERNATIVE ENERGY, LLC

1 transaction

$2,000

KOHL REAL ESTATE

2 transactions

$2,000

EUROOPTIC, LTD

2 transactions

$2,000

RANCH 440

1 transaction

$1,500

DWIGHT STANSEL FARM & NURSERY

1 transaction

$1,000

HIGHLINE GRAIN GROWERS INC

1 transaction

$1,000

SCHRACK FARMS

1 transaction

$1,000

LUKE ROBISON FARMS LLC

1 transaction

$1,000

ARK-LA-TEX FINANCIAL CONSULTANTS LLC

1 transaction

$500

HARLOW CATTLE LLC

1 transaction

$500

MID ATLANTIC ASSOCIATION OF CAREER SCHOOLS

1 transaction

$500

No committee contributions found

BARENSFELD, WENDY H. MRS.

2 transactions

$6,600

LEMEUR, HENRI E. JR.

1 transaction

$5,000

MYERS, JOEL N. DR.

1 transaction

$5,000

FONALLEDAS, JAIME L JR.

1 transaction

$3,300

GUILLERMETY, RAFAEL

1 transaction

$3,300

ASHER, ROBERT B. MR.

1 transaction

$3,300

CIARROCCHI, GUY

1 transaction

$3,300

LEPRINO, JAMES G. MR.

1 transaction

$3,300

MYERS, STEPHANIE

1 transaction

$3,300

VAN VLECK, NICOLE

1 transaction

$3,300

VANN, JAMES

1 transaction

$3,300

Cosponsors & Their Campaign Finance

This bill has 10 cosponsors. Below are their top campaign contributors.

Rep. Schrier, Kim [D-WA-8]

ID: S001216

Top Contributors

CHICKASAW NATION

PACADA, OK

$1,000

Sep 23, 2024

SNOQUALMIE TRIBE

OrganizationSNOQUALMIE, WA

$3,300

Nov 3, 2023

THE CONFEDERATED TRIBES OF THE COLVILLE RESERVATION

OrganizationNESPELEM, WA

$3,300

Nov 3, 2023

JAMESTOWN S'KLALLAM TRIBE

OrganizationSEQUIM, WA

$3,300

Jun 30, 2023

JAMESTOWN S'KLALLAM TRIBE

OrganizationSEQUIM, WA

$3,300

Jun 30, 2023

MUCKLESHOOT INDIAN TRIBE

OrganizationAUBURN, WA

$3,300

May 10, 2023

NISQUALLY INDIAN TRIBE

OrganizationOLYMPIA, WA

$3,300

Jun 29, 2023

THE TULALIP TRIBES OF WASHINGTON

OrganizationTULALIP, WA

$3,300

May 2, 2023

MUCKLESHOOT INDIAN TRIBE

OrganizationAUBURN, WA

$3,300

Jun 28, 2024

PUYALLUP TRIBE OF INDIANS

OrganizationTACOMA, WA

$3,300

Jun 30, 2024

Rep. Finstad, Brad [R-MN-1]

ID: F000475

Top Contributors

SHAKOPEE MDEWAKANTON SIOUX COMMUNITY

COMPRIOR LAKE, MN

$3,300

May 29, 2024

PRAIRIE ISLAND TRIBAL COUNCIL

COMWELCH, MN

$2,500

Feb 15, 2023

REPUBLICAN MAINSTREET PARTNERSHIP PAC

PACWASHINGTON, DC

$1,000

Jul 28, 2023

WATONWAN COUNTY REPUBLICAN PARTY

COMSAINT JAMES, MN

$800

May 30, 2024

ANDERSON, ROLLIS H

ANDERSON TRUCKING SERVICE • CEO

IndividualSAINT CLOUD, MN

$13,200

Mar 20, 2024

KROLL, MARK W

RETIRED • RETIRED

IndividualCRYSTAL BAY, MN

$13,200

Mar 31, 2023

SONNEK, KATHLEEN M

SELF • WRITER

IndividualLAKE CRYSTAL, MN

$10,000

Sep 21, 2023

HALKYARD, JONATHAN

MGM RESORTS • CFO

IndividualLAS VEGAS, NV

$9,423

Mar 26, 2024

KING, RUSSELL S

KING CAPITAL LLC • CEO

IndividualMINNEAPOLIS, MN

$6,870

Dec 24, 2023

MILLER, HUGH L

RTP COMPANY • PRESIDENT

IndividualWINONA, MN

$6,600

Mar 28, 2024

Rep. Craig, Angie [D-MN-2]

ID: C001119

Top Contributors

SHAKOPEE MDEWAKANTON SIOUX COMMUNITY

OrganizationPRIOR LAKE, MN

$3,300

Oct 30, 2023

SHAKOPEE MDEWAKANTON SIOUX COMMUNITY

OrganizationPRIOR LAKE, MN

$3,300

May 23, 2024

EASTERN BAND OF CHEROKEE INDIANS

OrganizationCHEROKEE, NC

$3,300

Oct 28, 2024

PRAIRIE ISLAND TRIBAL COUNCIL

OrganizationWELCH, MN

$3,300

Oct 21, 2024

AK-CHIN INDIAN COMMUNITY

OrganizationMARICOPA, AZ

$3,300

Mar 31, 2023

AK-CHIN INDIAN COMMUNITY

OrganizationMARICOPA, AZ

$2,500

Sep 24, 2024

THE MORONGO BAND OF MISSION INDIANS

OrganizationBANNING, CA

$1,000

Jun 30, 2024

FISCHER, FRANK

NOT EMPLOYED • NOT EMPLOYED

IndividualATHERTON, CA

$6,600

Mar 21, 2024

MAKOWER, JOSH

STANFORD UNIVERSITY • PROFESSOR

IndividualLOS ALTOS HILLS, CA

$6,600

Mar 19, 2024

BOWEN, DAVID

NOT EMPLOYED • RETIRED

IndividualSAN FRANCISCO, CA

$6,600

Apr 22, 2024

Rep. Tokuda, Jill N. [D-HI-2]

ID: T000487

Top Contributors

AGUA CALIENTE BAND OF CAHUILLA INDIANS

OrganizationPALM SPRINGS, CA

$3,300

Jun 30, 2023

THE CHICKASAW NATION

OrganizationADA, OK

$2,500

Jun 21, 2023

THE CHICKASAW NATION

OrganizationADA, OK

$2,000

Mar 27, 2024

SHAKOPEE MDEWAKANTON SIOUX COMMUNITY

OrganizationPRIOR LAKE, MN

$1,650

Jun 27, 2023

SHAKOPEE MDEWAKANTON SIOUX COMMUNITY

OrganizationPRIOR LAKE, MN

$1,650

May 9, 2024

POARCH BAND OF CREEK INDIANS

OrganizationATMORE, AL

$1,000

Jun 27, 2024

MS BAND OF CHOCTAW INDIANS

OrganizationCHOCTAW, MS

$1,000

Aug 28, 2024

THE CHICKASAW NATION

OrganizationADA, OK

$500

Sep 18, 2023

THE CHICKASAW NATION

OrganizationADA, OK

$300

Mar 27, 2024

THE CHICKASAW NATION

OrganizationADA, OK

$200

Mar 27, 2024

Rep. Franklin, Scott [R-FL-18]

ID: F000472

Top Contributors

SEMINOLE TRIBE OF FLORIDA

OrganizationHOLLYWOOD, FL

$3,300

Aug 23, 2023

SEMINOLE TRIBE OF FLORIDA

OrganizationHOLLYWOOD, FL

$3,300

Aug 16, 2024

MICCOSUKEE TRIBE

OrganizationMIAMI, FL

$1,000

Jan 30, 2024

CASSIDY, ALBERT B MR.

THE CASSIDY ORGANIZATION INC. • REAL ESTATE

IndividualWINTER HAVEN, FL

$6,600

May 12, 2023

CASSIDY, GENA

IndividualWINTER HAVEN, FL

$6,600

Jun 16, 2023

CASSIDY, GLORIA

ENTREPRENEUR • ENTREPRENEUR

IndividualWINTER HAVEN, FL

$6,600

May 12, 2023

CASSIDY, STEVEN L

IndividualWINTER HAVEN, FL

$6,600

Jun 16, 2023

SILBEY, ALEXANDER

ATS COMMUNICATIONS INC • CONSULTANT

IndividualWASHINGTON, DC

$5,000

Mar 29, 2024

BRADY, JOSEPH P

RETIRED • RETIRED

IndividualST. PETERSBURG, FL

$5,000

Aug 23, 2023

RAUCH, GEORGE W III

IndividualBRADENTON, FL

$4,000

Sep 29, 2023

Rep. Meuser, Daniel [R-PA-9]

ID: M001204

Top Contributors

PRIDE MOBILITY PRODUCTS CORP

OrganizationDURYEA, PA

$2,500

Sep 18, 2024

COTLER, YUDACUFSKI, HUEBNER

OrganizationSAINT CLAIR, PA

$1,000

Apr 23, 2024

DOWD, JOHN J

SUNDANCE VACATIONS • PRESIDENT

IndividualLEHIGHTON, PA

$6,600

Mar 25, 2024

PEYKOFF, ANDY

NIAGARA BOTTLING, LLC • CEO

IndividualLAS VEGAS, NV

$6,600

Mar 22, 2024

DOWD, JOHN J

SUNDANCE VACATIONS • PRESIDENT

IndividualLEHIGHTON, PA

$6,600

Sep 18, 2024

ROWAN, MARC J

APOLLO MANAGEMENT • MANAGEMENT

IndividualGREENWICH, CT

$6,600

Aug 23, 2023

ROWAN, CAROLYN

CAROLYN ROWAN COLLECTION • OWNER

IndividualGREENWICH, CT

$6,600

Aug 23, 2023

RICH, BRIAN R MR. JR

GILBERTON COAL CO. • EXECUTIVE SALES

IndividualCONSHOHOCKEN, PA

$6,600

Oct 24, 2024

VOLPE, ELLEN M

SELF • HOMEMAKER

IndividualWAVERLY TOWNSHIP, PA

$5,800

May 31, 2023

VOLPE, CHARLES J

EXCALIBUR INSURANCE MGMT • PRESIDENT

IndividualWAVERLY TOWNSHIP, PA

$5,800

May 31, 2023

Rep. Estes, Ron [R-KS-4]

ID: E000298

Top Contributors

MORONGO BAND OF MISSION INDIANS TRIBAL OPERATIONS ACCOUNT

OrganizationBANNING, CA

$2,300

Feb 27, 2024

SANTA YNEZ BAND OF MISSION INDIANS

OrganizationSANTA YNEZ, CA

$1,500

Mar 15, 2024

SANTA YNEZ BAND OF MISSION INDIANS

OrganizationSANTA YNEZ, CA

$1,000

Jun 30, 2023

MORONGO BAND OF MISSION INDIANS TRIBAL OPERATIONS ACCOUNT

OrganizationBANNING, CA

$1,000

Mar 31, 2023

WILLIS, THOMAS

CONESTOGA ENERGY PARTNERS • CEO

IndividualLIBERAL, KS

$3,300

Nov 4, 2024

KLAUSMEYER, DON

KLAUSMEYER CONSTRUCTION • OWNER

IndividualCLEARWATER, KS

$3,300

Jul 31, 2023

LEE, JAMES

LEE AEROSPACE INC. • OWNER

IndividualWICHITA, KS

$3,300

Sep 30, 2023

BEREN, ADAM

BEREXCO • CEO AND PRESIDENT

IndividualWICHITA, KS

$3,300

Sep 29, 2023

BEREN, ADAM

BEREXCO • CEO AND PRESIDENT

IndividualWICHITA, KS

$3,300

Sep 29, 2023

CHOUAKE, ESTHER

SELF • PHYSICAN

IndividualENGLEWOOD, NJ

$3,300

Dec 16, 2023

Rep. Fleischmann, Charles J. "Chuck" [R-TN-3]

ID: F000459

Top Contributors

EASTERN BAND OF CHEROKEE INDIANS

OrganizationCHEROKEE, NC

$3,300

Mar 28, 2023

THE CHICKASAW NATION

OrganizationADA, OK

$3,300

Jun 30, 2024

EASTERN BAND OF CHEROKEE INDIANS

OrganizationCHEROKEE, NC

$2,500

Mar 28, 2023

BARKER FOR SHERIFF

OrganizationCLINTON, TN

$1,000

Mar 16, 2023

CARBON RIVERS, INC.

OrganizationKNOXVILLE, TN

$1,000

Mar 16, 2023

HIGGINS, KENNETH

RETIRED • RETIRED

IndividualMCDONALD, TN

$3,300

Oct 17, 2024

HIGGINS, PHILIP

FIDEM ENERGY • CO CEO

IndividualCLEVELAND, TN

$3,300

Oct 17, 2024

JOHNSTON, BENJAMIN

FIDEM ENERGY • PRESIDENT

IndividualLOOKOUT MTN, GA

$3,300

Oct 17, 2024

JONES, JOHN BAILEY

NONE • STUDENT

IndividualCLEVELAND, TN

$3,300

Oct 17, 2024

RICHARDS, CHRISTINE

RETIRED • RETIRED

IndividualBARLETT, TN

$3,300

Oct 18, 2024

Rep. Miller, Mary E. [R-IL-15]

ID: M001211

Top Contributors

WINRED PAC

PACARLINGTON, VA

$13,010

Mar 31, 2023

ADAMS MEMORIALS

OrganizationCHARLESTON, IL

$1,000

Mar 23, 2023

VAHLING VINEYARDS

OrganizationSTEWARDSON, IL

$500

Jan 11, 2024

KASPAR, SCOTT

KASPAR LAW COMPANY • LAWYER

IndividualORLAND PARK, IL

$13,200

Mar 22, 2023

BISHOP, JACK L MR

SELF EMPLOYED • INVESTOR

IndividualLAKE BLUFF, IL

$10,000

Mar 30, 2023

BISHOP, JACK L MR

SELF EMPLOYED • INVESTOR

IndividualLAKE BLUFF, IL

$7,700

Mar 30, 2023

FORSYTHE, GERALD R MR

INDECK ENERGY SERVICES • CEO

IndividualNAPLES, FL

$6,600

Nov 14, 2023

DAMAS, BETH A

SOUTHWEST ENDODONTICS • ENDODONTIST

IndividualORLAND PARK, IL

$6,600

Mar 22, 2023

FORSYTHE, GERALD R MR

INDECK ENERGY SERVICES • CEO

IndividualNAPLES, FL

$6,600

Aug 15, 2023

UIHLEIN, RICHARD

ULINE • CEO

IndividualLAKE BLUFF, IL

$5,800

Jan 26, 2023

Rep. Cammack, Kat [R-FL-3]

ID: C001039

Top Contributors

PASS THE HAT

OrganizationATHENS, GA

$3,610

Jul 15, 2024

SEMINOLE TRIBE OF FLORIDA

OrganizationHOLLYWOOD, FL

$3,300

Aug 14, 2024

S & K BARRINGTON FARMS

OrganizationMAYO, FL

$600

Mar 31, 2024

83 FARMS, LLC

OrganizationBELL, FL

$283

Mar 31, 2023

RADIANT CREDIT UNION

OrganizationGAINESVILLE, FL

$250

Jun 30, 2023

ADOLFSSON, MARCUS

RETIRED

IndividualGULFPORT, FL

$6,600

Jun 30, 2023

KEMMERER, JOHN

KEMMERER MANAGEMENT CORP • EXECUTIVE

IndividualJACKSON, WY

$6,600

Apr 18, 2023

KEMMERER, KAREN

NONE • RETIRED

IndividualJACKSON, WY

$6,600

May 11, 2023

HOROWITZ, BEN

ANDREESSEN HOROWITZ • ANDREESSEN HOROWITZ

IndividualLAS VEGAS, NV

$6,600

Apr 11, 2024

GASTON, BILL FAYE

BUSINESS OWNER

IndividualGAINESVILLE, FL

$5,205

Feb 29, 2024

Donor Network - Rep. Thompson, Glenn [R-PA-15]

Show Also Donated To

PACs

Organizations

Individuals

Politicians

Hub layout: Politicians in center, donors arranged by type in rings around them.

Showing 54 nodes and 45 connections (40 secondary connections hidden)

Total contributions: $111,400

Top Donors - Rep. Thompson, Glenn [R-PA-15]

Showing top 25 donors by contribution amount

15 Orgs11 Individuals

Industry Impact

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

+Meat & Dairy Processingconfidence 0.90
Section 2 amends the Richard B. Russell National School Lunch Act to allow schools to serve whole milk (including organic or non-organic) and prohibits considering milk fat as saturated fat for compliance, directly benefiting dairy producers and processors.

Who funds the sponsor on these industries

For each industry this bill affects, here's what the sponsor (Rep. Thompson, Glenn [R-PA-15])received from donors associated with that industry during the 2022–present cycles. Donations are not proof of intent — they are a record of who funds the people writing the law.

Industries this bill HELPS

Meat & Dairy Processing$7,100
from 6 contributions
- BLEIBERG, PAUL E MR.$6,600
- TURTON, DANIEL$500

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: 61%

Pages: 347-349AI Enhanced

AI Analysis:

"The bill aligns with Project 2025's goal of reducing federal overreach in school meal programs by limiting the Secretary of Agriculture's authority to restrict whole milk and expanding local flexibility in food offerings, consistent with conservative priorities on state and local control."

Key themes:school meal flexibilityreducing federal overreachdairy industry supportlocal control of nutrition programs

— 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). — 316 — Mandate for Leadership: The Conservative Promise 97. American Bakers Association et al., letter to U.S. Department of Agriculture Secretary Tom Vilsack, March 23, 2022, https://www.dropbox.com/s/yfyv04ilkom11zd/USDA%20Letter%20to%20Secretary%20Vilsack%20on%20 Tools%20to%20Address%20Global%20Commodity%20Supply%20Challenges%203.23.22_.pdf?dl=0 (accessed December 15, 2022). It is also necessary to increase food production to mitigate high food inflation. Approximately 25 percent of idled land is considered prime farmland. Therefore, one-quarter of idled land is merely idling, not producing food—and this does not include other land that may viably be used for food production. The Conservation Reserve Program should be eliminated. There are also two issues connected to property rights and fairness that should be addressed: challenging NRCS determinations and problems with USDA easements. To be eligible for many USDA programs, farmers must comply with certain conservation provisions enforced by NRCS. Conservation compliance of wetlands and highly erodible lands consist of federal restrictions that prevent farmers from using parts of their property. If farmers plant crops or modify the areas federal officials deem protected, farmers can lose all access to USDA programs and support. For farmers, there are real, practical concerns to challenging NRCS determinations, including the time and costs of challenging the federal bureaucracy. NRCS is empowered to declare areas wetlands and highly erodible areas, which are therefore off limits for farming. If these wetland-or-erodible-declared areas are used in a manner deemed unacceptable by federal officials, NRCS may revoke access to federal resources and subsidies by making technical determinations that carry potential penalties. There must be a fair and reasonable process for farmers to challenge such actions. See Daren Bakst, “Food Price Inflation Continues to Worsen. Here’s What Should Be Done About It,” The Daily Signal, April 25, 2022, https:// www.dailysignal.com/2022/04/25/food-price-inflation-continuing-to-worsen-heres-what-should-be-done- about-it/ (accessed December 15, 2022); American Bakers Association et.al., letter to Vilsack; U.S. Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service, “Conservation Compliance Appeals Process,” https://www. nrcs.usda.gov/getting-assistance/compliance/conservation-compliance-appeals-process (accessed December 15, 2022); and Chris Bennett, “Regulatory Hell: Farmer and Veteran Wins 10-Year Wetlands Fight With Government,” AG Web, August 30, 2021, https://www.agweb.com/news/crops/crop-production/regulatory-hell-farmer-and- veteran-wins-10-year-wetlands-fight (accessed December 15, 2022). 98. Fortunately, there are already resources available to help states establish their own wetlands conservation programs. One particular example, the American Legislative Exchange Council’s Wetlands Mapping and Protection Act model policy, is available for states to define the procedures, guidelines, and administration of wetlands programs. American Legislative Exchange Council, “Wetlands Mapping and Protection Act,” November 16, 2017, https://alec.org/model-policy/wetlands-mapping-and-protection-act/ (accessed December 16, 2022). The new Administration should focus on best practices instead of imposing prescriptive federal practices. It should support the policies contained within the “NRCS Wetland Compliance and Appeals Reform Act” and modify NRCS compliance rules to protect farmers and ranchers by adding protections against regulatory overreach—such as banning the practice of re-engaging farmers in new technical determinations appeals processes for the same areas of their farms. See NRCS Wetland Compliance and Appeals Reform Act, S. 4931, 117th Cong., 2nd Sess., https://www.congress.gov/bill/117th-congress/senate-bill/4931?s=1&r=8 (accessed December 15, 2022). 99. Ibid 100. See, for example, Daren Bakst and Jeremy Dalrymple, “Reducing Federal Barriers for the Sale of Meat,” Heritage Foundation Issue Brief No. 5078, June 1, 2020, https://www.heritage.org/agriculture/report/ reducing-federal-barriers-the-sale-meat, and U.S. Department of Agriculture, Food Safety and Inspection Service, “State Inspection Programs,” updated January 12, 2023, https://www.fsis.usda.gov/inspection/state- inspection-programs (accessed December 15, 2022). 101. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Food Safety and Inspection Service, “Cooperative Interstate Shipping Program,” September 7, 2022, https://www.fsis.usda.gov/inspection/state-inspection-programs/cooperative- interstate-shipping-program (accessed December 15, 2022). 102. U.S. Department of Agriculture, “State Inspection Programs.” 103. The Senate bill removes obstacles for both meat and poultry. The House version does not appear to cover poultry. New Markets for State-Inspected Meat and Poultry Act of 2021, S. 107, 117th Cong., 1st Sess., https:// www.congress.gov/bill/117th-congress/senate-bill/107#:~:text=This%20bill%20allows%20meat%20and,be%20 sold%20in%20interstate%20commerce (accessed December 15, 2022), and Expanding Markets for State- Inspected Meat Processors Act of 2021, H.R. 1998, 117th Cong., 1st Sess., https://www.congress.gov/bill/117th- congress/house-bill/1998 (accessed December 15, 2022).

Department of Agriculture

Strong

Vector: 61%

Pages: 335-337AI Enhanced

AI Analysis:

"The bill aligns with Project 2025's goal of returning school meal programs to their original purpose of serving low-income children by reducing federal overreach and restoring flexibility to schools in meal offerings, particularly by limiting Secretary authority and expanding milk options in line with local control and program integrity."

Key themes:school meal program integrityreducing federal overreachlocal controlserving low-income studentsprogram efficiency

Department of Agriculture

Strong

Vector: 60%

Pages: 347-349AI Enhanced

AI Analysis:

"The bill aligns with Project 2025's focus on reducing federal overreach in school meal programs and expanding local flexibility, particularly by allowing whole milk options and limiting Secretary authority. It also supports American agricultural producers and restricts Chinese state-owned enterprise involvement, reflecting broader USDA priorities in the document."

Key themes:school meal flexibilityreducing federal overreachsupporting domestic agriculturelimiting Chinese imports

— 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

Moderate

Vector: 61%

Pages: 335-337AI Enhanced

AI Analysis:

"The bill aligns with Project 2025's goal of restoring school meal programs to their original intent of serving children in need by expanding milk options without broadening eligibility, though it does not directly address CEP reform or improper payments. Both emphasize local flexibility and resisting federal overreach in school meals."

Key themes:school meal programsoriginal intent of NSLPlocal flexibilityresisting federal expansionserving children in need

— 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 Education

Weak

Vector: 62%

Pages: 368-370AI Enhanced

AI Analysis:

"The bill focuses on expanding milk options in school meals and restricting Chinese dairy imports, which does not directly address the Project 2025 Education section's priorities of rescinding the Equity in IDEA regulation, preventing federal withholding of funds over Title IX/SOGI policies, or phasing out income-driven student loan repayment plans."

Key themes:school mealsfederal education policystudent nutrition

— 336 — Mandate for Leadership: The Conservative Promise on civil rights, the next conservative Administration should take sweeping action to assure that the purpose of the Civil Rights Act is not inverted through a disparate impact standard to provide a pretext for theoretically endless federal meddling. Assistance to States for the Education of Children with Disabilities; Preschool Grants for Children with Disabilities (Equity in IDEA) l Effective January 18, 2017, the department issued final regulations under Part B of IDEA that require states to consider race and ethnicity in the identification, placement, and discipline of students with disabilities. The new Administration should rescind this regulation. Students should never be denied access to special education services because of their race or ethnicity, but this is happening in school districts across the country thanks to the Obama Administration’s Equity in IDEA regulation. This was not the intent of the regulation, but it is an inevitable byproduct of its flawed assumptions. The Obama Administration looked at the racial statistics on special education assignment and made two assumptions: that African American students were dis- proportionately overrepresented, and that this overrepresentation constituted a harm that required federal pressure to ameliorate. School districts deemed to overrepresent minority students in special education assignment, or in discipline amongst special education students, are tagged by their state education agencies as engaging in “significant disproportionality,” and are required to reallocate 15 percent of their IDEA Part B money into coordinated early intervening services that are intended to address the “root causes of dispro- portionality.” In practice, this can mean raiding special education funding to pay for CRT-inspired “equity” consultants and professional development. This is especially problematic given that both of the assumptions behind Equity in IDEA are flawed. Special education services provide extra assistance to students; they do not harm them. And according to the most rigorous research on the subject, conducted by Penn State’s Paul Morgan, black students are actually underrep- resented in special education once adequate statistical controls are made. That means that this regulation effectively further depresses the provision of valuable services to an already underserved group. l The next Administration should immediately commence rulemaking to rescind the Equity in IDEA regulation. No replacement regulation is required. l The Office of Special Education and Rehabilitative Services (OSERS) should prepare a digest of the best research on this subject and share — 337 — Department of Education it directly with state superintendents and state special education leaders across the country, who have been led by this regulation to believe a false problem diagnosis. Every effort should be made to dissuade states from continuing to operate on the assumption that overrepresentation requires state intervention after the federal pressure is rescinded. Provide School Meals to Children in Need; Do Not Use Federal Meals to Support Radical Ideology In May 2022, the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) tried to advance a radical political agenda using the federal school meal program. Nearly a century ago, federal lawmakers adopted the National School Lunch Program (NSLP) and School Breakfast Program (SBP) and other services that provide meals for K–12 students to give children from low-income families access to food while at school. Since the 1940s, federal lawmakers have greatly expanded these meal programs, creating an entitlement for nearly all students, regardless of family income levels, and have turned the meal programs into some of the most wasteful federal pro- grams in Washington. Now, the USDA is threatening to withhold federal taxpayer spending for these meals from schools that do not implement Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972 so that the term “sex” is replaced with “sexual orientation and gender identity” (SOGI). l The next Administration should prohibit the USDA or any other federal agency from withholding services from federal or state agencies—including but not limited to K–12 schools—that choose not to replace “sex” with “SOGI” in that agency’s administration of Title IX. The Administration will have significant support for this policy change among state officials and Members of Congress. Twenty-two state attorneys general filed a lawsuit after the USDA’s announcement that the agency intended to withhold spending from schools that do not replace sex with SOGI. Members of Congress also introduced legislation in 2022 that would prohibit the agency from carrying out its intentions regarding Title IX. Phase Out Existing Income-Driven Repayment Plans While income-driven repayment (IDR) of student loans is a superior approach relative to fixed payment plans, the number of IDR plans has proliferated beyond reason. And recent IDR plans are so generous that they require no or only token repayment from many students. l The Secretary should phase out all existing IDR plans by making new loans (including consolidation loans) ineligible and should implement

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 Rep. Thompson, Glenn

To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located at 10 East Main Street in Mahaffey, Pennsylvania, as the "Robert Allen Bishop, Sr. Post Office Building".

119/hr/7517

Farm, Food, and National Security Act of 2026

119/hr/7567

Student Aid Fraud Oversight and Accountability Act of 2026

119/hr/7891

Back to All Bills