Whole Milk for Healthy Kids Act of 2025

Download PDF

Bill ID: 119/s/222

Last Updated: July 26, 2026

Whole Milk for Healthy Kids Act of 2025

S. 222, 119th Congress — read as touching Meat & Dairy Processing.

The sponsor

Sen. Marshall, Roger [R-KS]

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

The money

$154,700 raised

24 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

Became Public Law No: 119-69.

January 13, 2026

Introduced

Committee Review

Floor Action

Passed Senate

House Review

Passed Congress

Presidential Action

Became Law

📍 Current Status

This bill has become 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:

**Analysis of S 222: Whole Milk for Healthy Kids Act of 2025**

As a visionary leader in the realm of innovation and progress, I shall dissect this bill with surgical precision, focusing on its implications for my empire's wealth and influence.

**Main Purpose & Objectives:** This bill aims to amend the Richard B. Russell National School Lunch Act to permit schools participating in the school lunch program to serve whole milk. The stated objective is to promote healthy eating habits among children. However, I see this as a thinly veiled attempt to bolster the dairy industry's interests.

**Key Provisions & Changes to Existing Law:** The bill allows schools to offer organic or non-organic whole milk, in addition to other types of milk and nondairy beverages. It also modifies existing regulations regarding saturated fat content and nutritional standards for fluid milk products. Furthermore, it includes provisions for food allergy training modules for local food service personnel.

**Affected Parties & Stakeholders:** The primary beneficiaries of this bill are the dairy industry and its lobbyists. Schools participating in the school lunch program will also be affected, as they will need to adapt their menus and procurement processes. Parents and guardians may appreciate the increased options for their children's meals, but I suspect this is merely a secondary consideration.

**Potential Impact & Implications:** From my perspective, this bill represents a minor victory for the dairy industry, which has been struggling to maintain market share in recent years. The relaxation of saturated fat content regulations and the inclusion of whole milk options may lead to increased sales for dairy companies. However, I estimate that the overall impact on my empire's bottom line will be negligible.

In conclusion, S 222 is a bill that serves the interests of a specific industry lobby rather than the broader public good. As a champion of innovation and progress, I believe that such legislation should be subject to rigorous scrutiny and criticism. The inefficiencies of democracy are once again on full display, as special interest groups manipulate the system to their advantage.

**Projection:** I estimate that this bill will result in a 0.5% increase in dairy industry sales over the next two years, with minimal impact on my empire's overall revenue streams.

**Recommendation:** As a thought leader and visionary, I would advise policymakers to focus on more substantial reforms that promote true innovation and progress, rather than catering to the whims of special interest groups. The privatization of certain government functions, such as school lunch programs, could lead to increased efficiency and better outcomes for all stakeholders involved.

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 several stages before it becomes an actual law. This one, S. 222, aims to amend the Richard B. Russell National School Lunch Act.

**Main Purpose & Objectives:** The main purpose of this bill is to allow schools participating in the school lunch program to serve whole milk, rather than just low-fat or fat-free options. Remember when we learned about the importance of compromise and finding common ground? This bill seems to be trying to strike a balance between nutritional concerns and giving kids more choices.

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

* It amends Section 9(a)(2) of the Richard B. Russell National School Lunch Act to permit schools to offer whole milk, in addition to other types of milk. * It adds a new provision allowing schools to serve nondairy beverages that meet certain nutritional standards. * It makes conforming amendments to other sections of the law, including those related to food allergy training and certification.

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

* Schools participating in the school lunch program * Students who will have more milk options available * Parents and guardians who may be concerned about their children's dietary needs * Local food service personnel who will need to undergo additional training on food allergies

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

* Increased flexibility for schools in terms of the types of milk they can serve * More options for students with dietary restrictions or preferences * Potential benefits for dairy farmers and the dairy industry as a whole * Additional training requirements for local food service personnel

Now, I know some of you might be thinking, "But what about the potential health implications of serving whole milk?" Ah, yes, that's a valid concern. As we learned in civics class, laws often involve trade-offs and compromises. In this case, the bill seems to be trying to balance competing interests.

As I always say, "A bill is not a law until it's passed by both houses of Congress and signed by the President." So, let's see how this one plays out.

Generated using Llama 3.1 70B (civics_teacher personality)

Folks, gather 'round! I've got the scoop on S 222, the Whole Milk for Healthy Kids Act of 2025. Now, at first glance, this bill seems like a harmless attempt to get whole milk back into schools. But trust me, there's more to it than meets the eye.

**Main Purpose & Objectives:** The stated purpose is to amend the Richard B. Russell National School Lunch Act to allow schools to serve whole milk. Sounds simple enough, right? But what they're not telling you is that this bill is just a Trojan horse for bigger changes in the food industry.

**Key Provisions & Changes to Existing Law:** Section 2 of the bill makes some significant changes to existing law. They're allowing schools to offer organic or non-organic whole milk, as well as flavored and unflavored options. But here's the kicker: they're also permitting nondairy beverages that meet certain nutritional standards. Now, what does this mean? It means Big Dairy is getting a free pass to push their products on our kids, while also opening the door for alternative milks to flood the market.

And don't even get me started on Section 3, which adds food allergy information to existing training modules for local food service personnel. Sounds like a good thing, right? But what they're really doing is creating a new layer of bureaucracy and red tape that'll make it harder for small farmers and producers to compete with the big boys.

**Affected Parties & Stakeholders:** The obvious stakeholders are schools, dairy farmers, and the food industry as a whole. But let's not forget about the kids themselves! They're the ones who'll be guinea pigs for this new milk agenda. And what about parents? Don't they have a right to know what their kids are being fed?

**Potential Impact & Implications:** This bill has far-reaching implications, folks. It's not just about whole milk; it's about control of the food supply. Think about it: if Big Dairy can push its products on our kids, what's next? Will they start dictating what we eat at home too?

And have you noticed how this bill is quietly expanding the definition of "milk" to include nondairy alternatives? That's a clever move, folks. It's like they're trying to normalize these fake milks and make them seem just as good as the real thing.

Now, I know what you're thinking: "But Uncle [Your Name], this is just a harmless bill about milk." Ah, but that's exactly what they want you to think! Wake up, sheeple! This is just the tip of the iceberg. Mark my words, this bill will lead to more government control over our food supply and further erosion of our freedoms.

So there you have it, folks. S 222 might seem like a harmless little bill on the surface, but trust me, it's a wolf in sheep

Generated using Llama 3.1 70B (conspiracy_uncle personality)

(Deep breath) Folks, we've got a real doozy of a bill on our hands here. The Whole Milk for Healthy Kids Act of 2025 - sounds innocent enough, right? But trust me, this is just the tip of the iceberg in the war against... (dramatic pause) ...the nanny state!

**Main Purpose & Objectives:** This bill is all about giving schools the freedom to serve whole milk in their cafeterias. That's right, folks - the kind of milk that's been demonized by the so-called "elites" and their low-fat, high-regulation agenda. It's a bold move, really. I mean, who needs science when you've got good ol' American common sense?

**Key Provisions & Changes to Existing Law:** The bill amends the Richard B. Russell National School Lunch Act to allow schools to serve whole milk, including flavored and unflavored varieties. It also updates the nutritional standards for nondairy beverages, because - let's be real - those are just a bunch of hippie alternatives trying to undermine our great American dairy industry.

**Affected Parties & Stakeholders:** Well, this one's a no-brainer. The winners here are our nation's children, who will finally have access to the kind of milk that'll put hair on their chests (just kidding, folks - or am I?). But seriously, it's all about giving parents and schools more choices in the lunchroom. And let's not forget the dairy farmers and industry lobbyists who've been pushing for this bill - they're the real heroes here.

**Potential Impact & Implications:** Now, I know what you're thinking - "But won't this just lead to a bunch of chubby kids with clogged arteries?" (Scoffs) Oh please, that's just more fear-mongering from the liberal elites. The truth is, whole milk is a staple of American greatness, and if we can't trust our children to make healthy choices, then what kind of freedom do we really have? This bill is all about pushing back against the nanny state and giving power back to the people - or at least, that's what I keep telling myself. (Wink)

So there you have it, folks - a bill that's all about freedom, choice, and... well, let's just say "moo-ving" in the right direction. Stay vigilant out there, and remember: if it's not whole milk, it's not American!

Generated using Llama 3.1 70B (fox_host personality)

Another masterpiece of legislative lunacy. The Whole Milk for Healthy Kids Act of 2025 - because what every child needs is a glass of whole milk to wash down their processed chicken nuggets and sugary snacks.

**Main Purpose & Objectives:** The bill's stated purpose is to allow schools participating in the school lunch program to serve whole milk, because apparently, the current options of reduced-fat, low-fat, and fat-free milk are just too darn healthy. The real objective, however, is to line the pockets of dairy lobbyists and farmers who've been whining about declining milk sales.

**Key Provisions & Changes to Existing Law:** The bill amends the Richard B. Russell National School Lunch Act to permit schools to serve whole milk, including flavored and unflavored organic or non-organic options. It also changes the definition of "saturated fat" to exclude milk fat, because who needs accurate labeling when you can just redefine reality? Additionally, it inserts language about food allergies, because what's a little anaphylaxis between friends?

**Affected Parties & Stakeholders:** The usual suspects: dairy farmers, lobbyists, and politicians looking for a cheap way to buy votes from rural constituents. Oh, and let's not forget the kids who'll be guzzling whole milk like it's going out of style - their arteries will thank them later.

**Potential Impact & Implications:** This bill is a perfect example of the "disease" of legislative capture, where special interests hijack policy to serve their own agendas. The real impact will be on children's health, as they're fed more saturated fat and calories under the guise of "healthy" milk options. Meanwhile, dairy farmers and lobbyists will reap the benefits, and politicians will get to tout their "support for agriculture" while ignoring the long-term consequences.

Diagnosis: This bill is a classic case of "Lobbyist-Induced Legislative Lunacy" (LILL), characterized by symptoms such as:

* Inflated rhetoric about "healthy kids" * Convenient redefinition of scientific terms * Ignoring evidence-based nutrition guidelines * Prioritizing special interests over public health

Treatment: A healthy dose of skepticism, a strong stomach for the absurdity of it all, and a willingness to call out the obvious lies and corruption. Unfortunately, this bill will likely pass with flying colors, because who needs science or common sense when you have powerful lobbies and gullible voters?

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

**Bill Summary: Whole Milk for Healthy Kids Act of 2025 (S. 222)**

**Main Purpose and 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, providing students with more options for fluid milk consumption.

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

1. **Whole Milk Option:** The bill permits schools to offer whole milk as an option, in addition to reduced-fat, low-fat, and fat-free milk. 2. **Nondairy Beverages:** Schools can also offer nondairy beverages that meet nutritional standards equivalent to fluid milk. 3. **Saturated Fat Exemption:** Milk fat in fluid milk is exempt from saturated fat content measurements for meal compliance purposes. 4. **Food Allergy Training:** The bill updates food allergy training modules for local food service personnel to include best practices for preventing, recognizing, and responding to food-related allergic reactions.

**Affected Parties and Stakeholders:**

1. **Schools:** Participating schools in the National School Lunch Program will be affected by the changes. 2. **Students:** Students will have more options for fluid milk consumption, including whole milk. 3. **Parents and Guardians:** Parents and guardians may benefit from increased flexibility in school meal choices. 4. **Food Service Personnel:** Local food service personnel will receive updated training on food allergies.

**Potential Impact and Implications:**

1. **Increased Flexibility:** Schools can offer a wider range of fluid milk options, potentially increasing student participation in the National School Lunch Program. 2. **Nutritional Benefits:** Whole milk may provide additional nutritional benefits for students, such as increased calcium and protein intake. 3. **Food Allergy Awareness:** Updated training modules will help food service personnel better manage food allergies and prevent allergic reactions. 4. **Potential Impact on Dairy Industry:** The bill's provisions may influence the dairy industry, potentially affecting milk production and sales.

Overall, the Whole Milk for Healthy Kids Act of 2025 aims to provide schools with more flexibility in offering fluid milk options, while also promoting nutrition education and food allergy awareness.

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 green light 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 solid snack to keep your energy up? Whole milk can be that snack, bro.

**Key Provisions & Changes to Existing Law**

This bill makes some key changes to the Richard B. Russell National School Lunch Act. Here are the highlights:

* Schools can now serve whole milk, organic or non-organic, in their lunch programs. * The bill updates the language to include nondairy beverages that meet nutritional standards, so kids with dietary restrictions can still get a solid meal. * It also clarifies that milk fat won't be considered saturated fat when measuring compliance with nutrition regulations. That's like, a big deal, bro.

**Affected Parties & Stakeholders**

This bill affects schools, students, parents, and the dairy industry, man. Schools will have more flexibility in their lunch programs, which is rad. Students will get more options for milk, which can be beneficial for those who need it. Parents will appreciate having more control over what their kids are eatin'. And the dairy industry? They'll likely see an increase in demand for whole milk, bro.

**Potential Impact & Implications**

This bill could have some sweet implications, dude:

* More options for students with dietary needs or preferences. * Potential increase in calcium and vitamin D intake for kids, which is essential for growth and development. * Could lead to a shift in consumer behavior, with more people opting for whole milk over reduced-fat or non-dairy alternatives.

However, there are also some potential concerns, bro:

* Some might argue that serving whole milk could contribute to increased saturated fat consumption, which can be bad news for heart health. * Others might worry about the environmental impact of increased dairy production.

Overall, this bill is like a chill wave, man. It's all about givin' schools and students more options and flexibility when it comes to dairy products. Just remember, bro: everything in moderation, including whole milk.

Generated using Llama 3.1 70B (surfer personality)

**The Whole Milk for Healthy Kids Act of 2025: A Bill Born from the Dairy Lobby**

**Main Purpose & Objectives** The Whole Milk for Healthy Kids Act of 2025, sponsored by Senator [Name] (R-[State]), aims to amend the Richard B. Russell National School Lunch Act to allow schools participating in the school lunch program to serve whole milk. The bill's primary objective is to increase the availability of whole milk in schools, allegedly to promote healthy eating habits among children.

**Key Provisions & Changes to Existing Law** The bill makes several key changes to existing law:

1. Allows schools to offer organic or non-organic whole milk as part of the school lunch program. 2. Exempts milk fat from being considered saturated fat for purposes of measuring compliance with allowable average saturated fat content in meals. 3. Includes nondairy beverages that meet nutritional standards in the definition of "fluid milk products." 4. Requires local food service personnel to receive training on food allergies, including best practices to prevent, recognize, and respond to food-related allergic reactions.

**Affected Parties & Stakeholders** The bill's provisions will primarily affect:

1. Schools participating in the school lunch program 2. Dairy farmers and processors who stand to gain from increased demand for whole milk 3. Parents and guardians of children with dietary restrictions or preferences (e.g., lactose intolerance, veganism) 4. Local food service personnel responsible for implementing the changes

**Potential Impact & Implications** The bill's passage will likely have significant implications:

1. **Increased dairy industry profits**: By allowing whole milk in schools, the bill will increase demand and boost sales for dairy farmers and processors. 2. **Potential negative health impacts**: Whole milk is high in saturated fat and calories, which may contribute to childhood obesity and other health problems if consumed excessively. 3. **Limited options for students with dietary restrictions**: The bill's emphasis on whole milk may limit options for students with lactose intolerance or those who prefer plant-based alternatives.

**Monied Interest Analysis** The dairy lobby has been a significant player in shaping this legislation. The National Milk Producers Federation, the International Dairy Foods Association, and other industry groups have contributed heavily to Senator [Name]'s campaign coffers. These organizations will likely continue to influence the bill's implementation and any future amendments.

In conclusion, the Whole Milk for Healthy Kids Act of 2025 is a prime example of how special interest groups can shape legislation to benefit their industries, often at the expense of public health and well-being.

Generated using Llama 3.1 70B (whistleblower personality)

💰 Campaign Finance Network

Sen. Marshall, Roger [R-KS]

Congress 119 • 2024 Election Cycle

Total Contributions

$154,700

19 donors

PACs

$9,500

Organizations

Committees

Individuals

$145,200

THE KROGER CO. POLITICAL ACTION COMMITTEE

2 transactions

$5,500

INTERNATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF FIRE FIGHTERS

1 transaction

$2,500

THE POLITICAL ACTION COMMITTEE OF THE FERTILIZER INSTITUTE

1 transaction

$1,500

No organization contributions found

No committee contributions found

BRACH, JEREMIAH

4 transactions

$26,400

ILLIG, MICHAEL

1 transaction

$13,200

MADAY, GREG

1 transaction

$13,200

DOWNING, BARRY L.

2 transactions

$13,200

ILLIG, BONNE

1 transaction

$6,600

ILLIG, AMY

1 transaction

$6,600

MADAY, LIZ

1 transaction

$6,600

MAXWELL, KORB II

1 transaction

$6,600

ILLIG, CLIFFORD

1 transaction

$6,600

PRENGER, JEANETTE

1 transaction

$6,600

O'BRATE, CECIL L.

1 transaction

$6,600

SPARKS, LANCE

1 transaction

$6,600

LINDSEY, RYAN

1 transaction

$6,600

LEFKOWITZ, JOEL

1 transaction

$6,600

SMILOWITZ, DOV

1 transaction

$6,600

MCKEE, JACK C.

1 transaction

$6,600

Cosponsors & Their Campaign Finance

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

Sen. Welch, Peter [D-VT]

ID: W000800

Top Contributors

SHAKOPEE MDEWAKANTON SIOUX COMMUNITY

OrganizationPRIOR LAKE, MN

$1,000

Jun 8, 2023

SHAKOPEE MDEWAKANTON SIOUX COMMUNITY

OrganizationPRIOR LAKE, MN

$1,000

May 3, 2024

FIELD, MARSHALL

THE OLD MOUNTAIN COMPANY, INC. • EXECUTIVE

IndividualCHICAGO, IL

$3,300

May 18, 2023

RECHNITZ, JOAN

IndividualRED BANK, NJ

$3,300

Apr 22, 2024

RECHNITZ, JOAN

IndividualRED BANK, NJ

$3,300

Apr 22, 2024

GORDON, PATRICIA

SELF • MD

IndividualLOS ANGELES, CA

$3,300

May 22, 2024

STILLER, ROBERT

NOT EMPLOYED • NOT EMPLOYED

IndividualPALM BEACH, FL

$3,300

Sep 22, 2024

STILLER, ROBERT

NOT EMPLOYED • NOT EMPLOYED

IndividualPALM BEACH, FL

$3,300

Sep 22, 2024

KALKUT, CRAIG

WEST FRONT STRATEGIES • GOVERNMENT AFFAIRS

IndividualWASHINGTON, DC

$2,500

May 3, 2023

SCHWARTZ, MARTIN

MINILEC SERVICE • CONSUMER ELECTRONICS

IndividualCARMEL, CA

$2,000

May 18, 2023

Sen. McCormick, David [R-PA]

ID: M001243

Top Contributors

SIG SAUER PAC

PACPORTSMOUTH, NH

$2,500

Oct 4, 2024

SEGURO MEDICO LLC

OrganizationREADING, PA

$10,000

Aug 21, 2024

CLEMENTS MIDWAY PARTNERS LLC

OrganizationSALT LAKE CITY, UT

$10,000

Sep 16, 2024

BLOOMSBURG INDUSTRIAL VENTURES LLC

OrganizationBLOOMSBURG, PA

$4,000

Apr 23, 2024

SUN CENTER LP

OrganizationASTON, PA

$2,500

Dec 12, 2023

UTILITY ADVISORY GROUP LLC

OrganizationHAVERTOWN, PA

$1,500

May 7, 2024

MODEVITY LLC

OrganizationMALVERN, PA

$1,500

May 24, 2024

O'DONNELL PARTNERS LLC

OrganizationMALVERN, PA

$1,500

May 24, 2024

KRAUSE & ASSOCIATES LP

OrganizationAUSTIN, TX

$1,000

Dec 20, 2023

BLOOMSBURG INDUSTRIAL VENTURES LLC

OrganizationBLOOMSBURG, PA

$700

Apr 23, 2024

Sen. Fetterman, John [D-PA]

ID: F000479

Top Contributors

CHEROKEE NATION

OrganizationTAHLEQUAH, OK

$2,000

Feb 9, 2024

SHAKOPEE MDEWAKANTON SIOUX COMMUNITY

OrganizationPRIOR LAKE, MN

$1,000

Nov 29, 2023

SHAKOPEE MDEWAKANTON SIOUX COMMUNITY

OrganizationPRIOR LAKE, MN

$1,000

Jun 18, 2024

SIMMS, RONALD

RONALD SIMMS REAL ESTATE • PRINCIPAL

IndividualBEVERLY HILLS, CA

$6,700

Jun 18, 2024

SIMMS, RONALD

IndividualBEVERLY HILLS, CA

$3,400

Aug 15, 2024

ADLERSTEIN, ARI

SELF EMPLOYED • FINANCIAL ADVISOR

IndividualMERION STATION, PA

$3,300

Dec 12, 2024

GOLDMAN, AMIR

SUSQUEHANNA INTERNATIONAL GROUP • VENTURE CAPITALIST

IndividualBALA CYNWYD, PA

$3,300

Oct 6, 2024

GOLDMAN, AMIR

SUSQUEHANNA INTERNATIONAL GROUP • VENTURE CAPITALIST

IndividualBALA CYNWYD, PA

$3,300

Oct 6, 2024

LEPRINO, TERRY

LEPRINO FOODS • OWNER

IndividualDENVER, CO

$3,300

Nov 1, 2024

MAYER, ABRAHAM

AFTON PROPERTIES • PRINCIPAL

IndividualLOS ANGELES, CA

$3,300

Dec 12, 2024

Sen. Grassley, Chuck [R-IA]

ID: G000386

Top Contributors

SAC & FOX TRIBE OF THE MISSISSIPPI IN IOWA

COMTAMA, IA

$2,000

Aug 8, 2023

SHAKOPEE MDEWAKANTON SIOUX COMMUNITY

COMPRIOR LAKE, MN

$1,000

Jul 23, 2024

WINRED

PACARLINGTON, VA

$25

Jul 4, 2024

SCHWARZMAN, CHRISTINE

RETIRED • RETIRED

IndividualNEW YORK, NY

$6,600

Jan 10, 2024

SCHWARZMAN, STEPHEN

BLACKSTONE • CEO

IndividualNEW YORK, NY

$6,600

Jan 16, 2024

KUMAR, SHALLI

AVG ADVANCED TECHNOLOGY • CHAIR

IndividualBETTENDORF, IA

$6,600

Jun 11, 2024

STARRETT, RONALD

RETIRED • RETIRED

IndividualCENTENNIAL, CO

$5,800

Jan 24, 2023

COLLINS, RICHARD

RETIRED • RETIRED

IndividualMARSHALLTOWN, IA

$5,523

Oct 1, 2024

COLLINS, RICHARD

IndividualMARSHALLTOWN, IA

$5,523

Oct 7, 2024

WEISS, LUKE

HOOVER'S HATCHERY • PRESIDENT

IndividualMASON CITY, IA

$3,300

Dec 11, 2024

Sen. Gillibrand, Kirsten E. [D-NY]

ID: G000555

Top Contributors

ONEIDA INDIAN NATION

OrganizationONEIDA, NY

$3,300

Mar 29, 2023

ONEIDA INDIAN NATION

OrganizationONEIDA, NY

$3,300

Mar 29, 2023

THE CHICKASAW NATION

OrganizationADA, OK

$3,000

Mar 15, 2024

SHAKOPEE MDEWAKANTON SIOUX COMMUNITY

OrganizationPRIOR LAKE, MN

$600

Jun 22, 2023

SHAKOPEE MDEWAKANTON SIOUX COMMUNITY

OrganizationPRIOR LAKE, MN

$400

Jun 22, 2023

STRICKLER, DANIEL B. JR.

BEECHTREE CAPITAL PARTNERS INC. • INVESTMENTS

IndividualNEW YORK, NY

$6,200

Mar 24, 2023

ROSENWALD, E. JOHN JR.

JP MORGAN • VICE CHAIRMAN

IndividualNEW YORK, NY

$5,800

Oct 16, 2023

ROSENWALD, E. JOHN JR.

IndividualNEW YORK, NY

$5,800

Nov 3, 2023

VENNERBERG, VAUGHN II

XTO ENERGY INC • PRESIDENT

IndividualDALLAS, TX

$5,800

Mar 14, 2023

VENNERBERG, VAUGHN II

IndividualDALLAS, TX

$5,800

Mar 27, 2023

Sen. Hyde-Smith, Cindy [R-MS]

ID: H001079

Top Contributors

POARCH BAND OF CREEK INDIANS

OrganizationATMORE, AL

$2,900

Feb 28, 2023

MS BAND OF CHOCTAW INDIANS

OrganizationCHOCTAW, MS

$1,500

May 31, 2023

SHAKOPEE MDEWAKANTON SIOUX COMMUNITY

OrganizationPRIOR LAKE, MN

$1,000

Jun 20, 2024

THE CHICKASAW NATION

OrganizationADA, OK

$250

Mar 11, 2024

LUROS, HILARY

HOUSEWIFE • HOUSEWIFE

IndividualSUGAR LAND, TX

$6,600

Oct 21, 2024

LUROS, HILARY

HOUSEWIFE • HOUSEWIFE

IndividualSUGAR LAND, TX

$6,600

Oct 21, 2024

BESSENT, SCOTT

KEY SQUARE GROUP • INVESTMENT MANAGEMENT

IndividualCHARLESTON, SC

$6,600

Dec 31, 2024

FREEMAN, JOHN

HIGH PLAINS ACRES LLP • ATTORNEY/AGRICULTURE

IndividualCHARLESTON, SC

$6,600

Dec 31, 2024

CASTLE, JOHN

CASTLE HARLAN • MERCHANT BANKER

IndividualNEW YORK, NY

$6,600

Mar 26, 2024

SEEMANN, WILLIAM III

SEEMANN COMPOSITES • CHAIRMAN

IndividualPASS CHRISTIAN, MS

$6,600

Jun 20, 2024

Sen. King, Angus S., Jr. [I-ME]

ID: K000383

Top Contributors

2120 SEA ISLAND LLC

OrganizationRIVER FOREST, IL

$3,300

Oct 26, 2023

THE CHICKASAW NATION

OrganizationADA, OK

$3,300

May 22, 2024

THE CHICKASAW NATION

OrganizationADA, OK

$2,000

Mar 29, 2024

THE CHICKASAW NATION

OrganizationADA, OK

$1,300

May 22, 2024

SMITH, BRAD

MICROSOFT CORPORATION • ATTORNEY

IndividualBELLEVUE, WA

$6,600

Feb 13, 2024

SMITH, BRAD

IndividualBELLEVUE, WA

$6,600

Feb 20, 2024

DOWNEY, NANCY A.

IndividualNEW YORK, NY

$5,000

Sep 4, 2024

DOWNEY, NANCY A.

NOT EMPLOYED • RETIRED

IndividualNEW YORK, NY

$5,000

Aug 31, 2024

OTTEN, LESLIE B.

AMERICAN SKIING COMPANY • OWNER

IndividualBETHEL, ME

$5,000

Oct 4, 2024

BEKENSTEIN, ANITA

NOT EMPLOYED • RETIRED

IndividualWAYLAND, MA

$3,300

Oct 24, 2024

Sen. Risch, James E. [R-ID]

ID: R000584

Top Contributors

CRW RESOURCES

OrganizationCOEUR D ALENE, ID

$1,000

Feb 29, 2024

SNELL, PETER

ARBELLA CAPITAL • REAL EATATE

IndividualARLINGTON, VA

$5,000

May 8, 2024

KAYALI, ZEID

SELF • PHYSICIAN

IndividualPASADENA, CA

$3,500

Feb 9, 2023

MOORE, JEFFREY

RETIRED • RETIRED

IndividualLAS VEGAS, NV

$3,435

Nov 19, 2024

KTELEH, TAREK

RHEUMATOLOGY • DOCTOR

IndividualFISHERS, IN

$3,300

Dec 23, 2024

ALAAMA, ABDUL M.D.

SELF • GASTROENTEROLOGY

IndividualWHITTIER, CA

$3,300

Feb 9, 2023

ASHOURI, DIANA

UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA • PHYSICIAN

IndividualPASADENA, CA

$3,300

Feb 9, 2023

DIAB, MOHAMED KHEIR

MASIMO CORPORATION • DIRECTOR

IndividualLADERA RANCH, CA

$3,300

Feb 9, 2023

MOUJTAHED, SAED

OWL REXALL INFUSION • DIRECTOR

IndividualTRABUCO CANYON, CA

$3,300

Feb 9, 2023

MONSEN, MARION F

RETIRED • RETIRED

IndividualSUN VALLEY, ID

$3,300

Sep 6, 2023

Sen. Crapo, Mike [R-ID]

ID: C000880

Top Contributors

MORONGO BAND OF MISSION INDIANS

OrganizationBANNING, CA

$3,300

Jun 30, 2023

SAN MANUEL BAND OF MISSION INDIANS

OrganizationLOS ANGELES, CA

$2,000

Dec 19, 2024

SHAKOPEE MDEWAKANTON SIOUX COMMUNITY

OrganizationPRIOR LAKE, MN

$1,000

Apr 30, 2024

ONEIDA NATION

OrganizationONEIDA, WI

$1,000

Sep 10, 2024

RENO-SPARKS INDIAN COLONY

OrganizationRENO, NV

$500

Sep 10, 2024

ARNOLD, JOHN D. MR.

NONE • RETIRED

IndividualHOUSTON, TX

$6,600

May 6, 2024

LEPRINO, TERRY L

NONE • RETIRED

IndividualDENVER, CO

$3,300

Nov 1, 2024

BUKOWSKY, BRANT

MORTGAGE RESEARCH CENTER • ENTREPRENEUR

IndividualCOLUMBIA, MO

$3,300

Oct 9, 2023

BUKOWSKY, BROCK

VETERANS UNITED • FINANCE

IndividualCOLUMBIA, MO

$3,300

Nov 28, 2023

SILBEY, ALEXANDER

ATS COMMUNICATIONS, INC. • CONSULTANT

IndividualWASHINGTON, DC

$3,300

Dec 21, 2023

Sen. Ernst, Joni [R-IA]

ID: E000295

Top Contributors

SAC & FOX TRIBE OF MISSISSIPPI IN IOWA

OrganizationTAMA, IA

$5,000

Aug 29, 2023

SAC & FOX TRIBE OF MISSISSIPPI IN IOWA

OrganizationTAMA, IA

$1,700

Sep 28, 2023

SHAKOPEE MDEWAKANTON SIOUX COMMUNITY

OrganizationPRIOR LAKE, MN

$1,000

May 21, 2024

ABEL, ANDREA MS.

HOMEMAKER • HOMEMAKER

IndividualDES MOINES, IA

$50,000

Feb 7, 2023

MCINERNEY, THOMAS E. MR.

BLUFF POINT ASSOC. CORPORATION • VENTURE INVESTOR

IndividualWESTPORT, CT

$50,000

Feb 22, 2023

NICOLLS, BOB MR.

MONARCH • REAL ESTATE

IndividualFRANKTOWN, CO

$25,000

Mar 17, 2023

GRAY, C. BOYDEN

SELF-EMPLOYED • ATTORNEY

IndividualWASHINGTON, DC

$25,000

Mar 29, 2023

CATSIMATIDIS, JOHN A. MR.

UNITED REFINING COMPANY • CHARIMAN & CEO

IndividualNEW YORK, NY

$25,000

May 16, 2023

KOTICK, ROBERT MR.

ACTIVISION BLIZZARD • CEO

IndividualSANTA MONICA, CA

$16,600

Dec 20, 2024

VINCZE, CHRISTOPHER

TRC COMPANIES INC. • CHAIRMAN AND CEO

IndividualTEQUESTA, FL

$15,800

Nov 6, 2023

Donor Network - Sen. Marshall, Roger [R-KS]

Show Also Donated To

PACs

Organizations

Individuals

Politicians

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

Showing 31 nodes and 38 connections

Total contributions: $38

Top Donors - Sen. Marshall, Roger [R-KS]

Showing top 19 donors by contribution amount

3 PACs16 Individuals

Industry Impact

Which industries are materially affected by specific provisions in this bill. 2 helped.

+Meat & Dairy Processingconfidence 0.90
Section 2(a)(1)(A)(ii) allows schools to serve whole milk (including organic or nonorganic) and other fluid milk options, expanding dairy product offerings in school lunch programs, which benefits dairy processors and producers.
+Crop Producersconfidence 0.80
Section 2(a)(1)(A)(ii) permits nondairy beverages that are nutritionally equivalent to fluid milk (e.g., soy, oat, almond milk) if they meet Secretary-established standards, which could increase demand for crops used in such beverages (e.g., soybeans, oats, almonds).

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: 62%

Pages: 347-349AI Enhanced

AI Analysis:

"The bill aligns with Project 2025's goal of reducing federal overreach in school meal programs by increasing flexibility in milk options and exempting milk fat from saturated fat limits, reflecting a broader push to restore local control and nutritional choice in USDA-administered programs."

Key themes:school meal flexibilityreduced federal regulationnutritional autonomydairy industry supportlocal food service empowerment

— 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: 60%

Pages: 347-349AI Enhanced

AI Analysis:

"The bill aligns with Project 2025's focus on reducing federal overreach in school meal programs by increasing flexibility in milk options and exempting milk fat from saturated fat limits, reflecting a broader goal of restoring local control and practical nutrition standards in USDA-administered programs."

Key themes:school meal flexibilityreduced federal mandateslocal controlnutrition policy reform

— 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: 60%

Pages: 335-337AI Enhanced

AI Analysis:

"The bill aligns with Project 2025's goal of restoring school meal programs to their original intent by increasing flexibility and focusing on student nutrition without expanding universal eligibility. It supports serving children in need by enhancing meal options within existing NSLP structures, rather than broadening access to all students regardless of income."

Key themes:school meal programsNational School Lunch Programserving children in needprogram integritynutritional flexibility

— 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 concerns milk options and allergy training in school meals, while the Project 2025 excerpt focuses on civil rights, IDEA equity regulations, preventing ideological conditions on federal meal funding, and student loan repayment. The only tangential connection is the general topic of school meals, but the substantive objectives do not align."

Key themes:school mealsfederal nutrition programsstudent health

— 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

Department of Agriculture

Weak

Vector: 61%

Pages: 335-337AI Enhanced

AI Analysis:

"The bill focuses on expanding milk options and related training within school meals, while Project 2025's Agriculture section emphasizes reining in federal overreach, targeting benefits to low-income students, and reducing waste and improper payments. There is only tangential overlap concerning school meal programs and regulatory flexibility."

Key themes:school meal programsfederal nutrition regulationdairy flexibilityfood allergy training

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. Marshall, Roger

Retire through Ownership Act

119/s/2403

Patients Deserve Price Tags Act

119/s/2355

Healthy Start Reauthorization Act of 2026

119/s/3799

Back to All Bills