The world of food policy never slows down, and the past few months have been no exception. From a landmark Farm Bill passing the House to a sweeping reorganization of the federal agency that oversees SNAP, WIC, and school lunch programs, there is a lot to keep track of. In this edition of LAFPC's policy roundup, UCLA Law student Daniel Schettini breaks down the most significant recent developments in federal food and nutrition policy, what they mean for Angelenos and food system advocates, and what to watch for in the months ahead.
A major Farm Bill has now passed the U.S. House and is heading to the Senate, the Food & Nutrition Administration/Service is reorganizing, the long-awaited and promised Ultra-Processed Food Definition is now past due, some flavored vapes are now FDA-approved, the Whole Milk for Healthy Kids Act is being implemented, SNAP Stocking Standards have a new Final Rule, and so much more. Due to their expansive nature and important potential consequences, this piece will hone in on the first two major changes: the Farm Bill and the FNA Reorganization to give you all a better understanding as to what has happened and what is to come.
On April 30, 2026, the U.S. House of Representatives passed the 850-page H.R. 7567 (entitled the “Farm, Food, and National Security Act of 2026”) by a vote of 224-200 (with 14 Democrats voting in favor and 3 Republicans voting against). After passing the House, the Farm Bill now heads to the Senate Agriculture Committee, which will either approve the House Farm Bill or draft their own. The Senate has until September 30, 2026, to pass the Farm Bill as the current extensions to the 2018 Farm Bill expire then.
In the House, the largest sticking points for the committee-approved Farm Bill were that it did not address the $187 billion cut to SNAP that the One Big Beautiful Bill Act imposed, it had included a provision allowing for the year-round sale of E15 fuel, and it had included a provision that would prevent pesticide manufacturers from being sued over cancer warnings. After a 280-142 vote, the House stripped the pesticide provision from the final bill. The House also separated the E15 fuel provision for a separate vote later this month. However, the absence of SNAP resources remained in the final version and was a key sticking point for House Democrats.
While the 850-page bill contains quite a bit (to say the least) and should be thoroughly examined by anyone and everyone in the agriculture industry, I will try to summarize a few of the provisions below.
One hotly contested portion of the bill that passed the House is the “Save Our Bacon Act.” This provision specifically aims to block states from imposing welfare standards on pork products, such as California’s Prop 12 does. Animal rights groups were strongly opposed to the provision as it undoes various state laws that instituted animal housing requirements on pork producers. On the other hand, advocates of the provision claimed that it would “alleviate overregulation” by states and protect against creating a patchwork of conflicting state laws that overwhelm industry. Groups in opposition to this provision have made it clear that they are extremely disappointed in the House’s choice to include it in their Farm Bill and fully intend to now target the Senators with their lobbying efforts to get this provision removed.
On the other hand, the Farm Bill does include many provisions that have received widespread support. For one, the Bill does renew and maintain the current SNAP funding infrastructure until 2031, despite many claiming it does not go far enough. Additionally, the Bill expands eligibility for certain SNAP food purchases, such as for all forms of fruits, vegetables, and legumes (not just “fresh”). Further, the Bill increases funding for food banks to procure more food and increases or maintains funding for a variety of food distribution programs. Finally, the Bill includes many agricultural, energy, healthcare, research, and rural-focused provisions that expand or maintain the funding of resources for key programs.
For further information, an in-depth analysis of the various provisions can be found here.
Now, as the bill heads to the Senate, the debates around SNAP and other provisions are bound to boil up once again. Many stakeholders are likely (and planning) to boost their advocacy and lobbying efforts now that it's in the Senators' hands, and a 60-vote majority will be required to advance the legislation through. So, stakeholders will need to look to the House’s version of the Farm Bill (dubbed by some to be the “skinny” Farm Bill) and the debates that happened there, as the Senators are bound to have fights similar to what just occurred in the House. Ultimately, it appears that the momentum in Washington is there for a bipartisan Farm Bill to pass and be signed by the President, but as to what it will actually entail, that is anyone’s guess, and much compromise and long rolling will inevitably have to happen first.
What used to be called the Food and Nutrition Service (FNS) has begun to undergo a reorganization and relocation spearheaded by USDA leadership and the Trump Administration. Under this restructuring, the service, with its $170 billion budget, will now be called the Food and Nutrition Administration (FNA). The FNA remains responsible for administering the 16 federal nutrition assistance programs (such as SNAP, WIC, the National School Lunch Program, the SUN programs, and the Emergency Food Assistance Program).
According to the USDA, besides the renaming, this restructuring consists of decentralizing the program away from Washington, D.C. by moving staff and offices to various cities across the country. This shift will change the model from having one central office with various regional offices to having a small central office with much larger regional hubs focused on overseeing certain programs specifically. The FNA Administrator and a small staff will remain in Washington to coordinate the hubs. This move is touted by the USDA to be about providing better customer service and staff accessibility, helping fight waste, fraud, and abuse, and allowing for the prioritization of state services. The USDA says that the reorganization will not include any layoffs and will be implemented systematically to prevent any discontinuity of services.
With that being said, this move comes as the USDA as a whole has lost nearly 30% of its workforce since the start of the Trump administration. Currently, FNA has approximately 1,200 employees, with many of them employed at its headquarters near Washington, D.C. Opponents to the reorganization, including major democratic representatives, say this forced relocation will push many of the department’s employees to quit, disrupting the services that FNA provides, and that the reorganization itself is illegal. It should also be noted that many of the hubs centered on administering the FNA’s core programs will be located in Republican-majority states, including Texas, Indiana, Missouri, and North Carolina, likely a politically-motivated decision, as many Democratic-led states have actively resisted the administration's policies on nutrition assistance.
Overall, it remains unclear as to how this reorganization will impact services, but some departures from the agency are to be expected. While some claim that FNA’s departure numbers might parallel the USDA’s departure rate as a whole, others say the impact might be less dire, as federal jobs in Washington are harder to come by than they were earlier in the administration. Nevertheless, it remains critical for those who interact with any of the FNA’s programs to take stock of the new office that will oversee said program and ready their systems to prepare for a disruption in service in case one comes about due to this relocation. Also, it is highly likely that this relocation effort will be challenged in the courts as illegal, given democratic lawmakers’ statements on the matter.
BONUS: CalFresh Changes
Finally, while these updates are usually backward-looking, I wanted to provide you all with something prospectively as well. On June 1, 2026, California will begin to implement the previously-enacted work requirements for its CalFresh program. Specifically, the change will impact “able-bodied adults without dependents” who do not fit into any of the exception categories found here. The change will require these folks to meet the work or community engagement requirement, which requires them to work an average of 20 hours per week in a qualifying activity to receive certain CalFresh benefits. So, if you or someone you know is currently receiving CalFresh, it will be important to keep an eye on these changes and check for eligibility, as the work requirement is expanded.
Daniel Schettini (he/him) is a third-year law student at the UCLA School of Law. Originally from Long Beach, CA, Daniel attended UCLA as an undergraduate, where he obtained a Bachelor of Arts and Science (BASc) in physiological science and political science. In law school, Daniel is a Managing Editor of the UCLA Law Review, the Vice President of the Law School’s Student Government, and the Vice President of External Outreach for the Moot Court Honors Board! He has also served as the Treasurer of the Law School’s Student Government, the Vice-Chair of the Food Law Society, the Vice President of the Health Law Society, the Co-Chair of the Skid Row El Centro Pro Bono Project, and the Education Chair of OUTLaw. His legal studies are predominantly focused on the intersection between food policy, the environment, and human health. After graduation, Daniel plans on working in the healthcare law sector while continuing to explore his interests in food and environmental law.
We reside, work, and cultivate food
on unceded Indigenous homelands.
We acknowledge and honor the descendants of the Tongva, Kizh, and Gabrieleño peoples as the traditional land caretakers of Tovaangar (the Los Angeles Basin and the Southern Channel Islands). We pay our respects to the Honuukvetam (Ancestors), ‘Ahiihirom (Elders) and ‘Eyoohiinkem (our relatives/relations) past, present and emerging.
As part of a greater foodshed, we would also like to pay respect to and honor the Chumash, Tataviam, Serrano, Kitanemuk, ʔíviĨuqaletem, Acjachemen, Payómkawichum, and any other tribal group possibly not mentioned. As a Food Policy Council for Los Angeles we recognize this land acknowledgment is limited and engagement is an ongoing process of learning and accountability. To learn more about these First Nations, visit here.