logo
How will USDA cuts affect Centre County? Food bank, others brace for unclear future

How will USDA cuts affect Centre County? Food bank, others brace for unclear future

Yahoo05-04-2025
A Centre County school district, food bank and food provider are among those preparing for uncertain impacts after the Trump administration announced it will cut two federal food assistance programs.
In early March, the U.S. Department of Agriculture said it would cut more than $1 billion in funding for two programs: the Local Food Purchase Assistance Cooperative Agreement Program, which allows states to purchase and distribute locally sourced food to feeding programs like food banks and pantries, and the Local Food for Schools Cooperative Agreement Program, which provides federal funding to school districts to purchase food directly from local sources such as farmers and other suppliers.
The pandemic-era programs were implemented by the USDA under the Biden administration with the goal of providing local, healthy food to those who needed it, and to build and bolster resilient local food and agricultural supply chains, according to the programs' websites.
USDA has said the programs are a legacy of the pandemic, as the Trump administration and Elon Musk's Department of Government Efficiency say they're slashing federal spending to reduce waste.
The USDA gave a 60-day notification period after announcing the cuts, which would mean the programs would end May 6.
Allayn Beck, the State College Food Bank's executive director, said that while the food bank doesn't directly receive funding from the USDA programs being cut, she fears the potential ripple effects in the community.
'I am anticipating that when the (Local Food Purchase Assistance Cooperative Agreement) program ceases to exist, the current options for fresh and local produce, dairy, meats — they're just not going to be available anymore,' Beck said. 'And that effect is going to trickle down too. I think that's going to be the case for any pantry that is purchasing local produce, meats and dairies.'
As a result of the cuts, Beck expects less food will be readily available to distribute at the food bank. More food and monetary donations from the public will likely be required to meet the needs in the community.
The State College Food Bank served a record number of individuals and families in 2024, and Beck only expects that to continue.
'Grocery stores are still going to be serving the same produce, dairy and meats that they always do, but as prices rise not everyone will be able to afford to get their goods there,' Beck said. 'While we can't say for sure yet, I'd ... think that we'll be seeing more and more people coming to the food bank for their goods.'
During the pandemic, the community rallied around the food bank, Beck said, providing help when it needed it most.
She's hoping for a similar, if not greater, level of support now.
'Because of the amazing community support we received back in 2020 we were able to keep our doors open, but I'd say that what we're dealing with right now is harder than back then,' Beck said. 'We're serving more people, food is more expensive, even running electricity to our coolers is more expensive. ... It's more expensive for everybody. I think that we need more help now than ever, especially with determining what's yet to come.'
She aims to secure fresh and local produce, dairy and meat products from other sources if need be, although it has yet to be determined what that would look like.
The effects of the cuts and concerns was a topic at a quarterly meeting with the directors of Centre County's other food banks and pantries, Beck said.
Joe Arthur, the CEO of the Central Pennsylvania Food Bank — an organization that purchases and distributes fresh, local food other Pennsylvania food banks — said that with the Local Food for Schools Cooperative Agreement cut, the organization is missing out on $1.8 million through 15 months, an amount that could supply 500,000 meals.
'We've been deeply concerned about the funding cut to the (Local Food Purchasing Assistance Cooperative Program),' Arthur said. 'It also means fewer resources for our local farmers, who supply the fresh, nutritious food that makes this program so impactful. This isn't just about meals — it's about families, communities, and our local economy.'
Much like Centre County's food banks, State College Area School District Food Service Director Megan Schaper said that so far, the school district hasn't been directly impacted by the cuts. But when they take effect, she's unsure about the amount of fresh, local foods the district will be able to provide.
'To be fair, I guess (the program's funding) was extra money. Prior to the pandemic we never had those type of funds,' Schaper said. 'With the current reimbursement rates and what parents pay for meals, I'll still be able to buy food and have meals for students, but will I be able to have local food though? Maybe not so much. Buying from big factory farms is less expensive than buying from local — it stinks but that's how it is.'
Moving forward, Schaper also anticipates the Trump administration making it 'significantly harder' for children to get access to free and reduced-cost lunches.
Proposed spending cuts to fund Republican's tax bill include changes to how schools provide free and reduced lunch. The Community Eligibility Provision, which provides a school district's students with free lunches based on the percentage of the school's population that's deemed eligible for free meals through participation in programs like SNAP, is currently set at 25% but a Republican proposal would raise it to 60%.
While SCASD does not currently participate in the Community Eligibility Provision, a school that does would see the cost of their students' lunches reimbursed by USDA through a reimbursement formula.
'That's definitely one of the hammers that we're waiting to see fall, and when it does, it's going to have a big effect on a lot of schools,' Schaper said. 'I mean, if you read Project 2025, they are not particularly interested in making school meals easily accessible to all students, which I find to be concerning and disappointing.'
One of her other main concerns with the canceling of the two USDA programs is the havoc it could wreak among farmers, small businesses and other local food providers.
'I fear they might be on the worst end of these cuts,' Schaper said.
The Happy Valley Meat Company, a large meat supplier to SCASD and around 150 other Pennsylvania schools, will likely be one of the businesses impacted by the cuts, although owner Dan Honig said he's not sure exactly how yet.
'Honestly, my business would not be feasible if it weren't for schools buying our product, primarily our ground beef,' Honig said. 'We're left with a few serious questions: What do we do to adapt to potentially less income? How do we prepare? I'd like to think that we provide an good enough service that the schools will still come to us without the additional funding, but we aren't even sure of that.'
To retain relationships with some of his most important customers, Honig may start readjusting the delivery deals he's made with school districts to a rate that they can afford, with weekly deliveries potentially turning into monthly, and so on.
Regardless of possible future delivery adjustments though, Honig said that the cuts alone deserve a call to action.
'If this is an issue you're truly concerned about, I'd say get up, reach out to your child's school district and tell them that you believe local is important,' Honig said. 'Tell them you want local, even if you recognize that there are cuts. Now is your chance say to your school district, 'this is what's important to me and my kids.' They should have better food — it's the fuel of their lives.'
Late last month Gov. Josh Shapiro announced that his administration objects to, and would be filing a direct administrative challenge against, the 'unlawful' decision to cancel Pennsylvania's agreement with the federal government under the Local Food Purchasing Assistance Program.
'Earlier this month, we received notice from the U.S. Department of Agriculture that the Trump administration had decided to cancel our agreement,' Shapiro said in a written statement. 'I've directed Secretary [Russell] Redding to immediately appeal the USDA's decision to unlawfully terminate this agreement and demand that the federal government honor their obligations under the agreement we signed just four months ago.'
According to a news release, Pennsylvania's $13 million contract for the LFPA program supports 189 Pennsylvania farms and 14 food banks across the commonwealth.
Shapiro is proposing a combined $8 million bump to crucial in-state food programs to be added to the 2025-26 state budget — $4 million to Pennsylvania Agricultural Surplus System and $4 million to the State Food Purchase Program.
The increases would see the total funding for the two programs sit at $34.6 million.
Orange background

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Comments

No comments yet...

Related Articles

'South Park' Turns Up The Heat On Trump With 'Perfect' Return Of Beloved Character
'South Park' Turns Up The Heat On Trump With 'Perfect' Return Of Beloved Character

Yahoo

time27 minutes ago

  • Yahoo

'South Park' Turns Up The Heat On Trump With 'Perfect' Return Of Beloved Character

'South Park' released a new clip teasing Wednesday night's episode that features the return of a fan-favorite character as the show appears set to continue trolling President Donald Trump. The clip shows Towelie ― a sentient towel who loves to get high ― arriving by bus in Washington, D.C. to find the city under military control. 'This seems like the perfect place for a towel,' Towelie says as he watches a tank roll past the White House ― mimicking the real-life situation in which Trump has sent the National Guard into the city. Trump has claimed the military is needed to bring order to a city besieged by crime. However, the violent crime rate there dropped in both 2024 and 2025, leading critics to blast the move as a 'stunt.' 'South Park' has pulled a few stunts of its own since the show returned last month, mocking corporate parent Paramount for caving to Trump by agreeing to pay $16 million to settle a lawsuit over '60 Minutes' that most legal observers considered frivolous. Related: Trump has claimed the settlement includes PSAs, and 'South Park' mockingly gave him one at the end of the episode, which showed a very realistic Trump stripping in the desert until he was naked, complete with a talking 'teeny tiny' penis. The show continued to go after Trump and his administration in the second episode, which focused mostly on Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem. The next episode airs Wednesday night on Comedy Central, and will stream on Paramount+. 'South Park' Goes Scorched-Earth On Trump In Shockingly NSFW Season Premiere Aubrey Plaza Details 'Awfulness' After Her Husband's Shocking Death Elon Musk Was Not Pleased With 'Silicon Valley' Show's Portrayal Of Tech Parties

Guns or weed? Trump administration says you can't use both.
Guns or weed? Trump administration says you can't use both.

USA Today

time28 minutes ago

  • USA Today

Guns or weed? Trump administration says you can't use both.

The Justice Department wants the Supreme Court to make clear that regular pot smokers, and other users of illegal drugs, cannot own guns. WASHINGTON – The Trump administration's aggressive defense of gun rights has at least one exception. The government's lawyers want the Supreme Court to make clear that regular pot smokers – and other drug users − shouldn't be allowed to own firearms. An appeals court has said a federal law making it a crime for drug users to have a gun can't be used against someone based solely on their past drug use. Limiting the law to blocking the use of guns while a person is high effectively guts the statute that reduces gun violence, the Justice Department told the Supreme Court. They're asking the justices to overturn the appeals court's decision. Trump's Justice Department has sided with gun owners in other cases The department's defense of the law is particularly notable as the Trump administration has sided with gun rights advocates in other cases – including one in which they declined to appeal a lower court's ruling against a federal law setting 21 as the minimum age to own a handgun. More: Trump DOJ wants Supreme Court to bring down hammer on gun rules But on the issue of drug use, the government is appealing four cases to the Supreme Court, asking the justices to focus on one involving a dual citizen of the United States and Pakistan who was charged with unlawfully owning a Glock pistol because he regularly smoked marijuana. The FBI had been monitoring Ali Danial Hemani because of his alleged connection to Iran's paramilitary Revolutionary Guard, which the government has designated a global terrorist group, according to filings. The government also alleges Hemani used and sold promethazine, an antihistamine used to treat allergies and motion sickness that can boost an opioid high, and used cocaine, although he was prosecuted based on his marijuana use. Hemani's attorneys said the government is trying to 'inflame and disparage' Hemani's character and the only facts that matter are that he was not high when the FBI found the Glock 19 in his Texas home. Hemani was charged with violating the federal law that prohibits the possession of firearms by a person who 'is an unlawful user of or addicted to any controlled substance.' More: Supreme Court sides with Biden and upholds regulations of ghost guns to make them traceable Appeals court ruled past drug use not enough to stop gun ownership The New Orleans-based 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals said that the law can't be applied to Hamani under the Supreme Court's landmark 2022 decision that gun prohibitions must be grounded in history that is "consistent with our tradition of gun regulation." While history and tradition support 'some limits on a presently intoxicated person's right to carry a weapon,' the appeals court said, 'they do not support disarming a sober person based solely on past substance usage.' The Justice Department said the appeals court got it wrong. Laws that existed at the time the country was founded restricted the rights of habitual drinkers, even when they were sober, they argued. 'And for about as long as legislatures have regulated drugs, they have prohibited the possession of arms by drug users and addicts – not just by persons under the influence of drugs,' they wrote. Law used in hundreds of prosecutions, including Hunter Biden's Since the federal government created its background-check system for firearms in 1998, the federal restriction on drug users has stopped more gun sales than any requirement other than the ban on felons and fugitives owning weapons, according to the filing. And it's used in hundreds of prosecutions each year, they said. (Hunter Biden, who was later pardoned by his father during President Joe Biden's final weeks in office, was convicted in 2024 of violating the law by purchasing a gun despite having a known drug addiction.) Hunter Biden trial recap Joe Biden's son guilty on all charges in historic gun case Hemani's lawyers argue that the government's interpretation of the law makes no sense when an estimated 19% of Americans have used marijuana and about 32% own a firearm. That means millions of Americans are violating the law that could put them behind bars for up to 15 years, they said in a filing. The appeals court, Hemani's lawyers said, correctly applied the Supreme Court's past decisions and 'common sense' to rule that 'history and tradition only supports a ban on carrying firearms while intoxicated.' In addition to the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, two other appeals courts have issued rulings that restrict use of the federal ban: both courts ruled there should be individualized assessments of defendants' drug use to determine if their rights could be restricted. Trump administration touts program to restore gun rights The Justice Department argues that 'marginal' cases are better addressed on a case-by-case basis, through a federal program the Trump administration restarted that lets individuals petition to have their gun rights restored. The administration's championship of that program makes it less surprising that the Justice Department is vigorously defending the ban on drug users having guns, said Andrew Willinger, executive director of the Duke Center for Firearms Law, a research center. In addition, the administration has shown a broad desire to crack down on illegal drug use. 'In some sense, when those two areas are colliding – gun rights and anti-drug policies – it looks like anti-drug policies are going to win out,' he said. More: Supreme Court rules Mexico can't sue US gunmakers over cartel violence Willinger said there's a relatively strong chance the Supreme Court will get involved, which the justices tend to do when a lower court strikes down or restricts the application of a federal criminal law – especially if the government asks them to intervene. But the high court could also wait to see how other appeals courts handle similar cases and how well the Justice Department's program for restoring gun rights addresses these concerns, he said. The court could announce whether it will take up the issue this fall.

Trump is fighting something in D.C., but it isn't crime
Trump is fighting something in D.C., but it isn't crime

Boston Globe

time28 minutes ago

  • Boston Globe

Trump is fighting something in D.C., but it isn't crime

When the man says no, the agent continues. 'Yeah, Trump's got all federal agencies coming together, seven days, and going out trying to stop the violent crime, all kind of stuff,' the agent says. He continues: 'Smoking, drinking in public, right, it can't happen.' I'm a Detroit-born, Boston transplant at heart, but I've worked as a journalist in Washington for nearly two decades. Though I've built my career here working only for Get The Gavel A weekly SCOTUS explainer newsletter by columnist Kimberly Atkins Stohr. Enter Email Sign Up Understandably, I have some very strong and very personal views about the president's Advertisement Most obviously, sending armed federal agents and the National Guard to patrol the streets of the nation's capital bears all the hallmarks of a But from my local vantage point, I see even more layers to this dangerous gambit. Advertisement First, let's dispel the idea that Trump's effort is driven in any way by a true desire to make D.C. a better place to live and visit. Trump points to anecdotal evidence, like the If Trump really wanted to fight crime here, there are many things he could do that would actually help, starting with telling his fellow Republicans in Congress to release No, Trump's crime crusade is about something else. Aside from satisfying his Trump loves a shock-and-awe-style attack on perceived domestic enemies. Look at Trump's immigration crackdown, complete with images of suspected immigrants being detained and held in brutally inhumane facilities with nicknames like 'Alligator Alcatraz.' It's a show put on by the former reality show host and the latest episode is brought to you from Democratic-controlled cities he has long railed against. Crime fighting isn't the point. Cruelty is. Advertisement It's gut wrenching to see it happening in a place so filled with history, culture, and joy. It's a richness that comes not just from transplants like me or its world-renown cultural institutions (which are They, and I, want safe, well-policed, and well-resourced communities. Not a federal takeover. And I'm exhausted by the crime hot takes from people who couldn't identify Ironically, even if you thought soldiers should be sent here, they are also being sent from Ohio, the only state that Even Trump's claim that Advertisement Trump is selling a dangerous lie about the city I've made a life in. My D.C. is one of Kimberly Atkins Stohr is a columnist for the Globe. She may be reached at

DOWNLOAD THE APP

Get Started Now: Download the App

Ready to dive into a world of global content with local flavor? Download Daily8 app today from your preferred app store and start exploring.
app-storeplay-store