To amend the Richard B. Russell National School Lunch Act to require participation in the summer EBT program as a condition of participating in the school lunch program, and for other purposes.
Introduced June 11, 2026 · Last action June 11, 2026
Plain English Summary
This bill would require all schools participating in the federal school lunch program to also participate in the summer EBT (Electronic Benefit Transfer) program, which provides food assistance to low-income children during school breaks. Schools that refuse to join the summer EBT program would lose their eligibility for federal school lunch funding.
Who benefits
Low-income families with school-age children who gain year-round food assistance access; states and school districts that implement summer EBT programs receive expanded reach and funding certainty; private food service contractors and vendors who supply meals and benefits cards to expanded summer programs; non-profit food distribution organizations administering summer EBT benefits.
Who pays / loses
School districts that currently operate school lunch programs but have not adopted summer EBT face a choice between compliance costs or loss of federal lunch program funding; school districts in rural or less wealthy areas with limited administrative capacity to manage dual programs bear higher implementation burden; school nutrition directors and district food service administrators must absorb new compliance and coordination requirements; families in school districts that choose not to participate lose access to federal school lunch funding.
Funding & Lobbying Interests
Organizations lobbying for expanded child nutrition programs (Food Research & Action Center, Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, Feeding America) support summer EBT expansion; state and local health departments benefit from federal funding to operate summer programs; EBT card processing companies (Conduent, Fiserv) and food service management corporations benefit from expanded program participation and coordination; anti-hunger advocacy groups that have campaigned for summer EBT universalization support mandatory linkage.
Political Impact
Affected Groups
Approximately 21.8 million children eligible for free or reduced-price school lunch (per USDA data); low-income families earning under 130-185% of federal poverty line depending on state; rural school districts with fewer than 1,000 students who face disproportionate administrative burden; school districts in states with lower summer EBT participation rates (currently 13 states account for majority of summer EBT participants); children in states without robust existing summer EBT infrastructure.
Political Subtext
Proponents argue mandatory linkage closes a gap in child nutrition support during summer months when food insecurity rises, and that bundling requirements leverages existing school infrastructure to improve program uptake. Critics argue the bill imposes unfunded mandates on school districts, removes local flexibility in program participation, and forces districts to absorb administrative costs without corresponding federal funding increases. The Congressional Budget Office does not appear to have scored this bill. Non-partisan research (USDA, Urban Institute) shows summer EBT participation remains voluntary and fragmented, with significant state variation; mandating participation could expand coverage but also create implementation challenges in under-resourced districts.
Real-World Stakes
If enacted, school districts nationwide would face immediate decisions: invest in summer EBT program infrastructure or relinquish federal school lunch funding. Districts in rural areas and lower-income states with minimal existing summer EBT capacity would face the steepest transition costs. Historical precedent exists: the 2010 Healthy, Hunger-Free Kids Act expanded USDA nutrition standards but was implemented unevenly across districts with varying compliance capacity. Districts with strong nutrition infrastructure adapted quickly; under-resourced districts experienced budget strain. This bill's mandate would likely produce similar uneven impacts. Low-income families in districts that lack readiness could face temporary service disruptions during transition. Approximately 21.8 million school-lunch-eligible children would gain theoretical access to year-round benefits, but real-world access depends on district implementation capacity.
Sponsor
Sponsor information not available.
Vote Record
No recorded votes.
Campaign Finance — Primary Sponsor
No campaign finance data available yet.
501(c)(4) disclosure: Contributions from 501(c)(4) "dark money" organizations are not required to be publicly disclosed and are not reflected in the figures above. Data sourced from FEC public disclosure filings.
Community Discussion
Share this bill
Sign in to join the discussion.
No comments yet. Be the first.