Shapiro
HARRISBURG, Pa. - Pennsylvania is off to court to fight the termination of a program that provides food from local farmers to food banks, after President Donald Trump's Agriculture Department decided it no longer furthers "the goals of the agency."
Gov. Josh Shapiro and the state Department of Agriculture filed a lawsuit June 4 in Harrisburg federal court in a dispute over the Local Food Purchase Assistance 2025 Cooperative Agreement - an initiative that former President Joe Biden had increased funding for.
But in March, Trump's USDA canceled it and another program that used federal funds to buy food from farmers. In the other program, it was used to buy food for schools.
About $660 million for school food was cut nationwide. Pennsylvania had received $30 million in two prior rounds of funding for food banks.
That money was used to buy 30 million pounds of food from Pennsylvania farmers and food distributors to more than six million households.
"Neither the termination notice nor the termination letter explained why USDA had determined that a program that uses 100% of its funding to feed hungry families no longer effectuated its priorities," the lawsuit says.
"Nor did either document identify the factors the federal agency had considered to make its decision, indicate that USDA had at all accounted for those who were relying on the agreement, or acknowledge that USDA's decision represented a change in the agency's position."
The cut means Pennsylvania won't receive $13 million. Pennsylvania Department of Agriculture Secretary Russel Redding called it unlawful and worried about harm to farmers.
"This is about real people - the farmers, producers and rural communities who are now facing uncertainty as a result," he said.
His agency wrote to the USDA twice for an explanation on why the program was terminated but received no response. His letter said it would be "hard to imagine a program that better furthers the statutory priorities of USDA."
Legally, Redding and Shapiro argue, the decision violates the Administrative Procedure Act as arbitrary and capricious. If any agency action reflects a changed position, the agency must acknowledge and display awareness of the change, they say.
If the school food and food bank programs are no longer part of the USDA's priorities, then what are those priorities, they ask.
"Further, USDA's termination of the LFPA25 Agreement fails to consider the reliance interests PDA, Pennsylvania farmers, food banks and the people who rely on Pennsylvania's charitable food network have in the availability of funds that USDA agreed to distribute to PDA through the LFPA25 Agreement," the suit says.
Pennsylvania also makes a due process claim, as Redding and Shapiro say a hearing was required.
