Food for Peace Remains Critical to Ending Global Hunger 

Since 1954, Food for Peace (FFP), the U.S.’s flagship international food aid program, has provided short-term emergency assistance and long-term nutrition support to more than four billion people across 150 countries. FFP addresses global food insecurity and bolsters U.S. national security, and in FY26, close to $2 billion in funds were available for program operations across seven countries, per a Notice of Funding Opportunity (NOFO) from USDA’s Foreign Agricultural Service. Historically, FFP has responded to areas impacted by disasters and conflict, provided emergency in-kind food donations from American farmers, facilitated local food purchases, and has responded to countries and territories with highest need. 

Transitioning Food for Peace from USAID to USDA

From 1961 to 2025, the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID) administered Food for Peace. Following the closure of USAID in 2025, the Trump administration temporarily transferred Food for Peace operations from the Department of State to the Department of Agriculture (USDA). This was accomplished through an interagency agreement that administration officials believe will ensure some level of continuity in operations. The shift reflects the administration’s “America First” approach to more closely align international food assistance with supporting American farmers and businesses. This includes procuring 100 percent U.S. grown commodities and implementing enhanced oversight mechanisms.

Potential Policy Changes to Food for Peace  

Despite Food for Peace reflecting some of the best of America’s foreign policy, it has been slated for major changes that could alter its reach and impact. The White House FY27 budget proposed zeroing out Food for Peace because it claimed that FFP was “wasteful” and used to funds for activities “that have nothing to do with humanitarian aid.” 

Congress has notably gone in a different direction. In April 2026, the U.S. House of Representatives passed their version of the Farm Bill – the Farm, Food, and National Security Act of 2026 (H.R. 7567) – which authorizes Food for Peace through the Trade Title. The House version of the Farm Bill is seeking to codify the transfer of FFP from USAID (now the State Department) to USDA and would also require 50 percent of funds to support U.S.-grown agricultural commodities. The House-passed Farm Bill also earmarked $200 million for Ready-to-Use Therapeutic Foods (RUTFs), a nutritional supplement used to treat severely malnourished children.

Farm Bill negotiations in the U.S. Senate depart from negotiations in the House when it comes to Food for Peace. In the Senate’s draft, there is no language codifying the permanent transfer of Food for Peace to USDA, and there are no specific carveouts for RUTFs. It does, however, include a greater emphasis on preventing child wasting through expanded FFP programming.

Congress will need to work together on a bipartisan basis to pass the Farm Bill, which has been delayed several times, and is a crucial policy lever for ensuring successful Food for Peace operations into the future. 

Outstanding Areas of Concern – Country Selection Criteria and USDA Staffing 

Outside of congressional negotiations, Food for Peace faces an uphill battle in reaching countries with the highest rates of acute food insecurity and malnutrition across the globe. The recent changes in country selection criteria exclude countries and territories on the brink of famine, including the West Bank/Gaza, Sudan, South Sudan, Somalia, and Yemen. According to the World Food Programme, the warning signs of hunger and famine are unmistakable in Somalia and this this is “an opportunity for the world to step up”. Recent reporting shows that hunger is escalating in Sudan, and is worsening due to the on-again, off-again closures to the Strait of Hormuz. USDA should continue to operate in countries that have the greatest need and where Food for Peace has operated successfully working to build upon resilience which ultimately sets these nations further down the road to self-reliance.

Further, insufficient staffing at USDA is a cause of concern across Congress and advocacy groups. While Food for Peace lost most of its original 300 staff with USAID’s closure, USDA itself lost nearly 20 percent of its staff in 2025 and 2026 due to the Deferred Resignation Program and Reductions in Force. Congress can do all it can to fund and bolster Food for Peace on a bipartisan basis but without staffing and expertise, program operations will struggle, resulting in fewer supports for countries grappling with severe hunger.

Bread for the World encourages Congress and the administration to support American farmers and U.S. national security, and to protect and invest in life-saving programming through Food for Peace. This can be accomplished by passing a strong, bipartisan Farm Bill, which would chart an administrative path for renewed FFP operations, and by expanding country selection criteria to ensure countries and territories with the highest rates of food insecurity are supported.   

Rick Rowden is the Senior International Policy Advisor at Bread for the World’s Policy and Research Institute (PRI).