PlainBillCongress, translated.Legislation. Context. Public interest.Referred to the House Committee on Education and Workforce.
Congressional Research Service
No official summary is available in the imported record yet.
People & committees
Rep. Barragán, Nanette Diaz [D-CA-44] · D–CA
Legislative record
A procedural vote is different from passage. Passage in one chamber does not establish enactment. Explore the glossary.
Referred to the House Committee on Education and Workforce.
Introduced in House
Introduced in House
Primary sources
Text links open the official source. We also preserved the text version used in the PlainBill explanation below.
Source last updated: Oct 16, 2026. Consult Congress.gov for the current record.
AI Conversation Starters
Choose a perspective, copy a prompt, and paste it into your preferred AI. Each prompt includes the bill version and available official source links, and asks for counterarguments as well as supporting evidence.
Analyze H.R.10415 as objectively as possible. Explain its main provisions, who would be affected, possible benefits and harms, implementation, exceptions, and uncertainties. Present the strongest arguments for and against it, and identify evidence needed to assess its public impact.
Examine H.R.10415 through a progressive lens, focusing on fairness, access, economic inequality, and effects on vulnerable communities. Explain potential benefits, costs, and unintended consequences. Consider the strongest counterarguments and distinguish stated goals from demonstrated outcomes.
Examine H.R.10415 through a conservative lens, focusing on fiscal responsibility, institutional stability, federalism, and the scope of government. Explain potential benefits, costs, and unintended consequences. Consider the strongest counterarguments and any provisions that challenge this perspective.
Examine H.R.10415 through a civil-liberties and limited-government lens. Consider individual rights, privacy, voluntary choice, accountability, and government power. Explain tradeoffs, possible safeguards, and the strongest counterarguments without assuming the proposal is beneficial or harmful.
PlainBill explanation
Based on the full Introduced in House · 2026-09-16 text. This explanation has not received human editorial review. This overview describes the proposal’s major provisions; it does not establish what its real-world effects would be.
The proposed Food for Thought Act of 2026 would create competitive grants to help qualifying colleges provide free meals and snacks to low-income students. Grants would last up to two years, and participating students would receive between one and ten free meals a week. Receiving these meals would not count when determining eligibility for the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, known as SNAP. The bill would also keep meal-program benefits from being treated as “other financial assistance” for purposes of a specified Higher Education Act provision. The supplied text does not establish the resulting effect on student-aid calculations.
This Act may be cited as the Food for Thought Act of 2026.
The Secretary, acting through the Administrator of the Food and Nutrition Service, shall establish a program under which the Secretary shall award grants, on a competitive basis, to eligible institutions of higher education to provide free meals, including snacks, to low-income students.
The duration of a grant awarded under the program shall not exceed 2 years.
the eligible entity shall provide not fewer than 1 and not more than 10 free meals per week per student
Receipt of a meal under the program shall not be considered for the purposes of determining eligibility for the supplemental nutrition assistance program
benefits received under subsection (a) of section 18 of the Richard B. Russell National School Lunch Act (42 U.S.C. 1769) shall not be treated as other financial assistance for purposes of section 471(3).
Section 2 would add the meal-grant program to the National School Lunch Act. The Secretary, acting through the Food and Nutrition Service Administrator, would award grants competitively, with each grant lasting no more than two years.
Section 18 of the Richard B. Russell National School Lunch Act (42 U.S.C. 1769) is amended by inserting before subsection (b) the following
The Secretary, acting through the Administrator of the Food and Nutrition Service, shall establish a program under which the Secretary shall award grants, on a competitive basis, to eligible institutions of higher education to provide free meals, including snacks, to low-income students.
The duration of a grant awarded under the program shall not exceed 2 years.
A college would qualify only if it meets the referenced Higher Education Act definition and at least 20 percent of its enrolled undergraduates are eligible for a Federal Pell Grant. The definition expressly includes qualifying minority-serving institutions.
The term eligible institution of higher education means an institution of higher education (as defined in sections 101 and 102(a)(1)(B) of the Higher Education Act of 1965 (20 U.S.C. 1001, 1002(a)(1)(B))), including a minority-serving institution, in which at least 20 percent of the undergraduate students enrolled are eligible to receive a Federal Pell Grant
The bill's definition of eligible entities would include qualifying colleges with campus meal programs, several kinds of food providers or community meal partnerships as determined by the Secretary, and groups of qualifying colleges. A college group would need at least one campus meal program accessible to students at every member college without one, with accessibility based on location, public transit, and meal-service hours. Applications would be submitted by eligible entities, but the grant-establishment provision names eligible institutions of higher education as recipients. The supplied text does not resolve whether all entities in the broader definition could receive grants directly.
The term eligible entity means— (I) an eligible institution of higher education that has an on-campus meal program; (II) an institutionally operated food service, contracted prepared-meal provider, mobile meal distribution, food hub, food pantry, food hall, or community-based meal partnership, as determined by the Secretary; or (III) a consortium of eligible institutions of higher education, of which at least 1 eligible institution of higher education— (aa) has an on-campus meal program; and (bb) is geographically accessible to the students of each eligible institution of higher education in the consortium that does not have an on-campus meal program.
geographic accessibility shall be based on the location of, the availability of public transit to, and the meal service hours of each eligible institution of higher education within the consortium.
To be eligible to receive a grant under the program, an eligible entity shall submit to the Secretary an application
the Secretary shall award grants, on a competitive basis, to eligible institutions of higher education
A campus meal program could use college-owned or college-operated food service, outside vendors, or both.
The term on-campus meal program means a meal program on the campus of an eligible institution of higher education that is provided through an institutionally owned or operated food service or 1 or more third-party food service vendors.
Applicants would have to submit a plan to identify and reach low-income students. They would also have to promise to encourage participation and explain potential eligibility for other government benefits, including SNAP, and how to obtain information, confirm eligibility, and access those benefits.
an eligible entity shall submit to the Secretary an application at such time, in such manner, and containing such information as the Secretary may require, including— (A) a plan for identifying and conducting outreach to low-income students
conduct outreach to students with respect to the program, encourage student participation in the program, and inform students of— (I) their potential eligibility for participation in other Federal, State, and local benefit and support programs, including means-tested Federal benefits programs, such as the supplemental nutrition assistance program established under the Food and Nutrition Act of 2008 (7 U.S.C. 2011 et seq.); and (II) the processes for obtaining more information, confirming eligibility, and accessing benefits under those programs
Applicants would have to evaluate whether campus meal-plan purchasing policies make it harder for low-income students to enroll or stay in college, and identify ways to reduce any barriers found. College groups that include campuses without meal programs would also have to explain how students at those campuses would learn about free meals and available transportation.
evaluate institutional policies relating to the purchase of meal plans under on-campus meal programs and whether those policies create barriers to enrollment and persistence for low-income students; (iii) identify ways to mitigate any barriers under institutional policies that are found, through the evaluation described in clause (ii), to create barriers described in that clause
in the case of an eligible entity that is a consortium of eligible institutions of higher education that includes 1 or more eligible institutions of higher education that do not have an on-campus meal program, provide an explanation with respect to how the eligible entity will ensure that low-income students attending those institutions of higher education that do not have an on-campus meal program will be notified of available free meals provided under the program and available transportation options to be able to easily access those free meals.
The Secretary would have to select a mix of grant recipients reflecting different student-body sizes, part-time and full-time enrollment, locations and living costs, and residential characteristics, including race, ethnicity, and socioeconomic status.
the Secretary shall ensure that the eligible entities receiving grants reflect— (i) varying student body size; (ii) part-time and full-time student enrollment; (iii) diverse geographic locations and regional costs of living, including urban, rural, or suburban campuses; and (iv) diverse residential character, including race, ethnicity, and socioeconomic status.
The Secretary could give grant priority to applicants with prepared-food infrastructure or outside support to develop it; community colleges and specified minority-serving institutions or consortia; or applicants near schools that elect to receive the referenced special assistance payments. These preferences would be optional.
the Secretary may give priority to eligible entities— (i) with prepared food infrastructure or that can identify an outside source of support to develop that infrastructure; (ii) that are community colleges, historically Black colleges and universities, Tribal colleges and universities, Hispanic-serving institutions (as defined in section 502(a) of the Higher Education Act of 1965 (20 U.S.C. 1101a(a))), or other minority-serving institutions or consortia of minority-serving institutions; or (iii) that are located within proximity of a school that elects to receive special assistance payments under section 11(a)(1)(F).
For this program, community colleges would include public institutions at which the highest degree predominantly awarded is an associate degree, the specified Tribal and state public institutions offering two-year associate-degree programs, and public postsecondary vocational institutions covered by the referenced law.
The term community college means— (i) a public institution of higher education at which the highest degree that is predominantly awarded to students is an associate degree, including Tribal Colleges or Universities receiving grants under section 316 of the Higher Education Act of 1965 (20 U.S.C. 1059c) that offer a 2-year program for completion of such degree and State public institutions of higher education that offer such a 2-year program; and (ii) a public postsecondary vocational institution (as defined in section 102(c) of the Higher Education Act of 1965 (20 U.S.C. 1002(c))).
Recipients would have to use grants for free meals and snacks, student outreach, meal preparation and purchases from vendors, benefit information, policy evaluations, identifying ways to reduce barriers, and the required access explanations. The program would have to provide each participating student between one and ten free meals per week.
shall use the grant— (i) to establish a program to provide free meals, including snacks, to low-income students, subject to the condition that the eligible entity shall provide not fewer than 1 and not more than 10 free meals per week per student; (ii) to conduct outreach to students to encourage participation in the program; (iii) to prepare meals to be provided for free under the program; (iv) to purchase meals from vendors to be provided for free under the program
(v) to provide information to students regarding potential eligibility for assistance under Federal, State, and local benefit and support programs and the processes for obtaining more information, as described in paragraph (3)(B)(i); (vi) to conduct evaluations of institutional policies described in paragraph (3)(B)(ii); (vii) to identify ways to mitigate barriers described in paragraph (3)(B)(iii); and (viii) to provide an explanation described in paragraph (3)(B)(iv).
When selecting low-income participants, recipients would have to prioritize students who receive Pell Grants, report difficulty or risk meeting basic needs such as food and housing, or participate in state-funded or federally funded work-study during the regular school year. The bill does not define “low-income” or specify an income cutoff; these priorities do not make Pell Grant receipt the sole student eligibility rule.
In selecting low-income students to participate in the program established by the eligible entity under subparagraph (A)(i), an eligible entity shall give priority to low-income students who— (i) receive a Federal Pell Grant under subpart 1 of part A of title IV of the Higher Education Act of 1965 (20 U.S.C. 1070a et seq.); (ii) indicate that they are experiencing or at risk of experiencing food insecurity, housing insecurity, homelessness, or other insecurity with respect to basic needs; or (iii) participate in a State or federally financed work-study program during the regular school year, as determined by the eligible institution of higher education.
A recipient could spend no more than 20 percent of its grant on equipment.
An eligible entity that receives a grant under the program may use not more than 20 percent of the grant to purchase equipment.
Receiving a program meal would be disregarded when determining SNAP eligibility. This provision does not itself grant SNAP eligibility.
Receipt of a meal under the program shall not be considered for the purposes of determining eligibility for the supplemental nutrition assistance program established under the Food and Nutrition Act of 2008 (7 U.S.C. 2011 et seq.).
The bill would require grant-funded meals to meet nutritional requirements and direct the Secretary to develop requirements within 120 days after enactment, consistent with the goals of the latest Dietary Guidelines for Americans. However, the meal-compliance provision points to paragraph (9)(C), while the requirement-development provision appears in paragraph (8)(C).
(6) Requirement Meals served by an eligible entity using a grant under the program shall meet the nutritional requirements developed under paragraph (9)(C).
(8) Duties of the Secretary
(C) Nutritional requirements Not later than 120 days after the date of enactment of the Food for Thought Act of 2026, the Secretary shall develop nutritional requirements for meals served pursuant to grants under the program that are consistent with the goals of the most recent Dietary Guidelines for Americans
Each recipient would have to report within one year after its grant ends on student food insecurity and how grant funds were used, including their relationship to food insecurity challenges and degree completion. Reports would separate student information by enrollment status, Pell Grant eligibility, estimated SNAP eligibility, and dependency status.
Each eligible entity that receives a grant under the program shall, not later than 1 year after the end of the grant term, submit to the Secretary a report containing— (A) a description of the prevalence of food insecurity among students enrolled in the eligible entity; (B) an evaluation of the use of the grant funds by the eligible entity, including— (i) in addressing challenges with food insecurity; and (ii) with respect to the degree completion rates of students served by the eligible entity
information on the population of students served by the grant funds, disaggregated by— (i) part-time or full-time status; (ii) eligibility to receive the Federal Pell Grant under subpart 1 of part A of title IV of the Higher Education Act of 1965 (20 U.S.C. 1070a et seq.); (iii) estimates of eligibility to receive benefits under the supplemental nutrition assistance program established under the Food and Nutrition Act of 2008 (7 U.S.C. 2011 et seq.); and (iv) dependency status.
The Secretary would have to consult eligible entities and state social service agencies when carrying out the program.
In carrying out the program, the Secretary shall consult with eligible entities and State social service agencies.
Within 120 days after enactment, the Secretary, through the Food and Nutrition Service Administrator, and the Secretary of Education would have to enter an interagency agreement. It would authorize regular sharing of education data and resources to identify eligible colleges and low-income students, and include a plan to help state social services and higher education agencies improve SNAP outreach.
Not later than 120 days after the date of enactment of the Food for Thought Act of 2026, the Secretary, acting through the Administrator of the Food and Nutrition Service, and the Secretary of Education shall enter into a memorandum of understanding
(I) authorizes the regular sharing of Department of Education data and resources to assist with identifying eligible institutions of higher education and low-income students; (II) contains a plan to assist State social services agencies and State higher education agencies in improving outreach to students eligible to enroll in the supplemental nutrition assistance program
The interagency agreement would also require an annual plan for practical assistance to eligible entities, including developing prepared-meal infrastructure, carrying out program activities and training employees to do so, and reaching students likely to qualify for SNAP.
requires the development of an annual plan for the Administrator of the Food and Nutrition Service and the Secretary of Education to provide technical assistance, as applicable, to eligible entities— (aa) to develop prepared-meal infrastructure; (bb) to carry out the activities described in paragraph (5)(A), including training the employees of the eligible entity to carry out those activities; and (cc) to develop outreach to students who are likely to be eligible for benefits under the supplemental nutrition assistance program
Data sharing under the agreement would have to comply with applicable federal privacy protections, including the Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act. Shared data could be used only to help eligible colleges conduct outreach to low-income students.
Data sharing pursuant to the memorandum of understanding under clause (i) shall— (I) comply with all applicable Federal privacy protections, including section 444 of the General Education Provisions Act (20 U.S.C. 1232g) (commonly known as the Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act of 1974); and (II) be used only for the purpose of assisting eligible institutions of higher education in conducting outreach to low-income students.
The Secretary would have to report to Congress within two years after enactment on how the program addressed food insecurity and recommendations for expansion. A second report, due within four years, would address the program's effect on retention and completion rates for participating low-income students. These are evaluation requirements, not evidence of results.
The Secretary shall submit to Congress— (I) not later than 2 years after the date of enactment of the Food for Thought Act of 2026, a report evaluating the program, including— (aa) how the program addressed food insecurity; and (bb) recommendations with respect to expanding the program; and (II) not later than 4 years after the date of enactment of the Food for Thought Act of 2026, a report on the effect of the program on retention and completion rates for low-income students served by the program.
Where possible, congressional reports would separate information by college type and minority-serving status, enrollment intensity, Pell Grant and SNAP eligibility, reported prior receipt of SNAP or Temporary Assistance for Needy Families benefits by students or their family members, living and meal arrangements, first-generation college status, and whether colleges have open admissions policies.
Information contained in the reports submitted under clause (i) shall be disaggregated, where possible, by— (I) sectors and types of institutions of higher education, including whether an institution of higher education is a minority-serving institution
(II) the number of eligible students who— (aa) are part-time, half-time, or full-time; (bb) are eligible to receive the Federal Pell Grant under subpart 1 of part A of title IV of that Act (20 U.S.C. 1070a et seq.); (cc) are eligible to receive benefits under the supplemental nutrition assistance program established under the Food and Nutrition Act of 2008 (7 U.S.C. 2011 et seq.); (dd) have indicated that the student or a member of the family of the student previously received benefits under— (AA) the program described in item (cc); or (BB) the temporary assistance for needy families program established under part A of title IV of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 601 et seq.)
(ee) (AA) reside in an institution or boarding house; or (BB) live with other individuals and pay compensation to those individuals for meals; and (ff) are first-generation college students; and (III) whether an institution of higher education has an open admissions policy.
The bill would authorize appropriations of whatever sums are necessary for fiscal years 2027 through 2032. This is an authorization for future appropriations, not an actual appropriation or a specified funding amount.
(9) Authorization of appropriations There are authorized to be appropriated to carry out this subsection such sums as are necessary for each of fiscal years 2027 through 2032.
Section 3 would add a paragraph to section 480(i) of the Higher Education Act providing that meal-program benefits would not be treated as “other financial assistance” for purposes of section 471(3), notwithstanding paragraph (1). The supplied text does not reproduce those existing provisions, so the precise effect on student-aid calculations cannot be determined from this bundle alone.
Section 480(i) of the Higher Education Act of 1965 (20 U.S.C. 1087vv(i)) is amended by adding at the end the following: (6) Notwithstanding paragraph (1), benefits received under subsection (a) of section 18 of the Richard B. Russell National School Lunch Act (42 U.S.C. 1769) shall not be treated as other financial assistance for purposes of section 471(3).
The supplied official-actions snapshot, updated October 16, 2026, records introduction in the House and referral to the House Committee on Education and Workforce on September 16, 2026. It does not establish subsequent legislative action or enactment.
Source snapshot updated 2026-10-16T08:05:54Z. 2026-09-16: Referred to the House Committee on Education and Workforce. 2026-09-16: Introduced in House
A closer look
Reviewed version: Introduced in House · 2026-09-16. These findings describe provisions and who may benefit; they are not judgments of waste, corruption, or motive.
This review covers the supplied bill text. “None identified” does not rule out provisions in later versions or accompanying reports and disclosures.
Provisions outside the bill’s main subject, or policy changes attached to appropriations.
None identified in the reviewed text
No unrelated provision or policy rider attached to appropriations was identified in the complete supplied introduced text. This conclusion does not cover other versions or accompanying materials.
Spending directed to particular recipients or places outside ordinary competitive or formula-based allocation.
None identified in the reviewed text
No congressionally directed spending for a particular recipient or place was identified in the complete supplied introduced text. This conclusion is limited to that version; missing disclosures and accompanying materials prevent a broader determination of formal earmark status.
Narrow exceptions, exemptions, or preferential treatment that warrant a closer look.
Findings to examine
The findings identify discretionary preferences within the main meal-program policy. Classification does not establish improper treatment or motive.
Community colleges, historically Black colleges and universities, Tribal colleges and universities, Hispanic-serving institutions, and other minority-serving institutions or their consortia could receive priority in competitive grant awards. This is an express institutional preference beyond basic eligibility, not a guaranteed award.
In awarding grants under the program, the Secretary may give priority to eligible entities
(ii) that are community colleges, historically Black colleges and universities, Tribal colleges and universities, Hispanic-serving institutions (as defined in section 502(a) of the Higher Education Act of 1965 (20 U.S.C. 1101a(a))), or other minority-serving institutions or consortia of minority-serving institutions
Applicants near a school that elects the referenced special assistance payments could receive grant priority. This creates a location-based preference within the meal program, although the bill does not define proximity and the underlying school-payment rules are not supplied.
In awarding grants under the program, the Secretary may give priority to eligible entities
(iii) that are located within proximity of a school that elects to receive special assistance payments under section 11(a)(1)(F).
Full text preserved for this analysis. Legislative record snapshot: Oct 16, 2026. How PlainBill uses AI