Schools brace for MAHA changes to lunches

(The Hill) — The “Make America Healthy Again” movement is taking aim at school lunches in a move advocates say is unrealistic without devoting more federal resources to K-12 students.

While some schools can only afford to buy frozen meals that are heated up and served, the Trump administration is looking for freshly cooked meals that will take more employees and ingredients to put together.  

The MAHA Commission was required to send over recommendations to the White House by Tuesday to combat childhood chronic diseases, a document experts and advocates are eagerly awaiting. But three people familiar with the matter told CNN the report will not be released immediately to the public, keeping schools on their toes as it is expected to impact their food.   

“We’re guessing at this point what we think that the report is going to say around school nutrition, but we have a few hints. RFK Jr. has said that school lunch programs have deteriorated. He’s mentioned how many ultraprocessed foods are in school meals. He’s suggested that school meals are poisoning children. … I think we’re all pretty much anticipating something around that,” said Meghan Maroney, campaign manager for federal child nutrition programs at the Center for Science in the Public Interest.  

Health Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. has railed against school lunches before, saying the ultraprocessed food and food dyes are hurting student health. He has moved to ban artificial food dyes from the nation’s supply chain and has pushed fast food chains to cook their food in beef tallow over seed oils.   

“We need to stop poisoning our kids and make sure that Americans are once again the healthiest kids on the planet,” Kennedy said in April.   

He has celebrated states such as Utah, West Virginia and Arizona, where certain dyes and processed food were banned from school lunches.   

But other moves by the Trump administration, advocates argue, have been counterintuitive to helping schools produce fresh meals.   

The U.S. Agriculture Department in the spring ended two programs, totaling $1 billion, that helped schools buy food from local farmers and producers. USDA is in charge of the nutrition standards for the National School Lunch Program. 

“They are being asked to create healthy and appealing meals on very slim budgets, and there have been things that have been happening recently that have taken away even more of their resources,” said Alexis Bylander, director of child nutrition programs and policy at the Food Research & Action Center.   

“I think what this really comes down to is, are the recommendations going to provide enough resources so that schools really can enhance the quality and appeal of the meals that they are serving?” she added.  

In Oklahoma, Ryan Walters, the state superintendent of public instruction, has already been working on implementing the MAHA agenda in school food, saying schools can no longer serve food that is ultraprocessed or grown with pesticides and processed snacks in vending machines.

The districts are expected to overhaul the foods without additional room in the budget.   

“What we’re seeing with the MAHA movement as it’s applied in our state is lots of talk about restriction and what people can have and what choices they can make, but not a lot of talk about making sure people have access to the healthy things they need or the resources they need to not be food insecure … because, ultimately, if you don’t have access to enough food, nutritious or not, your health outcomes are worse than if you do,” said Chris Bernard, CEO and president of Hunger Free Oklahoma.   

Along with changes to food costs, schools would have to pay for more employees to make the food and, in some cases, would need to acquire equipment to be able to handle making fresh food for hundreds of students every day.   

NewsNation partner The Hill has reached out to HHS for comment.

Some are hoping for a definitive set of markers to build upon for what types of food should be served and what the cost will be.  

“When we establish that baseline, then we can move from it, then we actually have something that we can achieve goals and we can achieve targets with,” said Gregory Bundschoks, founder of the Foundation of Healthy Schools. He added that there needs to be “consistency” for businesses trying to make a profit while also remaining within the new mandates.   

Advocates note school food is the healthiest many students eat and, for some, it might be the only full meal they get in a day.   

While schools have partnered with some nonprofits to help bring fresher meals to their students, not every district is able to afford it.   

According to the USDA, in 2023, 1 in 5 children were unsure where their next meal would come from. Black, Latino and single-family households were more likely to be food insecure.   

“I do think school meals are one of the last remaining universal public school services that are reaching every child, nearly in America … so making school the ideal environment to shape their wellness behavior, and a lot of that starts with food,” said Alexina Cather, director of policy and special projects for Wellness in the Schools. 

“As we see increasing rates of food insecurity, food again at school becomes one of the places that kids can be guaranteed a nutritious meal if we put that energy and effort into making sure that’s a nutritious meal,” she added.

Related articles

‘The bell of stupidity’: Conservative’s Christmas video lampoons Trump’s latest speech



President Donald Trump was supposed to prioritize the economy at a MAGA rally last week — but instead rambled about former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, Rep. Ilhan Omar (D-MN) and other familiar foes.

In a Christmas-themed video, The Lincoln Project's Rick Wilson (a Never Trump conservative former GOP strategist) and journalist Molly Jong-Fast brutally mocked the speech for failing to get the desired economic message across.

Jong-Fast told Wilson, "Let's talk about how positively b----- the whole thing is. It was meant to be a rally on affordability. Here's what was not discussed: affordability. Here's what was discussed: Marjorie Taylor Greene. He calls her Marjorie Traitor Brown."

Wilson, sounding amused, interjected, "And I'm also intrigued by how she's somehow a leftist."

Jong-Fast told the Never Trumper, "It has really been a week for Trump."

Wilson laid out a variety of ways in which Trump and the MAGA movement are having a bad Christmas, from the Epstein files to the economy.

"There is no unringing this bell of stupidity," Wilson told Jong-Fast. "They have f----- it up. They have made a giant mistake."

- YouTube www.youtube.com

Trump Supreme Court battle could be dismantled by Congress members’ own history



New evidence is emerging that could deal a major blow to President Donald Trump's case for stripping birthright citizenship to the children of immigrants.

The president has asked the U.S. Supreme Court to restore “the original meaning” of the 14th Amendment, which his lawyers argued in a brief meant that “children of temporary visitors and illegal aliens are not U.S. citizens by birth," but new research raises questions about what lawmakers intended the amendment to do, reported the New York Times.

"One important tool has been overlooked in determining the meaning of this amendment: the actions that were taken — and not taken — to challenge the qualifications of members of Congress, who must be citizens, around the time the amendment was ratified," wrote Times correspondent Adam Liptak.

A new study will be published next month in The Georgetown Law Journal Online examining the backgrounds of the 584 members who served in Congress from 1865 to 1871. That research found more than a dozen of them might not have been citizens under Trump’s interpretation of the 14th Amendment, but no one challenged their qualifications.

"That is, said Amanda Frost, a law professor at the University of Virginia and an author of the study, the constitutional equivalent of the dog that did not bark, which provided a crucial clue in a Sherlock Holmes story," Liptak wrote.

The 14th Amendment states that "all persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside," while the Constitution requires members of the House of Representatives to have been citizens for at least seven years, and senators for at least nine.

“If there had been an original understanding that tracked the Trump administration’s executive order,” Frost told Liptak, “at least some of these people would have been challenged.”

Only one of the nine challenges filed against a senator's qualifications in the period around the 14th Amendment's ratification involved the citizenship issue related to Trump's interpretation of birthright citizenship, and that case doesn't support his position.

"Several Democratic senators claimed in 1870 that their new colleague from Mississippi, Hiram Rhodes Revels, the first Black man to serve in Congress, had not been a citizen for the required nine years," Liptak wrote. "They reasoned that the 14th Amendment had overturned Dred Scott, the 1857 Supreme Court decision that denied citizenship to the descendants of enslaved African Americans, just two years earlier and that therefore he would not be eligible for another seven."

"That argument failed," the correspondent added. "No one thought to challenge any other members on the ground that they were born to parents who were not citizens and who had not, under the law in place at the time, filed a declaration of intent to be naturalized."

"The consensus on the 14th Amendment’s citizenship clause has long been that everyone born in the United States automatically becomes a citizen with exceptions for those not subject to its jurisdiction, like diplomats and enemy troops," Liptak added.

Frost's research found there were many members of Congress around the time of the ratification of the 14th Amendment who wouldn't have met Trump's definition of a citizen, and she said that fact undercuts the president's arguments.

“If the executive order reflected the original public meaning, which is what the originalists say is relevant,” Frost said, “then somebody — a member of Congress, the opposing party, the losing candidate, a member of the public who had just listened to the ratification debates on the 14th Amendment, somebody — would have raised this.”