The push to transfer oversight of the Food for Peace program from the State Department to the U.S. Department of Agriculture is entering a critical phase, with leading commodity organizations lobbying lawmakers for bipartisan support.

Representatives from the North American Millers Association, American Soybean Association, National Corn Growers Association, National Sorghum Producers, National Association of Wheat Growers, and the USA Rice Federation spent this week in Washington, meeting with legislators and staff to emphasize the need for USDA management. Their central message: the State Department has failed to adequately run a program originally designed to move surplus U.S. commodities into food-insecure regions around the globe.

"Nothing's moving," said Kim Cooper, NAMA's vice president of government affairs. "The longer that Food for Peace languishes at State, the clearer it becomes that action is needed to save the program."

After the dismantling of USAID, the State Department inherited the program, but according to USDA data, procurement has stalled. Purchases of cornmeal under Food for Peace are just 8% of the 2020-2024 average, and corn soy blend plus sits at only 1%.

"State continues to show us that they are not capable of running this program," Cooper said, echoing the frustrations shared across ag stakeholder groups.

Advocates argue that USDA has a proven track record with similar initiatives, such as the McGovern-Dole Food for Education Program and Food for Progress, and would be far better positioned to restore Food for Peace to full functionality.

The campaign initially sought to solidify Republican backing, and it has seen success. The House bill proposing the transfer has 39 GOP cosponsors, while the Senate version, led by Sen. Roger Marshall (R-Kan.), has eight Republican supporters.

Now, the coalition is moving to expand Democratic support, targeting members on the Agriculture and Appropriations Committees, especially those with strong ties to ag or maritime interests.

"We're pretty close to introducing a Democratic co-lead in the Senate," said Cooper, noting that conversations with several Democratic offices are ongoing. Rep. Tom Suozzi (D-N.Y.) has already signed on to the House version, signaling potential momentum.

Language shifting the program to USDA appeared in an early draft of the FY26 agriculture appropriations bill, but was later cut during markup in June. The Senate version instead calls for a feasibility study on the transition, as its rules impose tighter restrictions on legislative changes through appropriations.

Still, some lawmakers believe the matter could ultimately rest with Secretary of State Marco Rubio, who wants to ensure Food for Peace retains value as a diplomatic tool.

"USDA should deliver the food - make sure it's food aid, not financial aid," said Sen. John Hoeven (R-N.D.), a cosponsor of the Senate bill. "But we understand State's interest in maintaining diplomatic leverage."

Agriculture Secretary Brooke Rollins has indicated initial openness to the idea. "If this is the will of Congress, I think we would be very willing to take that on," she told senators in May.

While the next farm bill remains a likely legislative vehicle, industry groups are hopeful the shift could happen sooner, possibly through a minibus appropriations package later this year.

With commodity prices suppressed and uncertainty looming over global trade, Food for Peace could offer meaningful, if limited, relief to farmers.

"It wouldn't be a silver bullet," said Jake Westlin, VP of government affairs at USA Rice Federation. "But any movement helps in a tight market, and this creates another avenue to get commodities moving abroad."