U.S. International Food Assistance:An Overview

The United States is one of the foremost donors of food, or the means to purchase food, to people around the world at risk of hunger. The goal of U.S. international food assistance programs is to provide emergency relief to populations impacted by crises, such as conflicts or natural disasters, and nonemergency assistance to address chronic food insecurity and help populations build resilience to potential threats to food supplies. The current suite of international food assistance programs began with the Food for Peace Act (P.L. 83-480), commonly referred to as “P.L. 480,” which established the Food for Peace programs. Congress has since authorized additional programs through agriculture legislation and reauthorized these programs through periodic farm bills. Congress also has established international food assistance programs in foreign affairs legislation and subsequent reauthorizations, such as the Global Food Security Act of 2016 (P.L. 114-195) and its 2018 reauthorization (P.L. 115-266). Jurisdiction for international food assistance programs is split across the House and Senate Agriculture Committees and the House Foreign Affairs and Senate Foreign Relations Committees. The U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID) and the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) administer U.S. international food assistance programs. Congress funds international food assistance programs through annual Agriculture appropriations and State, Foreign Operations, and Related Programs (SFOPS) appropriations acts. Annual outlays for U.S. international food assistance averaged $3.3 billion between FY2010 and FY2020. Outlays during this period varied, declining to a low of $2.29 billion in FY2013 and increasing to a high of $5.06 billion in FY2020. U.S. international food assistance programs provide support through two distinct methods: (1) in-kind aid, which ships U.S. commodities to regions in need, and (2) market-based assistance, which provides recipients with vouchers, direct cash transfers, or locally and regionally procured food. Historically, the United States provided international food assistance exclusively through in-kind aid. In 2010, the Obama Administration established, and Congress later codified through legislation, the Emergency Food Security Program (EFSP), which provides largely market-based assistance. Since the establishment of EFSP, U.S. provision of market-based food assistance has increased. Market-based assistance now accounts for approximately 59% of total international food assistance, while in-kind aid comprises roughly 41%. Despite the growth in market-based assistance, U.S. international food assistance still relies on in-kind aid. Many other countries with international food assistance programs have converted to primarily market-based assistance. U.S. reliance on in-kind aid is controversial due to its potential to disrupt international and local markets and because it typically costs more than market-based assistance. At the same time, lack of reliable suppliers and poor infrastructure in recipient countries may limit the efficacy of market-based assistance. Cargo preference—the requirement that 50% of all in-kind aid be shipped on U.S.-flag ships—also is controversial due to findings that it can lead to higher transportation costs and longer delivery times. Higher costs may be partially due to higher wages and better working conditions on U.S.-flag vessels compared to foreign-flag vessels. Cargo preference also may contribute to military readiness, though some studies suggest there is little evidence to support this assertion. Prior Administrations and certain Members of Congress have proposed changes to the structure and intent of international food assistance programs. The 2018 farm bill (P.L. 115-334) and the Global Food Security Reauthorization Act of 2017 (P.L. 115-266) both will expire at the end of FY2023. Congress may consider changes to international food assistance programs in the next farm bill or Global Food Security Act reauthorization, or in stand-alone legislation.