Trump signs a law returning whole milk to school lunches

Whole milk is heading back to school cafeterias across the country after President Donald Trump signed a bill Wednesday overturning Obama-era limits on higher-fat milk options.

Nondairy drinks such as fortified soy milk may also be on the menu in the coming months following adoption of the Whole Milk for Healthy Kids Act, which cleared Congress in the fall.

The action allows schools participating in the National School Lunch Program to serve whole and 2% fat milk along with the skim and low-fat products required since 2012.

“Whether you're a Democrat or a Republican, whole milk is a great thing,” Trump said at a White House signing ceremony that featured lawmakers, dairy farmers and their children.

The law also permits schools to serve nondairy milk that meets the nutritional standards of milk and requires schools to offer a nondairy milk alternative if kids provide a note from their parents, not just from doctors, saying they have a dietary restriction.

The signing comes days after the release of the 2025-2030 Dietary Guidelines for Americans, which emphasize consumption of full-fat dairy products as part of a healthy diet. Previous editions advised that consumers older than 2 should consume low-fat or fat-free dairy.

Earlier this week, the Agriculture Department sent a social media post showing Trump with a glass of milk and a “milk mustache” that declared: “Drink Whole Milk.”

The change could take effect as soon as this fall, though school nutrition and dairy industry officials said it may take longer for some schools to gauge demand for full-fat dairy and adjust supply chains.

Long sought by the dairy industry, the return of whole and 2% milk to school meals reverses provisions of the Healthy Hunger-Free Kids Act championed by former first lady Michelle Obama. Enacted more than a dozen years ago, the law aimed to slow obesity and boost health by cutting kids’ consumption of saturated fat and calories in higher-fat milk.

Nutrition experts, lawmakers and the dairy industry have argued that whole milk is a delicious, nutritious food that has been unfairly vilified, and that some studies suggest that kids who drink it are less likely to develop obesity than those who drink lower-fat options. Critics have also said that many children don’t like the taste of lower-fat milk and don’t drink it, leading to missed nutrition and food waste.

The new rules will change meals served to about 30 million students enrolled in the National School Lunch Program.

Health Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. described the new law as “a long-overdue correction to school nutrition policy.” Agriculture Secretary Brooke Rollins said it fixed Michelle Obama's “short-sighted campaign to ditch whole milk.”

Schools will be required to provide students with a range of fluid milk options, which can now include flavored and unflavored organic or conventional whole milk, 2%, 1% and lactose-free milk, as well as non-dairy options that meet nutrition standards.

The new dietary guidelines call for “full-fat dairy with no added sugars,” which would preclude chocolate- and strawberry-flavored milks allowed under a recent update of school meal standards. Agriculture officials will have to translate that recommendation into specific requirements for schools to eliminate flavored milks.

The new law exempts milk fat from being considered as part of federal requirements that average saturated fats make up less than 10% of calories in school meals.

One top nutrition expert, Dr. Dariush Mozaffarian of Tufts University, has said there is “no meaningful benefit” in choosing low-fat over high-fat dairy. Saturated fatty acids in dairy have a different composition than other fat, such as beef fat, plus different beneficial compounds that could offset theoretical harms, he added.

“Saturated fat in dairy has not been linked to any adverse health outcomes,” Mozaffarian said in an interview.

Research has shown that changes in the federal nutrition program after the Obama-era law was enacted slowed the rise in obesity among U.S. kids, including teenagers.

But some nutrition experts point to newer research that suggests that kids who drink whole milk could be less likely to be overweight or to develop obesity than children who drink lower-fat milk. One 2020 review of 28 studies suggests that the risk was 40% less for kids who drank whole milk, although the authors noted they couldn’t say whether milk consumption was the reason.

The Associated Press Health and Science Department receives support from the Howard Hughes Medical Institute’s Department of Science Education and the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation. The AP is solely responsible for all content.

President Donald Trump touches a container of milk as he speaks in the Oval Office of the White House, Wednesday, Jan. 14, 2026, in Washington. (AP Photo/Alex Brandon)

FILE - A student drinks milk in the cafeteria area of an elementary school in Los Angeles on Tuesday, Jan. 13, 2015. (AP Photo/Jae C. Hong, File)

President Donald Trump listens as Agriculture Secretary Brooke Rollins speaks in the Oval Office of the White House, Wednesday, Jan. 14, 2026, in Washington. (AP Photo/Alex Brandon)

WASHINGTON (AP) — Days before the U.S. military operation that removed Venezuela’s Nicolás Maduro from power, Trump administration lawyers blessed the action by saying it would “not rise to the level of war in the constitutional sense” and would serve “important national interests,” according to a legal opinion that articulates a muscular view of presidential power.

The heavily redacted version of the Justice Department's Office of Legal Counsel opinion, released this week, sheds new light on how the administration came to conclude that it was legally permitted to oust Maduro as Venezuela's president in a stunning middle-of-the-night military operation Jan. 3.

The opinion, dated Dec. 23, was prepared for the legal adviser for the White House National Security Council. The 22-page document was drafted by lawyers at the Office of Legal Counsel, which is historically called upon to resolve thorny questions of law for the executive branch.

In this instance, the opinion wrestles with the question of whether President Donald Trump could order the military to aid law enforcement in removing Maduro from power so he could face criminal prosecution in the United States.

The answer, the opinion said, was yes. It cited five separate reasons, including what it said were “severe” allegations against Maduro contained in a drug-trafficking conspiracy indictment; the “numerous other highly dangerous activities" that he and his associates were alleged to be involved in; the possible need of military force to protect civilians in Venezuela and abroad from Venezuela; and the potential that U.S. personnel would encounter an “armed resistance” protecting Maduro.

“Here, we were told to assume that there were as many as 200 armed guards in a literal fort who have been sent from and armed by another country purely to ensure Maduro’s safety,” the opinion said. “This level of expected armed resistance supports the need for military forces to provide security for law enforcement personnel carrying out the rendition.”

Though the opinion does identify what it said were significant risks in the military operation, depending in part on Maduro's precise location at the time of the action, administration lawyers judged a low likelihood that it would lead to an all-out war that would require congressional approval.

Republican leaders have said they had no advance notification of the raid to seize Maduro and his wife, Cilia Flores. Facing pressure from Trump, Senate Republicans voted to dismiss a resolution Wednesday that would have limited his ability to conduct further attacks against Venezuela.

“While we cannot speculate as to any presidential decision in response to the significant loss of U.S. servicemembers, we were assured that there is no contingency plan to engage in any substantial and sustained operation that would amount to a constitutional war,” the opinion said.

“We were further assured that there is no contingency plan that would involve using U.S. forces occupying Venezuela should the removal of Maduro result in civil unrest in that country. Based on that assessment of U.S. intentions, we do not currently plan any action that would amount to a constitutional war,” it added.

The legal opinion also says the fact that a president “can lawfully authorize the operation does not by itself render any and all use of force in its completion lawful.” The personnel involved, the opinion said, “must implement his lawful order in a reasonable way.”

President Donald Trump, Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth and Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Gen. Dan Caine listen as Secretary of State Marco Rubio speaks during a news conference at Mar-a-Lago, Saturday, Jan. 3, 2026, in Palm Beach, Fla. (AP Photo/Alex Brandon)