SUBSCRIBE TO OUR FREE NEWSLETTER
Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
poverty
Trump-GOP Law Spurs Largest Loss of Food Aid in Decades
One food assistance policy expert said that “the harm will only grow as the full brunt of HR 1’s SNAP cuts takes effect.”
Apr 29, 2026
Within just six months of President Donald Trump signing last year's Republican mega budget bill and enacting an unprecedented cut to federal food assistance, more than 3 million low-income Americans lost benefits.
According to data from the US Department of Agriculture, cataloged by the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities (CBPP), participation in the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) dropped by 8% nationwide in the six months following the bill's passage in July 2025.
It is the steepest drop recorded in more than three decades, even greater than that experienced amid the recovery from the Great Recession, when millions of Americans left the program as their economic conditions rebounded after a period of widespread unemployment and economic precarity.
Enrollment levels have fallen in every single state over the past year, with some drops particularly startling. In Arizona, where nearly 900,000 people received benefits in January 2025, just over 500,000 were on SNAP a year later—a 43% drop.
Levels of enrollment in SNAP, which provides monthly funds to Americans with incomes at or below 130% of the federal poverty line to pay for food, have often been a reliable indicator of poverty in America, with more people enrolling during hard times.
But unlike during that period of mass disenrollment from 2012-16, Joseph Llobrera, CBPP's senior director of research, said in a report on Wednesday that the dramatic fall in SNAP participation "cannot be explained by a rapid improvement in people’s economic well-being or reduced need for help affording food."
"Labor force data show that the unemployment rate was flat between July 2025 and March 2026, the most recent data available," Llobrera said. In Arizona, where nearly half of SNAP recipients lost their benefits, unemployment actually increased during the same period.
"A more likely explanation for why people are losing access to food assistance," he said, "is that states are now facing new challenges as they respond to the cuts in HR 1—the largest in the program’s history."
While funding more than $1 trillion worth of tax breaks for the wealthiest 1% of Americans, HR 1—known as the One Big Beautiful Bill Act—mandated around $186 billion worth of cuts to SNAP over a decade, including through harsher work requirements for older adults, parents, veterans, and homeless people.
Katie Bergh, a senior food assistance policy analyst at CBPP, noted that "the harm will only grow as the full brunt of HR 1's SNAP cuts takes effect."
Beginning in 2027, the law will require states to cover 75% of SNAP administrative costs, up from the previous 50%. They will also have to cover a larger share of the benefit costs if they provide benefits to large numbers of ineligible people.
"States will soon be required to pay for part of SNAP benefits costs—totaling billions of dollars across all states—creating enormous fiscal challenges," explained Llobrera. "Many steps states are taking to lower error rates in response to this cost shift could make it harder for eligible people to access SNAP, driving down caseloads."
He noted that some states like Illinois and Georgia are now expending more resources on means testing, requiring households to recertify their eligibility for SNAP twice as often and "putting families at risk of losing SNAP if they can’t navigate the additional red tape."
Other states have made cuts preemptively. In the year leading up to the GOP bill's passage, Arizona cut staffing at its SNAP agency by more than a third, creating a major backlog of cases. While the state remains an outlier, Llobrera and research analyst Catlin Nchako said that "other states may not be far behind."
"In the face of massive new costs," Llobrera warned, "states may even withdraw from the program altogether, terminating food assistance for all low-income people, including children, seniors, people with disabilities, and veterans."
He said, "Congress must delay the cost shift before even more people lose the food assistance they need."
Keep ReadingShow Less
The US G20 Presidency Could Take Trump's Pro-Billionaire Agenda Global
There’s a real risk that the US presidency could advance an economic agenda that prioritizes the interests of the wealthy while sidelining efforts to tackle inequality, strengthen fair taxation, and resolve deepening debt crises worldwide.
Apr 12, 2026
In just a year, the wealth of the 10 richest US billionaires increased by $698 billion dollars, while low-wage workers struggled as the Trump administration pushed an inequality-fueling agenda. Now, concerns are growing that the same policy choices—those driving a massive transfer of wealth to the richest—could be projected onto the global stage.
The United States recently assumed the presidency of the G20—a major platform for heads of state and governments to address global economic issues. The presidency is a role that carries significant influence over global economic priorities. There’s a real risk that the US presidency could advance an economic agenda that prioritizes the interests of the wealthy while sidelining efforts to tackle inequality, strengthen fair taxation, and resolve deepening debt crises worldwide.
Instead of focusing the G20 on poverty alleviation, reducing inequality, or dealing with a pending global economic crisis, the US government focus will center on removing regulatory burdens, unlocking energy supply chains, and pioneering new technologies and innovation. This marks a sharp departure from the 2025 theme of “Solidarity, Equality, and Sustainability” and signals a shift toward exporting the Trump administration’s domestic agenda to the global stage.
This all comes at a time when inequality is rising across most countries, and many low- and middle-income nations face mounting debt and stagnant growth.
As the US government so blatantly prioritizes wealthy interests, it is a critical moment for civil society to step forward—organizing and advancing an agenda that breaks decisively from the G20’s all-too-often emphasis on preserving the status quo.
US officials are pitching a “back to the basics” approach—which in reality is a sidelining of issues such as inequality, poverty, labor, climate, and gender. It is also widely anticipated that the Trump administration will restrict avenues for civil society participation.
Current plans suggest a focus on the leaders’ summit and financial track; a reduction in working groups; and formal engagement limited to business stakeholders, excluding civil society organizations, women’s groups, labor unions, and youth representatives. Even acknowledging that past G20 efforts on sustainable development have been uneven, this “back to the basics” approach risks abandoning critical priorities altogether.
Recent G20 presidencies led by Brazil and South Africa demonstrated a different trajectory, placing inequality and debt at the center of global discussions. South Africa’s 2025 presidency elevated the urgency of inequality by commissioning the first-ever G20 report on the issue. Led by professor Joseph Stiglitz, the report described a global “inequality emergency” and proposed the creation of an International Panel on Inequality to guide coordinated action.
Against this backdrop, the Trump administration’s domestic policies, including the 2025 One Big Beautiful Bill Act (OBBBA), represent one of the largest upward transfers of wealth in decades, making it unlikely that current US leadership will champion similar efforts internationally.
Progress on global tax cooperation is also under threat. Brazil’s 2024 presidency achieved a breakthrough agreement to cooperate on taxing high-net-worth individuals. While extreme wealth concentration has increased in recent years, research shows billionaires pay effective tax rates close to 0.3% of their wealth—well below what average workers contribute.
Yet in 2025, the Trump administration has already taken actions that undermine these efforts, including withdrawing from United Nations tax negotiations, pressuring other advanced economies to shield US corporations from global tax agreements, and opposing measures such as digital services and carbon taxes.
Climate action presents another area of concern. G20 countries are responsible for approximately 80% of global greenhouse gas emissions, yet many continue to fall short of their commitments. The US administration’s withdrawal from the Paris Agreement and rollback of domestic climate policies reflect a broader retreat from climate leadership.
The Trump administration’s emphasis on expanding energy supply chains raises the possibility that fossil fuel development could be prioritized over clean energy transitions, particularly if multilateral development banks are encouraged to increase investments in oil and gas projects.
Taken together, these signals suggest that the 2026 US G20 presidency could mark a significant retreat. Rather than building on recent efforts to address inequality, debt, and climate change, it may instead shift the forum toward a narrower agenda that prioritizes elite and corporate interests.
The direction ultimately taken will have far-reaching consequences, not only for the credibility of the G20 but for the future of global economic cooperation. As the US government so blatantly prioritizes wealthy interests, it is a critical moment for civil society to step forward—organizing and advancing an agenda that breaks decisively from the G20’s all-too-often emphasis on preserving the status quo.
Now is the time for people, institutions, and movements to unite and champion bold new forms of multilateral cooperation that serve billions, not billionaires.
Keep ReadingShow Less
US-Israeli War on Iran Fuels Higher Global Food Prices, Mideast Poverty: UN Agencies
Soaring energy costs caused by the illegal war of choice are driving up food costs and taking a toll on regional GDP, while soaring prices for US consumers could affect upcoming midterm elections.
Apr 03, 2026
Soaring energy prices caused by the US-Israeli war of choice on Iran is driving up global food prices while shrinking the economies of Gulf Arab states targeted in Iranian counterstrikes, according to a pair of reports published this week by United Nations agencies.
On Friday, the UN Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) published its latest Food Price Index (FFPI), which measures the monthly change in international costs of a basket of basic grocery items. The FFPI rose 2.4% over February levels.
"Price indices across all commodity groups—cereals, meat, dairy, vegetable oils, and sugar—rose to varying degrees, reflecting not only underlying market fundamentals but also responses to higher energy prices linked to the conflict escalation in the Near East," FAO said in a statement.
"If the conflict stretches beyond 40 days with high input costs with current low margins, farmers will have to choose: Farm the same with fewer inputs, plant less, or switch to less intensive fertilizer crops," said FAO Chief Economist Máximo Torero.
"Those choices will hit future yields and shape our food supply and commodity prices for the rest of this year and all of the next," Torero added.
As CNBC's Garrett Downs reported Thursday:
Food faces a number of new inflationary pressures due to the Iran war and the closure of the Strait of Hormuz. The increase in oil costs is raising the price of diesel, necessary for farmers and the trucks and railroads that carry food across the country. Fertilizer is also being choked by the closure of the strait. And even plastic, a petrochemical product that’s commonly used in food packaging, could also contribute to higher checkout costs.
“The price of food is going to move quite a lot,” Kjetil Storesletten, an economist and professor at the University of Minnesota, told Downs. “If you put those things together, that it’s a big chunk of the price of producing food and that the price increased a lot, it suggests that all of the increased price in fertilizer is going to be passed through to food.”
@fao.org Food Price Index rose in March for 2nd month in a row largely due to conflict in the Near East.Pressure on fertilizer supplies & elevated energy prices add uncertainty to markets despite a comfortable global food supply situation.FAO Chief Economist @maximotorero.bsky.social explains.
[image or embed]
— Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (@fao.org) April 3, 2026 at 9:39 AM
Meanwhile, the UN Development Program (UNDP) earlier this week unveiled an assessment suggesting that the war may cost affected Mideast economies between 3.7% and 6% of their collective gross domestic product (GDP) and push as many as 4 million people into poverty.
"The escalation has exposed structural vulnerabilities of the Arab states region and underscored a stark reality that even a short-lived shock can generate profound, widespread, and persistent socioeconomic impacts across the Arab states region," UNDP said.
"While the current military escalation remains geographically concentrated, its impacts are propagating through interconnected systems—trade corridors, energy markets, financial flows, and logistics networks—transforming a localized escalation into a systemic regional shock," the agency added.
Last month, the UN World Food Program warned that the US-Israeli war on Iran and its associated impacts on the global economy could push 45 million more people around the world into acute hunger this year.
In the United States, experts warn that as the war drags on, grocery prices will continue to rise, posing a political risk to Republicans who, along with President Donald Trump, campaigned on promises to immediately lower the cost of key consumer items including food and gasoline—which now averages over $4 per gallon, up from $3.10 on the day the president returned to the White House.
Democratic members of the Joint Economic Committee released a report Thursday showing that higher pump prices have cost Americans $8.4 billion over the first month of the Iran War.
Democrats are looking to capitalize on consumer angst and Republicans' broken promises—not only on prices but also on "no new wars"—in the upcoming midterm elections.
“Our messaging is affordability and accountability,” Rep. Jared Huffman (D-Calif.) told CNBC on Thursday. “It’s a pretty tailored message, pretty narrowly focused, and on both of those pillars, Trump is making our arguments even more compelling.”
As Trump seeks an unprecedented $1.5 trillion in military spending for the next fiscal year, Rep. Vicente Gonzalez (D-Texas) argued that voters have had enough.
“It just pisses them off more,” he said of Trump's broken promises. "When people hear that, they’re like, ‘Hey, I can’t pay for groceries and you want to go pay for a war in the Middle East?’ I think that’s going to be a tough sell.”
Keep ReadingShow Less
Most Popular