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
snap
'Number of People Who Don't Have Enough to Eat' Surging Due to Trump-GOP Aid Cuts
"It cannot be said enough that people aren't being 'lifted' or 'moved off' SNAP—struggling families are losing the help they need to afford groceries because of HR 1's cuts," said one expert.
May 12, 2026
Food banks across the United States are experiencing increased demand not seen since the Covid-19 pandemic as higher consumer prices and food aid cuts enacted by congressional Republicans and President Donald Trump cause pain for millions of vulnerable families.
The so-called One Big Beautiful Bill (OBBBA, or HR 1) passed by the Republican-controlled Congress and signed into law by Trump last July 4 contains the biggest cuts to Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP), or food stamps, in the nation's history.
According to US Department of Agriculture data, participation in SNAP dropped by 8% nationwide in the six months following the law's signing. A recent analysis by the Center for Budget and Policy Priorities found that around 2.5 million people have lost food aid since the legislation took effect.
Laura Lester, CEO of Feeding Alabama, told Al.com that the state is "on track to lose up to 100,000 people off of SNAP benefits by the end of this year."
“We are already hearing from those impacted who no longer have access to food,” said Lester. “Homeless children and seniors are the ones who are suffering. We have absolutely seen an increase in the number of people who don’t have enough to eat coming to our pantries.”
The OBBBA contains new qualification requirements for people experiencing homelessness, veterans, former foster youth, and older adults. The Trump administration says the new rules are meant to ensure that only the truly needy receive benefits. However, the more stringent requirements are harming some of the most vulnerable people.
“To see seniors and young women with children lose their benefits, it’s heartbreaking,” Dan Saltzman, president of Dave’s Markets, a Cleveland-area grocery store chain, told Signal Cleveland. Saltzman said his business' revenue from SNAP has declined by about 10% over the past year.
Compliance procedures are proving an exclusionary barrier to qualified aid applicants.
“Tens of thousands of SNAP participants are facing new hurdles just to maintain assistance,” New Jersey Human Services Commissioner Stephen Cha said last week. “Many residents who remain eligible for assistance could still lose coverage or food support because complex paperwork or missed deadlines prevent them from completing required steps."
Kristin Warzocha, CEO of Greater Cleveland Food Bank—which served more than 400,000 people last year—said that she has "talked to quite a number of people lately who are seniors who are struggling to get by with rising prices."
“They’re worried about the cost of groceries. They’re worried because their rent has gone up. And they just can’t make ends meet anymore," she added. "They just can’t do it. So they’re coming here for food.”
Jennie Jean Davidson, executive director at Neighborhood House, a Louisville food bank, told Spectrum News 1 that "honestly, demand for what we do is up in every area."
"We have waiting lists in our child development center and in our youth programming," she explained. "Demand in our food pantry has been going up month-over-month for about three years now and it’s just continuing to climb. We’re seeing a lot of need in the community.”
Trump's tariffs, war of choice on Iran, and attacks on the social safety net are driving up inflation, and household debt, exacerbating the struggles of millions of Americans. While he campaigned on promises to lower prices on "day one," Trump admitted Tuesday that Americans' financial struggles aren't on his mind, "not even a little bit," as he tries to negotiate an end to the war he started with Israel against Iran.
"We're seeing a lot of uneasiness amongst people in general," Community Food Bank of Southern Arizona president and CEO Natalie Jayroe told KGUN on Tuesday. "So many things are changing. Nobody knows when this inflation is going to stop. They don't know when the price of gas is going to start to go down again. We've had cuts in some of the funding that families normally depend on."
“Right now, we're reaching about 6,200 children and we do that primarily through our summer feeding programs that take place in schools and other camps," she added. “So many of our children depend on school breakfast and lunch during the year. In our case here in Southern Arizona and the five counties that we serve, that's 88,000 children."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Better Uses for the Money Pete Hegseth Wants to Throw at Trump's Illegal Iran War
The $200 billion that Hegseth now wants for his and Trump’s Iran war could instead feed and care for everyone at risk of losing healthcare or food aid due to the One Big Beautiful Bill Act.
Mar 25, 2026
Secretary of War Pete Hegseth would rather use your tax dollars to bomb Iranian families than feed American families.
That’s the upshot of news that Hegseth is prepared to request $200 billion in funding for the Pentagon’s new war on Iran. That’s far higher than earlier reports that put the request at $50 billion or $100 billion. And all of these astounding sums would come on top of the $1 trillion already budgeted for the Pentagon, itself a record.
It should be clear: Funding this unjust, unpopular, and illegal war comes directly at the expense of ordinary Americans.
Less than a year after the passage of Trump’s signature “Big Beautiful Bill,” which made deep cuts to Medicaid and the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP)—and right in the middle of an affordability crisis—this is the last thing the country needs. That same bill added $150 billion for the Pentagon, pushing the Pentagon budget over $1 trillion for the first time since World War II—and directly enabling the war on Iran.
This is a war of choice that is only making the world more dangerous and more expensive for Americans.
Half of Americans are struggling to afford basic necessities like food, housing, transportation, and healthcare. Trump’s Big Bad Bill threatens to take health insurance from 17 million people and some or all food assistance from 4 million people.
The $200 billion that Hegseth now wants for his and Trump’s Iran war could instead feed and care for all of those people—plus medical care for the 1.8 million veterans of the last forever war who still live with disabilities, for an entire year. For good measure, we could also expand Head Start to serve six times as many kids next year—from just over 700,000 to 4.2 million kids—with what’s left over.
What’s more, it comes on the heels of more shocking news about waste at the Pentagon—a problem for generations, but especially under this administration.
News recently broke, for example, that Hegseth’s Pentagon blew nearly $100 billion last September alone. As they raced to use up funds in their budget, the Pentagon shelled out millions on luxuries like lobster, steak, and crab—all while working Americans were battling rising food prices and getting their SNAP benefits cut.
“In the last five days of September alone, the department blew through $50.1 billion on just grants and contracts,” The New Republic reported. “For context, only nine other countries spend that much on the entirety of their defense budget per year. It’s also more than the total military budgets of Canada and Mexico combined.”
Too many Americans are hungry, sick, and struggling to afford housing and other necessities. We should spend our tax dollars meeting those needs—not throwing more at our $1 trillion Pentagon for a pointless war most of us oppose. Secretary Hegseth can cut back on steak and lobster if he needs the extra cash.
This is a war of choice that is only making the world more dangerous and more expensive for Americans. We should remember the lies that led us into war in Iraq a generation ago. That war ultimately cost nearly $3 trillion, which cost a generation of investments that could have made life better for struggling Americans today.
We must not go down that path again. Our tax dollars should be helping our neighbors and our communities, not feeding new forever wars.
Keep ReadingShow Less
How to Defeat the Pro-Suffering, Pro-Hunger Policies of Trump's GOP
Food insecurity has long been a feature of Republican politics, not a bug.
Nov 16, 2025
Once upon a time, in what increasingly feels like the fairy tale world of the 1970s, Democrats and Republicans agreed that hunger was immoral. This consensus was embodied by the collaboration to champion the Food Stamp Program between Senate Agriculture Committee leaders and political icons, namely Republican Robert Dole and Democrat George McGovern. They had essentially revived a farm support program launched under FDR during the Great Depression, turning it into a cornerstone of the anti-hunger struggle and eventually an entitlement program, in which anyone who qualified for benefits could receive them regardless of Congressional appropriations.
While America never evolved into a welfare state like many of our European allies, through food stamps and other nutrition programs, we were able to hold the line on the lowest common political denominator: that in the midst of abundance no one should starve. As the poor balanced precariously on the knife edge of poverty, the food stamp program helped to prevent people from falling into the abyss of unfettered capitalism. And it did so not by giving the poor cash to spend as they chose but through vouchers redeemable for food at grocery stores. In the process, the food stamp program also created a powerful ally in the food industry, for which these benefits came to comprise a significant portion of their sales. This partnership became a double-edged sword, protecting the program during times of crisis, while strengthening an industry heavily reliant on worker and environmental exploitation.
By the 1980s, much of the progress made in previous decades was under challenge. Ronald Reagan threw one million people off the food stamp program rolls, reviving the Calvinist trope that the poor were lazy, scamming, and otherwise undeserving of public aid. Globalization led to stagnating wages, faltering labor unions, and disappearing manufacturing jobs. In response, the anti-hunger sector — comprising advocacy organizations, churches, food banks, and other community-based groups — responded predictably to meet the food need through expanding food charity exponentially. In subsequent decades, as the Clinton Administration’s welfare reform legislation arguably further drove the expansion of the charitable sector, the anti-hunger sector also sought to increase benefits and remove barriers to participation in the food stamp program.
However, what the anti-hunger community largely failed to do was to develop an analysis of the underlying causes of the crisis and the long-term alliances to build power. In other words, anti-hunger groups could have mobilized their community to increase wages, facilitate unionizing, or regulations that would limit businesses’ ability to offshore jobs. Instead, they focused on food provisioning and bolstering nutrition assistance programs. And they partnered with corporate America, which donated food and money, served on their boards of directors, and lobbied together. In essence, the anti-hunger community had triangulated, positioning itself as neither on the right nor the left but as a morally-centered and centrist sector.
As a result of their efforts — which were compounded by the desperation of the Great Recession and the Covid-19 crisis — the food stamp program (now known as SNAP or Supplemental Nutrition Assistance program) participation swelled to some 42 million persons. SNAP evolved into a work support program, subsidizing low-wage employment, with over three-quarters of SNAP households having at least one employed adult.
Fast forward to November 2025, when the administration had been fighting tooth and nail not to fund SNAP during the government shutdown. But the conventional wisdom among the media explaining this resistance has been incomplete.
First, the press highlighted the cruel and callous nature of the administration, given that the immorality of hunger amidst abundance no longer motivates policy. The media pointed out MAGA’s belief in a dog-eat-dog world, bifurcated into winners and losers. These beliefs are the “roid rage” version of the Reagan-era meme of the Cadillac-driving welfare queen.
Second, the media called out the administration for using the poor as pawns in the political battle over the government shutdown. They interpreted the administration’s actions to be of a more tactical nature — that is, as leverage to defeat the Democratic Party in the shutdown battle (which was arguably successful).
While both of these observations hold much water, they are missing additional context. Consider the following:
- Trump’s “One Big Beautiful Bill” threatens the integrity of the SNAP program, forcing states to shoulder more of the costs, reducing future potential benefit increases, and tightening exemptions for work restrictions. According to the Food Research and Action Center, these changes will “increase hunger, push more families into deep poverty, and shift costs onto already strained state budgets.”
- The Administration ended $1 billion of food donations to schools and food banks through the termination of the Local Food Purchasing Act.
- USDA cancelled the purchase of $500 million of surplus foods, known as bonus commodities, for food banks. For decades, these commodities had been purchased to stabilize farming sectors and distributed to charitable organizations.
- In the international realm, the elimination of USAID and $128 million of food aid annually will “threaten decades of progress in reversing malnutrition.”
- Last month, the USDA announced it would no longer issue its annual report on the state of food insecurity, despite having done so since 1995. This report has been widely touted by academics as the gold standard in measuring hunger, and has been deployed by numerous other countries.
When viewed together, these actions certainly highlight an administration and political movement devoid of a moral compass on the matter of food insecurity. Yet, if we consider these shifts in conjunction with their other policies — such as ending collective bargaining for federal employee unions, restricting minimum wage in federal contracts and for certain workers, and virtually dismantling the National Labor Relations Board — it becomes evident that Trump’s pro-hunger policies are part and parcel of a decades-long shift in the balance of power to from labor to capital, harking back to at least the 1980s. Profoundly, Trump’s policies reflect a desire to reverse the social gains of the progressive and civil rights movements of the 20th Century.
In economic terms, anti-hunger programs such as SNAP, school meals, or food banking (which only provides one-ninth of the food of the SNAP program) have a complex relationship to wages. When benefits are tied to work requirements, these programs, along with Medicaid, enable businesses to avoid paying fair wages and provide health insurance, bolstering corporate profits. On the other hand, robust social assistance can drive up pressure to increase the minimum wage, as stronger safety nets theoretically keep more people, such as single mothers, out of the labor force (hence the One Big Beautiful Bill’s tightening of work requirements).
So, what’s Trump’s endgame for nutrition programs? He appears to be at odds with much of the American public, which does not buy into the cruelty of driving more people to desperation. Certainly, hunger has become a political football, highlighting his transactional nature. He appears to hold the erroneous but commonly held belief that the recipients of nutrition assistance are people of color, and if they’re not going to vote for him, then why should he help them?
Yet, to understand the deeper threat to this country, we also need to see the patterns behind his polices for what they are: an assault on progressive policies that reduce inequality, all as a means of shifting the balance of power even further towards plutocracy. Trump’s policies are not new; they follow the same neoliberal logic of the past 45 years, which has led to the rise of food banks. What is new is the brazen disregard for the poor, the callousness, and the disregard for the immorality of hunger. The veneer of care has been stripped off, the soft power of food aid trashed in favor of naked political gain.
This pro-hunger, pro-suffering movement will only be defeated when we build a mass movement — one that empowers the anti-hunger community to mobilize its tens of millions of donors and recipients, not to retreat into Bush’s “kinder gentler nation,” but to demand a new America defined by an equitable distribution of wealth.
This story was reprinted with permission from The MIT Press Reader. It was written by Andrew Fisher, the author of “Big Hunger: The Unholy Alliance Between Corporate America and Anti-Hunger Groups.”
Keep ReadingShow Less
Most Popular