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
supplemental nutrition assistance program
The Farm Bill Is a Health Bill
It cannot be cut into pieces without harming land and people.
Aug 09, 2026
Wanìshi means thank you in the Lenape language. This is the lyrical word we recently had the privilege of learning from a principal emissary from the Piscataway Indian Nation, and experiencing together. Wanìshi for the quiet moments between hard conversations and watching sunsets, where we shared in the spirit of collaboration, together with 18 other thinkers and doers who are deeply troubled by the trajectory of public agriculture policy, and its historically principal vehicle, the Farm Bill.
We embraced and shared in this collaborative mindset over the three days we spent with the America the Beautiful for All Coalition’s Legacy Lands workgroup in Maryland. The Farm Bill was one of the issues we discussed. A bill currently being treated by politicians as technical, as boring, as someone else's problem. When in our realities, it is none of those things. The Farm Bill decides who eats and who doesn't. It decides who is healthy and whose health is negotiable.
Between us, we have spent a combined five decades serving the communities this bill affects: rural families losing food, farmworkers losing protections, Black farmers losing land, tribal nations losing voice. So at that convening, and with this piece, we are expressing plainly a reality every farmer, rancher, and all of us who steward land intimately know. That land is a body and must be nourished. That we cannot cut it into fundable pieces and expect the pieces to bleed separately. The Farm Bill is a health bill. It cannot be cut into pieces without harming land and people. We do not view the content of the draft as a public health crisis because we have been trained to view it as agricultural policy. But it is, in fact, a public health crisis, and that crisis has a physical address: every community where conservation funding has been cut and every family living downstream of the farms and lands that lost it.
The One Big Beautiful Bill Act, signed on the Fourth of July last year, cut $187 billion from the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP). More than 4.5 million people have lost their food assistance since then. In rural counties where the nearest grocery store is a 40-minute drive and the nearest doctor is farther, losing SNAP is not a policy change. It is a sentence. It means a child eating less, and then eating worse, and then showing up in an emergency room that is itself understaffed and underfunded. The Senate Farm Bill draft does not restore a single dollar.
That land is a body and must be nourished. That we cannot cut it into fundable pieces and expect the pieces to bleed separately. The Farm Bill is a health bill. It cannot be cut into pieces without harming land and people.
Both versions of the new bill cut funding for the conservation programs that keep farmland productive and water clean. The Senate draft alone slashes nearly $2 billion from EQIP, the program that helps small farmers put cover crops in, manage nutrients, and protect water. When those programs shrink, the runoff increases. Babies, adults, pets, and wildlife in the communities downstream all drink that water.
The agency responsible for delivering conservation to farmers is disappearing. The Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) lost nearly a quarter of its staff in one year. One hundred and forty-one counties went from having NRCS employees to having none. These were the people who helped farmers manage nutrients, reduce fertilizer runoff, and protect water. In their absence, nitrate from agricultural runoff enters rural drinking water unchecked. Research links nitrate contamination to colorectal cancer, thyroid disease, and birth defects in newborns, at levels below what the Environmental Protection Agency considers safe. The communities drinking that water are the same small rural towns that just lost their NRCS offices. A beginning farmer in southern Georgia or a small rancher in northern New Mexico picks up the phone and no one answers. Their neighbors downstream drink what runs off the fields no one is helping them manage.
For Latino communities across the rural West, acequias, the community irrigation systems that have sustained families for centuries, depend on the conservation programs this bill is cutting. A farmer in the San Luis Valley who has irrigated land the way her family has for six generations does not experience a conservation cut as a line item. She experiences it as a ditch that doesn't flow, a garden that doesn't grow, a family that buys what it used to harvest.
Black families once farmed 16 million acres in this country. Today they hold barely over 1%. Heirs' property, land passed down without clear title, is one of the mechanisms through which that loss continues: A single partition sale can erase a century of family ownership in an afternoon. The families who lose their land don't just lose wealth. They lose the foundation for food sovereignty, the one asset that could have fed a family, a neighborhood, a generation. A deed problem becomes a health problem, passed down the same way the land was supposed to be.
As we watch this Farm Bill, we carry with us the word our Piscataway colleague shared. Wanìshi. Thank you. We offer it now in the spirit of collaboration.
We will offer it again, in the spirit of gratitude, when Congress writes this bill for all of us.
We are waiting.
Keep ReadingShow Less
Trump USDA Chief Calls Kicking 5 Million People Off Food Aid 'A Pretty Big Win'
"The immense hardship these families are now facing is not, in fact, 'a pretty big win,'" said one policy expert.
Aug 05, 2026
US Agriculture Secretary Brooke Rollins bragged on Tuesday that the Trump administration has now "moved 5 million people off food stamps," an outcome that she hailed as a significant victory even amid mounting reports of families with children struggling to afford groceries after losing federal assistance.
"For those of us that love work and celebrate work and want people to work and not be on food stamps, it’s a pretty big win," Rollins said during an event in Minnesota, referring to the massive reduction in Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) enrollment since passage of the 2025 Republican budget law, which enacted the largest food aid cuts in US history and expanded SNAP work requirements.
The Center on Budget and Policy Priorities (CBPP), a liberal think tank, has estimated that more than 4.5 million people have lost SNAP benefits since President Donald Trump signed the GOP budget package into law last summer. That total includes at least 1.5 million children.
Rollins: "For those who love work and celebrate work and want people to work and not be on food stamps, it's a pretty big win when we've moved 5 million people off food stamps, y'all." pic.twitter.com/kUrqVrvahI
— Aaron Rupar (@atrupar) August 4, 2026
Contrary to Rollins' claim that people are moving off SNAP because they found strong employment, CBPP noted in a recent analysis that "unemployment nationwide has been flat at about 4 percent since July 2025."
"At best, it’s down in 13 states and the District of Columbia by less than 1 percentage point," the think tank observed. "It’s very unlikely that reduced need is driving the decline in SNAP participation."
Katie Bergh, a senior policy analyst at CBPP, responded to Rollins' latest boast about large-scale loss of SNAP benefits by pointing to a July New York Times story featuring Dee McDonald, a cancer survivor and caregiver of three kids who recently lost federal assistance.
"The immense hardship these families are now facing is not, in fact, 'a pretty big win,'" Bergh wrote on social media.
Keep ReadingShow Less
Trump Admin Argues Even Terminally Ill Patients Shouldn't Be Exempt From Medicaid Work Requirements
Under a new policy the administration is defending in court, low-income people with cancer, HIV, Parkinson's, and other life-threatening illnesses must prove they're too sick to work or risk losing their health insurance.
Jul 30, 2026
A federal judge on Thursday denied a request by more than two dozen Democratic states to halt a Trump administration policy announced last month that would require Medicaid recipients with terminal diseases to prove they are too sick to work in order to be exempt from new work requirements that go into effect this coming January.
While introducing over $1 trillion in tax cuts for the wealthiest 1% of Americans, last year's massive GOP tax and budget bill also imposed new 80-hour-per-month work requirements that states must implement for Medicaid expansion recipients, who receive government-subsidized insurance coverage at or below 138% of the poverty line.
The law specified that those who are “medically frail or otherwise have special medical needs” are excluded from the work requirement, and specifically listed people with a “serious or complex medical condition.” But it remained unclear what exact conditions met these criteria.
Earlier this month, the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) introduced a new rule stating that even if a person receives a terminal diagnosis for a disease like cancer, HIV/AIDS, or Parkinson's, that is still not enough for them to be exempt from the work requirements.
Beginning on January 1, 2028, it says they must also demonstrate to states that their condition “significantly impairs” their ability to meet the work requirement.
Democratic attorneys general in 25 states and the District of Columbia filed a preliminary injunction over the rule late last month, arguing that CMS had rewritten the law to introduce a vague and needlessly restrictive new hurdle that vulnerable people will face in obtaining desperately needed care.
“This is one of those cases where it’s really hard to overstate how dire the consequences could be,” North Carolina’s Democratic attorney general, Jeff Jackson, told Politico. “You’re going to have 50 states doing 50 different things, and we’re all going to have to create a whole new bureaucracy... You are talking about a lot more paperwork, more evaluations, more doctor visits, and a lot more work for doctors themselves.”
The Democratic AGs argued that implementation of the work requirements should be paused because they lacked the staff or capacity to meet the timeline set by CMS, which requires states to communicate to enrollees how they'll be affected by the changes by the end of August.
US District Judge Richard Stearns on Thursday denied their initial request to immediately halt the implementation of the requirements while the lawsuit proceeds, but also did not rule on the lawsuit's merits, which are scheduled to be decided before the requirements go into effect on January 1.
Several medical associations, including the American Medical Association, the American College of Physicians, and the American Academy of Pediatrics, have come out against the rule, arguing that it would have dire consequences for people who suffer from severe illness.
"One of the most significant factors in whether someone survives a cancer diagnosis is whether they have health insurance coverage," Lisa Lacasse, president of the American Cancer Society Cancer Action Network, explained in June.
"The new restrictions link the definition of medical frailty to a person’s ability to work," she continued. "This would mean cancer patients and survivors who are suffering from debilitating side effects of the disease or treatment would have to officially prove they can’t work, in a process that is likely to be difficult and take a long time."
The nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office has projected that over the coming decade, changes to healthcare policy introduced by Republicans would increase the number of uninsured Americans by about 11.8 million.
Around 5.7 million of them are projected to be Medicaid recipients who either do not meet the 80-hour work requirement or are otherwise eligible but tripped up by one of the newly imposed paperwork hurdles.
Taya Graham and Stephen Janis argued earlier this week in a piece for The Real News Network that eligible people losing coverage is not an unfortunate side effect of the law, but a goal of the Republicans who passed it, who sought a way to thin the ranks of those who qualify for Medicaid without having to take the politically unpopular step of actually clawing back benefits.
They wrote that what has happened to recipients of the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) illustrates how burdensome these new requirements may become.
As The New York Times reported earlier this month, in Arizona, 440,000 people have already been dropped from SNAP after it enacted a formidable regime of paperwork for low-income recipients to prove eligibility, including requiring some people with panhandling income to obtain documentation from donors who drop them a buck on the street.
"If this is what people receiving SNAP benefits have been subjected to," Graham and Janis wrote, "imagine what’s going to happen to people who will need to navigate the new [Medicaid] requirements while struggling with a debilitating or terminal illness."
Medical issues are a leading cause of bankruptcy in the US. According to one study, over 4 in 10 cancer patients over 50 had depleted all their assets within two years of diagnosis.
Melanie D’Arrigo, a campaigner for single-payer healthcare in New York, said that President Donald Trump "cut cancer research, cut healthcare,” and with new Medicaid restrictions, “wants to make sure Americans continue to work as they go broke battling cancer.”
Keep ReadingShow Less
'Starvation Wages' at Giant US Corporations Force Workers to Seek Taxpayer-Funded Aid
"No one who works for a company making billions in profits should be living in poverty," said Sen. Bernie Sanders.
Jul 23, 2026
US Sen. Bernie Sanders recently commissioned a government analysis of federal aid programs and how much employees of some of the largest and most politically influential corporations in the country are relying on food and healthcare benefits due to the chronically low wages paid by Amazon, Walmart, and other firms.
On Wednesday, the nonpartisan Government Accountability Office (GAO) released the results of its research, revealing trends that Sanders (I-Vt.), a longtime critic of economic inequality and poverty wages and the ranking member of the Senate Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions Committee, called "beyond unacceptable."
Six years after the GAO first analyzed low-wage workers' use of Medicaid and the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP), the report found that the number of Amazon employees who required federal assistance has nearly tripled since 2020, despite the fact that the e-commerce giant has increased its annual profits from $11.59 billion to $77.67 billion in that time.
The analysis focused on 11 states—Arkansas, Georgia, Indiana, Maine, Massachusetts, Nebraska, North Carolina, Oklahoma, Rhode Island, Tennessee, and Washington—whose combined populations comprise about one-fifth of the US population.
Last year, 12,346 of Amazon's employees needed SNAP assistance, for which households must earn less than 130% of the federal poverty level to qualify. A family of three would have to make around $35,000 or less to qualify for the program. Millions of people were shut out of the crucial program by the One Big Beautiful Bill Act (OBBBA), which required states to impose strict limits on eligibility.
More than 11,000 Amazon workers also relied on Medicaid last year in the states surveyed.
"Corporations underpay workers, don't provide healthcare, and outsource core worker needs to the government," said the labor-focused media organization More Perfect Union.
While Walmart topped the list of corporations whose employees used Medicaid benefits, as it did in 2020, its share of workers who rely on the two federal programs went up only slightly over the five-year period, while Amazon's share grew significantly.
Amazon spokesperson Rachael Lighty told The Washington Post—owned by billionaire Amazon founder Jeff Bezos—that the company's hiring spree since the coronavirus pandemic contributed to its increased share of Medicaid and SNAP beneficiaries, and noted that Amazon offers "part-time options for those who want them," which makes more employees eligible for the benefits.
But the Post noted that many people who may want full-time employment and the higher wages it offers can only find part-time work. The Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis has found an increase in part-time employment since the pandemic.
Sanders noted that Walmart increased its annual profits from $14.88 billion in 2020 to $21.89 billion in 2025, but the number of workers who relied on Medicaid grew by 55% to more than 16,000 people in the 11 states sampled by the GAO.
“American taxpayers should not be forced to subsidize the starvation wages of large corporations like Walmart and Amazon," said the senator. "These corporations are making record-breaking profits, paying their CEOs exorbitant compensation packages, and spending billions of dollars on stock buybacks to enrich their wealthy shareholders. It is beyond unacceptable that these corporations, owned by some of the wealthiest people on the planet, are receiving corporate welfare from the federal government."
Rideshare and delivery apps like Uber and DoorDash, which were not significantly featured in the GAO's 2020 report, are now the top employers of people who use SNAP benefits and are in the top three employers of workers on Medicaid.
Nicole Moore, president of Rideshare Drivers United, told the Post that gig workers across the country struggle to make ends meet with "absolutely precarious income."
The analysis comes a year after the passage of the OBBBA, which delivered $4.5 trillion in tax cuts to corporations and the rich and which Republican proponents said was partially focused on eliminating waste and fraud in government programs like Medicaid. The law includes work requirements for the program and is expected to slash $1 trillion from Medicaid over the next decade.
Republicans have intensified their fixation on "fraud" in social services in recent months after fraudulent payments were found in Minnesota's public programs.
Warren Gunnels, the minority staff director for the Senate HELP Committee, said the GAO analysis shows that "the problem isn't the single mom getting $6 a day in food stamps."
"The problem is Jeff Bezos, worth $269 billion, more than doubled his wealth since 2020 while paying wages so low the number of Amazon workers on food stamps and Medicaid nearly tripled," said Gunnels. "Bezos is the welfare queen."
Sanders called on Bezos and the Walton family, which owns Walmart, "to get off of welfare and pay their workers a living wage with good benefits."
"No one who works for a company making billions in profits should be living in poverty," said the senator. "This is especially true after these corporations and their multibillionaire owners received a massive tax break from President Trump’s so-called ‘Big, Beautiful Bill,’ paid for by the largest cuts to Medicaid and nutrition assistance in history.”
Keep ReadingShow Less
'Grotesque and Indefensible': At Least 1.5 Million Kids Have Lost Food Aid Under GOP Budget Law
"The damage from the SNAP cuts could worsen quickly as some states are considering ending their SNAP programs entirely as soon as October 2027," warned one expert.
Jul 22, 2026
At least 1.5 million children have lost Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program benefits since US President Donald Trump signed the Republican budget package into law last summer, enacting the largest cuts to federal food aid in the nation's history.
The new estimate of food aid loss among children comes from the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities (CBPP), which said Tuesday that SNAP participation was down by over 4.5 million people overall between July 2025 and April 2026. Refuting the Trump administration's narrative, the liberal think tank emphasized that the unemployment rate nationwide has been roughly flat since last July, meaning it is "very unlikely that reduced need is driving the decline in SNAP participation."
Arizona has seen the most staggering decline in SNAP participation. It has fallen 48% overall and 49% among children in the state since enactment of the Trump-GOP budget law, which instituted new work-reporting requirements for some recipients and punishments for states with elevated payment error rates. Under Republican law, states will for the first time have to pay a portion of SNAP benefit costs, which previously were fully covered by the federal government.
"Grotesque and indefensible," policy analyst Michael Linden wrote in response to the new data, noting that the Republican budget law slashed taxes for wealthy households while decimating SNAP.
Earlier this week, The New York Times published a report detailing the horror show residents have experienced as they've attempted to reenroll in SNAP after improperly losing benefits due to bureaucratic chaos stemming from the GOP law.
As states have raced to limit the massive new costs they will soon face under the law's cost shift, many eligible families are losing SNAP because they can’t navigate new bureaucratic obstacles & understaffed states can’t keep up with the added paperwork. https://t.co/DOCI3axDed pic.twitter.com/8OzMUpkLc7
— Katie Bergh (@Katie_Bergh) July 21, 2026
Sharon Parrott, CBPP's president, said Tuesday that the consequences of the massive SNAP cuts—totaling around $200 billion over the next decade—have been "stark: an ill grandmother raising teens can’t get her SNAP reinstated despite being eligible, and parents are skipping meals to save food for their children. Families who have had their food assistance taken away are turning to overburdened food banks, which cannot fill the gap."
" House Republicans are looking past this emergency in their budget legislation—while using it to help farmers struggling with high costs due to Trump’s tariffs and oil prices driven up by the war in Iran," said Parrott, referring to the GOP's new reconciliation package.
"The damage from the SNAP cuts could worsen quickly as some states are considering ending their SNAP programs entirely as soon as October 2027, when the cost shift takes effect. States unable or unwilling to pay the costs they incur will have no choice but to end the program," Parrott warned. "People across the US consistently say they want Washington to focus on affordability, especially the cost of food. Mitigating last year’s cuts to SNAP and staunching the number of families and children losing SNAP would be a good place to start."
Keep ReadingShow Less
‘Frankly Sickening’: Reports Highlight Brutal Impact of Trump-GOP Cuts to Food Aid
"States are absolutely contemplating a world in which SNAP isn’t available."
Jul 21, 2026
Several reports published this week highlight the brutal impact cuts made to the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program in Republicans' 2025 budget law are having on Americans' access to food.
A lengthy Tuesday report in The New York Times zeroed in on the bill's impact in Arizona, where roughly 440,000 people have been dropped from the program even though many of them are still eligible to receive assistance.
The GOP-passed One Big Beautiful Bill Act established severe penalties for states that have high error rates when awarding SNAP benefits, and Arizona has responded by vastly increasing the paperwork applicants must file to qualify for the program in order to avoid making mistakes that could result in the loss of federal funding.
According to the Times, this has created "bureaucratic chaos" that has caused many otherwise eligible people to lose aid.
"It can take months to reach besieged caseworkers, and offices have gone as far as asking people with panhandling income for verification from strangers dropping cash in their jar," reported the Times. "Arizonans losing SNAP say they are skipping meals, quarreling over food, and missing rent payments to restock pantry shelves."
One former SNAP beneficiary featured in the Times story was Dee McDonald, a 65-year-old cancer survivor who reported skipping meals to ensure that the three grandsons she's raising have enough to eat.
According to the Times, McDonald has been scrambling from one local food pantry to another to ensure there is enough food in the house for the whole family, a process she told the paper has left her "exhausted."
“I go to sleep thinking about what are we going to have,” McDonald said.
Michael Wisehart, director of the Arizona Department of Economic Security, told the Times that it's "frankly sickening to me the number of individuals" who are suffering due to the bureaucratic hurdles the state is enacting.
However, Wisehart said that if Arizona doesn't add these bureaucratic layers, it could risk seeing its SNAP program completely destroyed.
“It’s an existential threat,” he explained. “States are absolutely contemplating a world in which SNAP isn’t available."
Another state facing this dilemma is Arkansas, which the local news station KATV reported on Monday is scrambling to lower its SNAP error rate that, under new rules, could cost the state $55 million per year.
Keesa Smith-Brantley, executive director of Arkansas Advocates for Children and Families and former deputy director of the Arkansas Department of Human Services, told KATV that the financial penalties imposed on the state could create a downward spiral in which state officials have fewer resources to effectively lower the SNAP error rate.
"It is very concerning that we may not have a SNAP program in years to come if the state can't come up with the funding," said Smith-Brantley.
A Tuesday report in Axios examined how the GOP's SNAP cuts have impacted Virginia, where 100,000 fewer residents are now enrolled in the program compared to a year ago.
Aaron McClung, chief development officer at Feed More, an umbrella organization for food banks in the central part of the state, told Axios that visits to food pantries have increased by more than 20% since the passage of the GOP budget law last year.
While food banks have tried to fill the gap, McClung said, they are no substitute for SNAP, which he described as "the nation's most effective, dignified, and scalable tool for reducing food insecurity."
Jacqueline Mott, Virginia state manager for the Save the Children Action Network, expressed a similar sentiment, telling Axios that "charitable food assistance was never designed to replace SNAP."
Keep ReadingShow Less
What the Nation Can Learn From Seattle's Fresh Bucks Program
After more than a decade of implementation, Fresh Bucks offers evidence that targeted investments in healthy food can improve food security, increase fruit and vegetable consumption, and help reduce nutritional inequality.
Jul 19, 2026
As rising food prices continue to strain household budgets and food insecurity remains a persistent challenge, a successful Seattle program is attracting national attention. For over a decade, the city’s Fresh Bucks initiative has helped lower-income families afford fresh fruits and vegetables through targeted food assistance. Now, Congress is considering whether to test that success at the national level.
Seattle launched Fresh Bucks in 2012. The initiative seeks to “eliminate disparities in healthy food access for communities most burdened by food insecurity, economic hardship, and environmental injustices,” according to the program website. Specifically, according to city data, Black and Hispanic households in Seattle are twice as likely to experience food insecurity—which is defined as “limited or uncertain availability of nutritionally adequate and safe foods, or limited or uncertain ability to acquire acceptable foods in socially acceptable ways” by the US Department of Agriculture (USDA).
Today, Seattle’s Fresh Bucks initiative serves approximately 17,000 income-qualified households each month with benefits dedicated to purchasing fruits and vegetables. Research suggests the investment is paying off. A 2025 study by the University of Washington found that participating households experienced a 31% higher rate of food security than comparable households without the benefit. Additionally, the City of Seattle’s food insecurity dashboard shows aggregate declining insecurity rates since 2018.
The Fresh Bucks program also improves diet quality—not simply by increasing the quantity of food families can buy, but by making nutritious food more affordable. According to the same UW study, Fresh Bucks participants were 37% more likely than households on the program’s waitlist to consume at least three daily servings of fruits and vegetables.
A nationwide Fresh Bucks program would not reverse recent cuts to federal nutrition assistance, but it offers a practical, evidence-based way to reduce hunger while addressing one of inequality’s most basic dimensions: whether families can afford healthy food.
Those gains matter because access to healthy food remains deeply unequal. A 2017 study published in the International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health found that healthier diets rich in fruits and vegetables often cost significantly more than heavily processed alternatives, which creates a financial barrier that affects lower-income households most. When income determines access to nutritious food, it reinforces broader inequalities in health and well-being.
Community leaders in neighborhoods served by Fresh Bucks say they see those challenges firsthand.
“In White Center and historically underinvested communities across King County, we see every day how rising grocery costs continue to strain working families, seniors, immigrants, and households already navigating increasing housing and living expenses,” Aaron Garcia, executive director of the White Center Community Development Association, said in a press release on new legislation to expand the program. “Access to healthy, culturally relevant food should not be determined by income—it should not be considered a luxury,” Garcia said.
White Center illustrates why programs like Fresh Bucks matter. One of the Seattle area’s most diverse communities, more than 61% of its residents are people of color and 27% were born outside the US. The neighborhood was historically targeted for redlining, which continues to shape poverty rates and income inequality across the Seattle region.
Census data show White Center has below-average household and per capita incomes and a poverty rate higher than the Seattle-Tacoma-Bellevue metropolitan average. Residents of South Seattle, including White Center, face disproportionately limited access to grocery stores offering fresh, nutritious produce. Some advocates describe these neighborhoods not as food deserts, but as examples of “food apartheid”: the racial, geographic, and economic inequities that stratify society and dictate who has access to healthy food and who is relegated to nutritionally deficient diets.
Fresh Bucks was designed to confront those disparities in Seattle by making healthy food more affordable for families who have historically faced the greatest barriers to accessing it.
On the national level, Rep. Pramila Jayapal (D-Wash.), whose congressional district includes Seattle, argued that the city’s local innovation can become a model to address broader food insecurity.
“[…] Seattle is once again leading the way with the Fresh Bucks program, which is successfully keeping people fed with nutritious food and reducing hunger,” Jayapal said. “We must pass this legislation to expand the program nationwide and get families in every corner of the country healthy produce they can afford.”
Jayapal introduced the Fresh Bucks for Fresh Produce Act on July 2. Modeled on Seattle’s program, the legislation would establish a pilot program within the US Department of Agriculture, providing households earning 80% or less of their area’s median income with $60 each month to purchase fresh fruits and vegetables.
The proposal comes as federal food assistance is moving in the opposite direction. Recent analysis from the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities found that participation in the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) has fallen by more than 4 million people after Trump’s budget reconciliation bill passed last June—roughly a 10% decline. Meanwhile, the Trump administration recently eliminated roughly $1 billion in food purchases for schools and food banks by ending the Local Food Purchasing Assistance Program.
Other federal policies have also increased food costs. As The New York Times reported in May, executive tariffs on imported steel have driven up the cost of canned fruits and vegetables, because packaging accounts for roughly one-third of wholesale prices. Those increases disproportionately affect households that depend on affordable pantry staples such as canned corn and beans.
Public opinion indicates opposition to these trends. A 2025 Data for Progress survey found broad bipartisan support for SNAP and other efforts to help families afford food. A nationwide Fresh Bucks program would not reverse recent cuts to federal nutrition assistance, but it offers a practical, evidence-based way to reduce hunger while addressing one of inequality’s most basic dimensions: whether families can afford healthy food.
The proposed federal pilot would allow policymakers to test whether Seattle’s results can be replicated elsewhere. After more than a decade of implementation, Fresh Bucks offers evidence that targeted investments in healthy food can improve food security, increase fruit and vegetable consumption, and help reduce nutritional inequality.
That evidence is especially valuable as the USDA has suspended its annual report tracking food insecurity, making it more difficult to measure the full scope of hunger nationwide. Seattle’s experience suggests that local governments can serve as laboratories for policies that address inequality—and that successful municipal innovations may provide models for broader adoption.
Keep ReadingShow Less
A Year After Trump Package, Report Shows Rich 'Got a Handout, and Working Families Got the Bill'
"I've never seen a more dangerous and purposeful attempt to make people sick and hungry," said one Pennsylvania state lawmaker.
Jul 10, 2026
Last week marked the first anniversary of President Donald Trump signing H.R. 1, known as the One Big Beautiful Bill Act.
But a new report from the progressive advocacy group Defend America Action, obtained exclusively by Common Dreams, demonstrates that while the bill has indeed been beautiful for the richest households, it has been anything but for working-class Americans.
"Republicans sacrificed the American people's financial future, healthcare, and food security to pay for massive tax breaks for big corporations and the ultrawealthy," the report said. "The richest people on the planet got a handout, and working families got the bill."
According to an analysis by the Institute on Taxation and Economic Policy (ITEP), the richest 1% of Americans will see $117 billion in net tax cuts in 2026, an average windfall of roughly $66,000 each and more than the entire bottom 60% will receive combined.
At the same time, the law contained the largest cuts to federal healthcare funding in US history, slashing over $1 trillion from Medicaid and the Affordable Care Act (ACA) over the next decade.
The report found that as of March 2026, less than a year after the bill passed, enrollment in Medicaid and the Children's Health Insurance Program (CHIP) had already fallen by 3.8 million.
And after Republicans allowed ACA marketplace subsidies to expire, insurance premiums are projected to increase 114% on average, leading one in five enrollees—over 4.2 million people—to drop their coverage entirely.
Additionally, 11 million low-income Americans no longer receive zero-dollar premiums through the marketplace, while deductibles rose an average of 37% for those buying insurance on their own.
In total, more than 8 million people are estimated to have lost insurance coverage due to cuts to these programs, according to Protect Our Care. The nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office has projected that as many as 15 million could lose insurance by 2034 as a result of the law and other policy changes over the next decade.
US Rep. Dina Titus (D) said that the cuts have hit her state of Nevada especially hard, as many people work in the service industry and don't receive employer-sponsored insurance.
"An estimated 100,000 Nevadans are impacted by this, [could be] kicked off Medicaid, including 22,000 just in my one congressional district, and it's children, it's seniors, and it's people with disabilities who are going to be impacted so directly."
"The failure to continue the [ACA] tax credits... has knocked more people off," she said. "Then people who do have it pay higher rates to cover that. So it doesn't just impact the people who are on Obamacare. It impacts everybody."
According to an analysis by Protect Our Care, more than 1,000 hospitals, nursing homes, maternity wards, and other critical care facilities around the country have either shut down, are at risk of closing, or have cut essential services since the law went into place.
"In my more than 25 years as a practicing physician and now a legislator for the last four years, I've never seen a more dangerous and purposeful attempt to make people sick and hungry," said Pennsylvania state Rep. Arvind Venkat (D-30), an emergency physician who represents the suburbs outside Pittsburgh.
"There are a number of hospitals in Pennsylvania that have closed or are under threat to close as a result of the devastation that's being caused by this legislation," he said.
After $187 billion was cut from the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP), more than 4 million low-income people—10 % of enrollees—no longer receive food assistance, according to the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities.
Millions more are expected to also lose benefits as stringent new work requirements go into effect. This includes 3 million people aged 18-24, according to a report from the Urban Institute, which noted that young adults often have greater difficulty finding stable jobs that allow them to meet the work requirements.
An analysis from ProPublica last month found that across just 12 states that break down data based on age, at least 776,000 children are no longer appearing on SNAP rolls.
"I think when we're talking about SNAP, we should start from the fact that the average benefit per person is [less than] $3 per meal," said Jared Bernstein, who served as the chair of the United States Council of Economic Advisers under former President Joe Biden.
"Nobody's getting rich off of SNAP," he said. "What's happening is people, including a lot of children, are getting fed."
"There's a long line of careful research showing long-term benefits for not just the beneficiaries themselves, but for the broader society," he said, noting that receiving benefits early in life is associated with "better academic performance, long-run health, educational attainment, and economic self-sufficiency."
The report from Defend America Action also said the Trump budget law squashed "an unprecedented American clean energy and manufacturing boom" that began during the Biden years, which created hundreds of thousands of jobs.
The law eliminated clean energy tax credits and led hundreds of projects to be canceled. Citing an analysis by Climate Power, the report said that over 140,000 clean energy jobs have been lost, are at risk, or have been delayed due to H.R. 1, stemming from 382 canceled or delayed projects that represented $69 billion in investment.
This has also contributed to the $92 billion spike in energy bills since Trump took office, the report said. Those canceled projects could have powered more than 17 million homes.
The law also killed the $7,500 electric vehicle (EV) tax credit, which has locked consumers into driving gas-powered cars that cost more to power, especially as Trump's war with Iran has sent gas prices soaring.
Bernstein noted that EV sales "fell off a cliff" after the tax credits were canceled.
"I can't begin to describe how shortsighted this is," he said. "Not just in terms of the environment, but also in terms of the US ever having a chance to capture market share in what I believe already is a do-or-die product development for the auto sector."
He noted that the US abandonment of clean energy, even as its use grows worldwide, has led China to dominate the market.
"This isn't China just eating our lunch," Bernstein said. "This is us serving our lunch to them."
Defend America Action's report notes that at the time of its passage, H.R. 1 was the most unpopular piece of legislation to pass through Congress since at least 1990, with just 31% approving and 55% disapproving, according to an average of four major polls.
Just months before the midterm elections, the bill remains equally unpopular, with only 33% of Americans saying they favor it and 48% opposing it, according to a recent survey by Navigator Research.
Titus told Common Dreams that one year ago, her colleagues in the GOP were very excited to pass H.R. 1.
Now, she said, "They don't really talk about it."
"They always are up for cutting programs," Titus said. "They call it fraud, waste, and abuse, but it's not. It's benefits that people needed."
"I think as you get closer to the election, there will be more concern about it," Titus said. "You know they cleverly made some of these cuts not go into effect until after the election, so they had to have been aware that they weren't very popular."
"I think we need to get the message out as much and as often as we can," she said, "and that's been kind of focused on affordability because all these different programs that we mentioned tie together."
"It's not just one little hit," Titus said. "It's across-the-board hits."
Keep ReadingShow Less
'People Will Go Hungry': Aid Cuts That Susan Collins Voted to Advance Could Cost Maine $50 Million a Year
"People who really, really need SNAP could potentially no longer receive it and not have a way to buy their groceries," warned one anti-hunger campaigner.
Jul 06, 2026
Maine taxpayers could be on the hook for around $50 million per year in spending on federal nutrition assistance under the Republican budget law that Sen. Susan Collins voted to advance as it moved through Congress last year.
The GOP law requires states to pay a portion of Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) benefit costs for the first time in the program's history, starting in October 2027. The size of states' obligation will range between 5% and 15% of their benefit costs; states with higher payment error rates—which experts say largely reflect administrative mistakes rather than fraud or abuse, as the Trump administration claims—will be forced to pay a larger percentage of benefit costs.
According to the latest data from the US Department of Agriculture, Maine's SNAP payment error rate in Fiscal Year 2025 was 10.81%—just above the national average of 10.62%. Maine's error rate puts the state in the 15% category for benefit cost obligations, according to the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities (CBPP).
“It’s shocking, and it’s wildly unfair,” Anna Korsen, deputy director of the Maine-based advocacy group Full Plates Full Potential, told Maine Morning Star last week. “If the state can’t find a way to pay for these benefits, that will mean that eligible people will go hungry. People who really, really need SNAP could potentially no longer receive it and not have a way to buy their groceries.”
Facing criticism from Democratic challenger Graham Platner—whose campaign has accused Collins of siding with President Donald Trump to give "billionaires and corporations a handout paid for by cuts to Medicaid and SNAP"—the Republican incumbent has emphasized that she voted against final passage of the Republican budget package.
But last June, Collins cast what Maine Public Radio described at the time as a "pivotal vote to begin debating" the budget measure, which will cut SNAP and Medicaid by roughly $1 trillion combined over the next decade. Thousands of Mainers—and millions of people nationwide—have lost SNAP and Medicaid benefits since the Republican law's enactment last summer.
Advocates have warned that the unprecedented shift of a portion of SNAP benefit costs onto states could be devastating, potentially forcing governments to cut SNAP benefits further, slash spending on education and other priorities, or potentially end their participation in the program completely.
Democrats are working to include a provision in the annual Farm Bill that would delay the SNAP cost-shift to give states more time to prepare. Last month, as Common Dreams reported, Senate Republicans unveiled legislation that omitted Democrats' proposed delay.
CBPP estimated in a recent analysis that states "may soon face a collective bill of roughly $9 billion, threatening benefits for millions of SNAP households, 79% of which include a child, a senior, or a person with a disability, who count on SNAP to help them meet their basic needs."
"Without immediate congressional action to delay this cost shift for all states," the think tank warned, "the unfolding emergency will only worsen as more people lose the SNAP benefits they need to afford groceries."
George Kelemen, senior vice president of the national No Kid Hungry campaign, called the GOP law's cost-shift "an existential threat to our most powerful anti-hunger program."
"Most states could be forced to cut funding for SNAP or other essential services, and at least four states have said they may be unable to continue administering SNAP entirely if this benefit cost shift goes into effect," Kelemen said last month. "This means millions of eligible kids and their families will lose access to vital grocery benefits."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Experts Say Trump Cuts to Food Aid Have 'Completely Subsumed' RFK Jr.'s MAHA Agenda
A new report argues it is "impossible to reconcile" the Trump administration's Make America Healthy Again rhetoric with unprecedented cuts to federal nutrition assistance.
Jul 02, 2026
The unprecedented cuts to federal nutrition assistance that President Donald Trump and congressional Republicans enacted nearly a year ago directly undermine the administration's "Make America Healthy Again" initiative, argues a new report by a pair of food policy experts.
The so-called MAHA project, spearheaded by Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr., emphasizes the importance of a healthy diet to childhood development. But the new white paper, published Wednesday and authored by Joelle Johnson of the Center for Science in the Public Interest and Priya Fielding-Singh of George Washington University's Global Food Institute, notes that research shows the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) "reduces food insecurity—which is itself linked to increased risk of poorer diets among children—and may improve health outcomes among households with low incomes."
"How the administration’s health objectives can be achieved alongside policies that reduce both food access and nutrition education is a question these dual agendas do not resolve," the report states. "Understanding this tension also helps explain why the administration’s MAHA messaging has at times appeared disconnected from the SNAP policies it has simultaneously pursued."
The GOP's One Big Beautiful Bill Act (HR 1) will inflict nearly $190 billion in cuts to SNAP over the next decade—the largest in the program's history—and expand work reporting requirements, despite evidence showing that such mandates do virtually nothing to boost employment or reduce poverty. According to one estimate, the expanded SNAP work reporting requirements could cause nearly 70,000 avoidable deaths by 2040.
The Republican law also forces states to pay a portion of SNAP benefits for the first time, straining budgets and potentially forcing deeper food aid cuts.
Millions of people across the US—including more than 800,000 children—have lost SNAP benefits since Trump signed the Republican budget package into law on July 4, 2025. It is well established that food insecurity, which is on the rise across the US, is associated with chronic disease.
“It is impossible to reconcile the administration’s MAHA rhetoric on reducing chronic disease in childhood with the cruel cutbacks to SNAP brought about by HR 1,” Johnson, who serves as deputy director for healthy food access at the Center for Science in the Public Interest (CSPI), said in a statement. “Whatever MAHA initiatives CSPI might have otherwise supported are completely subsumed by the biggest cut to SNAP in the program’s history.”
"Cutting off food assistance for millions of families undermines MAHA's stated goals of improving diet quality and preventing chronic disease."
The new report stresses the "ripple effects" of the Trump-GOP SNAP cuts across the food safety net, pointing to negative impacts on kids' eligibility for school meals and the Special Supplemental Nutrition Program for Women, Infants, and Children (WIC).
"Approximately 16 million children live in households that rely on SNAP to meet their basic food needs, and many will face cascading losses of access to other nutrition programs as a result of HR 1's cuts," the report warns. "Children who lose SNAP also risk losing automatic enrollment in WIC and free school meals, forcing families already stretched thin to navigate multiple re-enrollment processes with no guarantee of restored access."
Trump and the GOP are not finished attacking nutrition assistance for low-income families. Last month, House Republicans approved legislation that would slash fruit and vegetable benefits for millions of young children and pregnant and postpartum women—a cut consistent with the White House's budget proposal for the coming fiscal year.
"If we are serious about improving Americans' health, we need policies that make healthy food more accessible, not less," said Fielding-Singh, director of policy and programs at the Global Food Institute. "Cutting off food assistance for millions of families undermines MAHA's stated goals of improving diet quality and preventing chronic disease. Food security and public health go hand in hand."
Keep ReadingShow Less
See More
Most Popular
To inform. To inspire. To ignite change for the common good.
News & Opinion
Trending
Common Dreams, Inc. Founded 1997. Registered 501(c3) Non-Profit
Privacy Policy