Skip to content
Search

Latest Stories

Follow Us:
Top Stories

Crisis Not Averted: How Government Shutdown Exposes America’s Food Insecurity

Opinion

Crisis Not Averted: How Government Shutdown Exposes America’s Food Insecurity

Young volunteers assembling grocery bags filled with food donations, providing essential support to individuals facing hunger and hardship

Getty Images/Fillipo Bacci

As the longest government shutdown in history continues, the Trump administration informed U.S. District Judge John J. McConnell, Jr. of Rhode Island that it would pay out 50% of the SNAP benefits in November to the 42 million Americans who rely on food stamps.

This announcement comes just days after McConnell ruled that the administration could not halt the SNAP program.


In response, governors have begun issuing statements in response to the ruling. For example, Massachusetts Governor Maura Healey said in a press release: “The Trump Administration just admitted what we have known all along – this funding was available this entire time and the President could have been using it to prevent American families from going hungry. Families should never have been put through this, and it shouldn’t have taken a Court order to force President Trump to feed American families like every president before him.”

Yet it is still unclear how and when the partial SNAP benefits will be made available, as states await guidance from the USDA and the looming food crisis remains very much a reality.

In other words, the crisis was not averted.

To be very clear, what the world is witnessing right now isn’t just another political game. It is the latest move in the administration’s War on Food Security, or the ability of many Americans to access safe and nutritious food.

This war began when Congress passed the One Big Beautiful Bill Act of 2025 on July 4 of this year, effectively transforming food into a political weapon. The law severely cut food stamps and terminated the SNAP-Ed program, which provided food and nutrition education to millions of low-income individuals.

Less than a month after Congress passed the act, state officials felt the brunt of this careless move. In Illinois, for example, the College of Agricultural, Consumer and Environmental Sciences at the University of Illinois Urbana-Champaign issued a press release announcing the elimination of the Illinois Extension-led SNAP-Ed program after over three decades of life-changing work across the state.

By the numbers, Illinois Extension cut over 200 jobs (approximately one-quarter of its workforce) and put in jeopardy almost 2,000 statewide partnerships that play a critical role in the food security and health of 1 million residents annually.

But the elimination of SNAP-Ed was just a battle cry.

In September, the USDA announced it would stop the annual National Household Food Insecurity Survey, ending 30 years of data collection that captures the prevalence of hunger in America.

According to the USDA, the report was “redundant, costly, politicized, and extraneous,” promoted as a “fear monger” and failing to “present anything more than subjective, liberal fodder.”

Such framing of the report was immediately met with staunch opposition, especially by Georgia Machell, President and CEO of the National WIC Association.

In a press release, Machell wrote: “We are alarmed by USDA’s decision to cancel the annual food security survey. . .It is deeply troubling that the Trump administration would cancel this annual survey, particularly in the wake of deep cuts to the social safety net in the One Big Beautiful Bill Act.”

In recent weeks, the government shutdown has catapulted millions of Americans further into this war on food security. More recently, in response to the shutdown, the USDA Food and Nutrition Service Director quietly informed state agencies that any plans to disseminate food stamps in November should be halted “until further notice.” This places one in eight Americans who participate in the SNAP program at risk of suffering from high levels of hunger.

Now, as November rapidly approaches, the reality of this nation without a food stamp program is within reach.

This horrific moment in American history is not an isolated incident or temporary disruption that resolves itself at the whims of the federal government. It is the latest escalation in the government’s war on food security.

Some Congressional representatives are opposing the moves. Sen. Josh Hawley (R-Mo.) recently filed legislation to continue food stamps despite the shutdown. Ten GOP senators support this bill.

In response, Sen. Ben Ray Luján (D-NM) introduced a Democrat bill to keep food aid benefits flowing. He writes, “Putting food on the table is not a partisan issue. Every American deserves to eat.”

To be sure, this is not the first time that government officials have waged a war on food security, as observed in the Mississippi civil rights movement. What makes this moment different is that the scale: the food security of millions of Americans now hangs in limbo.

Devastating cuts to SNAP, the total annihilation of the nation’s most extensive nutrition education program, and now food stamp chaos are colliding as part of an ongoing political standoff.

Americans cannot simply sit back and relax while watching the U.S. Hunger Games unfold in political theater. It is urgent to recognize that this ongoing attack on the ability to be food secure is a matter of national security—a crisis that will continue whether the government shuts down or not.

Bobby J. Smith II is an Associate Professor of African American Studies at the University of Illinois—Urbana-Champaign, author of the James Beard Award-nominated book, Food Power Politics, and Public Voices Fellow through The OpEd Project.


Read More

The Iran war could shape American policy for decades

U.S. forces patrol the Arabian Sea near M/V Touska on April 20, 2026, after firing upon the Iranian-flagged vessel that the U.S. accused of attempting to violate the U.S. naval blockade of Iranian ports near the Strait of Hormuz.

(U.S. Navy/Getty Images/TNS)

The Iran war could shape American policy for decades

The war with Iran that never really ended is back on. Like everybody else, including the Trump administration and the Iranian regime, I have no idea how it will end. But it eventually will, and how it will be remembered will matter enormously.

Politics is about many things, but whether you call it “spin,” “framing” or “narrative competition,” storytelling is never far from the heart of it. As the philosopher Richard Rorty observed, “Competition for political leadership is in part a competition between differing stories about a nation’s self-identity, and between differing symbols of its greatness.”

Keep ReadingShow less
Presidential powers: Corporate abuses big concern after SCOTUS move

An oil production operation is shown in North Dakota. With the U.S. Supreme Court granting more presidential powers to the executive branch, environmental groups warned key agencies will have a harder time going after polluters.

(Adobe Stock)

Presidential powers: Corporate abuses big concern after SCOTUS move

A U.S. Supreme Court opinion issued last month expands presidential power over independent federal agencies, prompting warnings from environmental advocates about potential implications for states such as North Dakota.

The court’s conservative majority said President Donald Trump had the authority to fire a former Federal Trade Commission member without cause. Legal observers countered the opinion nullifies longstanding precedent involving the role of Congress in insulating certain federal agency officials from direct presidential control.

Keep ReadingShow less
Federal Register Reports being printed out of a large machine.

Congress should strengthen the administrative state by writing clearer laws, limiting delegated authority, and requiring periodic reauthorization of agency powers.

Photo courtesy of Luka Jacobi-Krohn

Putting the Guardrails Back on Delegations of Power

Congress needs to write better laws instead of dismantling the administrative state.

Debates over the administrative state focus on whether these agencies have accrued too much power. Some argue that the solution is to severely weaken or, in extreme scenarios, dismantle these federal agencies. However, the issue is not the existence of these agencies but actually how Congress writes its laws. When statutes are drafted with vague language, agencies are left to interpret the scope, and courts are forced to set the boundaries. This results in constant litigation and generally regulatory instability. If Congress actually wants a more durable and accountable regulatory system, they need to start with themselves by writing clearer laws.

Keep ReadingShow less
Businesspeople walking in line across world map, painted on asphalt

America's immigration debate reflects a deeper question: Does America still believe in itself? A historical look at immigration, assimilation, and American identity.

Klaus Vedfelt / Getty Images

What Immigration Debates Reveal About National Confidence

America has spent 250 years arguing about immigrants.

But beneath the arguments about visas, walls, asylum claims, deportations, and border security lies a more uncomfortable question:

Keep ReadingShow less