The recent government shutdown was a stark reminder that 42 million people across the United States rely on federal food benefits. That’s 12 percent of the nation’s population that lawmakers and President Donald Trump threw under the bus, cutting off SNAP benefits in an attempt to force a deal.
The shutdown has ended, but SNAP remains in jeopardy.
SNAP benefits were already less than a fourth of the average food expenditure per person nationwide. And in 2023, Congress and the Biden administration imposed work requirements on the program as part of a deal to raise the debt ceiling.
Then, in summer 2025, Trump’s so-called “Big Beautiful Bill” deeply cut safety net programs to fund tax breaks for corporations and the rich — including the largest SNAP cut in history.
Trump expanded Biden’s work requirements, ending exemptions for veterans, immigrants with legal documents, and the unhoused. Moreover, states will have to pick up a bigger portion of SNAP’s cost. “States are gonna have to pony up beginning next October, and then that’ll only ramp up from there,” said Anya Rose, Director of Public Policy at Hunger Free Colorado.
Rose, who used to staff a food resource line, explained that SNAP is “an incredibly important anti-hunger program, and it is also so full of barriers.” And “if you talk to food banks, food pantries, they would tell you we’ve been in a crisis well before [the shutdown], with higher demand than they saw during the pandemic.”
Colorado is not alone. Nationwide, food insecurity is rising — especially among older Americans — fueled by inflation, tariffs, unemployment, and wage stagnation. Florida is among the hardest hit by the pending cuts to SNAP, so it's likely that many of its residents will soon be impacted by food insecurity.
But the Trump administration decided to stop measuring food insecurity altogether, dismissing the information gathering as “redundant, costly, politicized, and extraneous.”
To make matters worse, Trump’s agriculture secretary Brooke Rollins is demanding all 42 million SNAP recipients reapply for their benefits to root out alleged “fraud.” Yet the government’s own data shows how small such anomalies are. When there is overpayment, it amounts to about $10 or $11 in food vouchers per person. “The policy is largely designed around how do you keep the wrong people out rather than how do you make sure to actually solve the problem,” said Rose.
So how does one solve the problem? It sounds obvious, but if people are hungry, one can simply feed them.
To counter the sordid state of affairs at the federal level, Rose’s organization, together with numerous other community organizations in Colorado, helped pass a pair of propositions in November 2025 aimed at fully funding school lunches.
What’s powerful about Colorado’s school lunch program is that it’s universal. All children are provided with meals at school regardless of their household income. This means there’s no question of eligibility or fraud.
Moreover, the ballot measures allocate money to purchase locally grown food, which benefits farmers, and to increase wages for cafeteria workers to make healthier meals. It’s a win-win-win. To pay for universal school lunches, Colorado imposed a modest tax increase on residents making more than $300,000 a year — people whose own children will also benefit from the school lunches.
It’s a simple calculus, one that we’re seeing more of in the absence of federal action — and not just on food.
New Yorkers just elected a mayor promising universal childcare paid for by taxing the rich, similar to a program that New Mexico already enacted. Seattle residents also elected a mayor who designed a tax program aimed at large corporations, and Boston’s hugely popular mayor sailed to reelection unopposed, in part by pioneering a universal free transit program.
A majority of Americans favor raising taxes on corporations and the wealthy to pay for our basic necessities such as food, childcare, transit, etc. While people are turning to cities and states to achieve the same goal, the Trump administration is intent on doing the opposite, at its peril.
Sonali Kolhatkar is host and executive producer of Rising Up With Sonali, an independent, subscriber-based syndicated TV and radio show. She’s an award winning journalist and author of Talking About Abolition: A Police Free World is Possible, and Rising Up: The Power of Narrative in Pursuing Racial Justice. This op-ed was distributed by OtherWords.org.
The Bradenton Times encourages citizen participation and the sharing of their opinions on issues impacting our community or with the intent of informing our readers on a variety of topics. The letters to the editor and guest opinion columns published represent those viewpoints. It is important to understand that when The Bradenton Times publishes these opinions or letters, it does not necessarily represent the opinions of our publication. We offer this service to allow readers to benefit from a variety of opinions and informational content.
8 comments on this item
Only paid subscribers can comment
Please log in to comment by clicking here.
kmskepton
We “can’t feed them” because capitalists only believe in “socialism" when it comes to their being bailed out.
Saturday, December 27, 2025 Report this
conrope
No American should go to bed hungry and we need to find ways to accomplish that. Having said that the author neglected to mention or defend some key points. Obesity is a greater problem than hunger for snap recipients. we should not allow snap to be used for sodas, candy, and other junk food. What is wrong with modest work requirements for abled body people with no minor dependents? What is wrong with eliminating fraud anywhere? Let's see how the free programs in NYC, Seattle ,etc work out P.S. I like free stuff too.
Sunday, December 28, 2025 Report this
AllForOne
12 percent of the population are on food stamps? It would be interesting to know what percentage of those people have vehicles newer than mine, smoke cigarettes, and guzzle booze. And how many of them are able-bodied and just plain lazy or work "under the table?" In this strong economy, if a person isn't somehow disabled, they should not be eligible to live off this government, tax-payer safety net for more than three months. Ultra-conservative politicians have long promised drug testing for food stamps, but guess what? It never happened. Nope. It was just another popular sound bite to get elected. Drug addicts are still selling their cards for 50 cents on the dollar or cashing them out at independent convenience stores for the same discount. Let's get real folks and acknowledge what is really happening.
Sunday, December 28, 2025 Report this
writerlynn9717
People who like to equate food stamps and other welfare recipients as losers and drug users are very undereducated about welfare and food stamps. None of them remember Rick Scott's project to drug test all welfare recipients and how it would save us tons by taking them off the rolls. Instead the project cost millions and millions of dollars for the government drug testing facilities and administration of his project. But, quickly, I believe it was one and half years, congress, no less a Republican congress, found that the project was unnecessary because there were only a very small percentage of welfare recipients found guilty, citing the project a huge failure. They quickly dropped that office but never recouped all the money Florida taxpayers paid towards it. I really get tired of mostly right-wingers going after the poor, when most welfare recipients are veterans, elderly, and woman with children. Lest we not forget, Rick Scott was in the business of drug testing facilities, and put them in his wife's name when outraged Floridians said his idea was a big conflict of interest. Like putting them in his wife's name made a difference.
Sunday, December 28, 2025 Report this
graumli22
The author's assessment of what caused the government shutdown is the usual crap you hear from Democrats trying to make this administration look like demons for everything wrong with our public assistance programs. If 12 percent of the nation’s population was "thrown under a bus" it was because the Democrats were trying to rewrite, instead of extend, funding bills. The shutdown was centered around Democrats wanting to extend ACA subsidies cut in previous legislation. So, don't blame the loss of SNAP funding on Trump or the GOP!
As for free school lunches for all students, I cannot understand why families receiving SNAP benefits aren't feeding their children breakfast (now offered in many public schools) and lunches. What are the SNAP funds being used for if not to feed their children?? Then there's the ridiculous eligibility "requirements." We currently qualify for SNAP benefits because we are living on one person's SS income until my spouse begins collecting. We have ample retirement and 401k reserves to draw from as needed until both of us have SS income. SNAP does NOT require documentation for anything but one's actual income. Why should we apply for SNAP when we have funds available to us elsewhere? How many people are tapping the system because they can?
As someone else here commented, there is nothing wrong with re-evaluating a family's eligibility or asking them to work part-time. SNAP, housing, and other social benefits use has escalated as part of a societal problem. Single motherhood and an attitude of complacency (no shame) about living on government assistance have escalated participation. I'm not advocating "shaming" individuals who fall on difficult times and need TEMPORARY assistance. But what we have witnessed social programs transition into since their inception decades ago cannot, and should not, continue.
Sunday, December 28, 2025 Report this
pattybeenutty
conrope, SNAP does not cover sweets, soda, or other junk food. The problem with obesity is that the kiddos live on bread and carbs.
They have very little protein because the money they receive does not afford them the necessities of the middle class.
Sunday, December 28, 2025 Report this
pattybeenutty
For information concerning the SNAP benefit for food.
A family of four making $3,380 a month gets $994 a month to help feed their family. They are expected to pay 30% of their 3,380 on food, along with the $994.
You try doing that!
A person making $1,631 a month will receive $23.00.
These are some of our PTS veterans getting nothing for their service in the war.
Sunday, December 28, 2025 Report this
Bill
{Sonali Kolhatkar is host and executive producer of Rising Up With Sonali, an independent, subscriber-based syndicated TV and radio show. She’s an award winning journalist and author of Talking About Abolition: A Police Free World is Possible} . A police free world tells me all I need to know about this journalist.
Tuesday, December 30, 2025 Report this