Tag: food

Illegal Aliens Milk SNAP For Taxpayer-Funded Free Food

Many illegal aliens who are not eligible for SNAP benefits were nonetheless saved from scrambling for food Friday when a judge forced funding for the program to continue in November.

Both the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) and the Women, Infants, and Children (WIC) have been under threat as the budget impasse in Congress continues. SNAP was slated for suspension on Nov. 1 when the federal SNAP funding mechanism ran out. An appropriation bill must be passed to fund it.

But Judge Indira Talwani has ordered the USDA to use contingency funds to pay for SNAP at least partially, and to find more funds to fully fund it. “And while these contingency funds reportedly are insufficient to cover the entire cost of SNAP for November, [the USDA] also may supplement the Contingency Funds by authorizing a transfer of additional funds,” Indira wrote Friday.

A better solution would be to end the government shutdown and pass an appropriation bill to fund the government (a solution Democrats are loath to adopt). But while government workers miss paychecks and federal services are shut down, taxpayers are still feeding many illegal aliens.

Data from the Center for Immigration Studies (CIS) shows that many households led by illegal aliens who are not personally eligible for SNAP would be hit if a SNAP free food freeze is ever allowed to happen. In many cases they have been receiving SNAP for their children, born in the U.S. after the mother illegally entered or overstayed in the U.S.

Keep reading

These Are The States Where Most Americans Need Housing Assistance

Housing costs keep climbing faster than wages in many parts of the U.S., putting extra pressure on low-income renters.

This visualization, via Visual Capitalist’s Pallavi Rao, maps all 50 states, the District of Columbia, and Puerto Rico by how many low-income renters receive federal housing assistance relative to their population.

Data is sourced from the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development’s Office of Policy Development and Research (HUD).

HUD’s 2024 estimates count more than 9 million Americans (27 per 1,000) currently receiving vouchers, public-housing units, or other subsidies.

Households typically pay 30% of their adjusted income (i.e. after taxes) as rent, and the government covers the rest.

Ranked: Americans Needing Rental Assistance, by State

D.C. stands out with 72 assisted renters per 1,000 residents.

That’s more than double the U.S. average of 27 and reflects both DC’s high housing costs, its population growth since 2000, and the limited growth in housing in the same time period.

Keep reading

About 1 in 5 Kids Are at Risk of Losing SNAP. Centralized Control Keeps Failing Low-Income Families.

The federal government shutdown is disrupting major federal programs, including the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP). Now one in five children nationwide risks losing benefits because Congress has failed to pass a budget. On October 30, a federal judge ordered the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) to draw from SNAP’s contingency fund to cover payments, but that fund holds roughly $5–6 billion—barely enough to cover three weeks of payments for a program that spends more than $8 billion each month. 

The ongoing deadlock highlights SNAP’s fragility due to its near-total reliance on federal funding. More importantly, its chronic dependency on Washington’s one-size-fits-all solutions has left it failing the very children it’s supposed to help. The best way to ensure healthy outcomes for kids and protect them from the partisan crossfire of D.C. politicking is to break the federal grip on nutrition programs.

Washington has become a permanent fixture of childhood in low-income America. The N in SNAP stands for “nutrition,” but federal food aid has routinely failed to deliver healthy diets for low-income families despite nearly $2 trillion in spending since 2000. Almost one-quarter of food purchases by SNAP households are for junk food, which undermines the efforts of doctors and other federal agencies to promote healthy diets. SNAP participants also have higher rates of obesity and poorer nutrition than nonparticipants, regularly failing to meet dietary guidelines while performing poorly on key health indicators. All of this has helped drive child obesity to nearly one in five children and adolescents as of 2020.

SNAP may provide assistance to families, but a program that consistently fails to deliver positive outcomes for the children it aims to serve falls far short of its purpose.

We’ve seen this problem before—and its solution. Like SNAP, Congress designed Aid to Families with Dependent Children (AFDC) to assist low-income households, but its structure created perverse incentives that encouraged single motherhood, punished work, and trapped families in dependency for years. The 1996 welfare reforms replaced AFDC with Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF), a fixed block grant program that provided states with much-needed flexibility to innovate and tailor their programs to fit the needs of their residents.

States leveraged TANF’s block grant flexibility by shifting funds from pure cash assistance to targeted supports such as childcare subsidies, job training, and education programs. These reforms helped parents—especially single mothers—overcome employment barriers and increase their income. The results surpassed everyone’s predictions. Within a decade, more than 1.6 million children were lifted out of poverty. Additionally, poverty in single-mother families fell to record lows, and overall poverty and child hunger declined substantially. All of this occurred while welfare caseloads declined by more than half.

By converting SNAP into a block grant and gradually decoupling it from federal dollars, states would be able to take on decision-making and responsibility for their programs, controlling funding and tailoring solutions to the needs of their low-income families. Just as TANF prioritized economic independence and employment, state SNAP reforms could prioritize better health and self-sufficiency.

The current shutdown should serve as a catalyst for Congress to reassess the federal role in welfare. Children shouldn’t go hungry because Congress can’t govern—nor should they be dependent on the D.C. bureaucracy for their food. SNAP’s centralization and reliance on federal dollars have caused it to fail at meeting the nutritional needs of children, and now, millions of families face the prospect of sudden benefit disruptions.

Congress should stop treating Americans as collateral damage in their fight over extending Obamacare subsidies and end the shutdown immediately. While restoring federal funding will avoid immediate disruptions to benefits, Congress should also reform welfare to ensure it helps rather than hinders the families who rely on it. 

SNAP is outdated. Congress should devolve funding and administration to the states, allowing them to pursue more effective nutrition policies for low-income families.

Keep reading

Trump: ‘I Do NOT Want Americans to Go Hungry’ — Seeks Way to Pay SNAP, Gives Out Schumer’s Number

President Donald Trump said Friday he has instructed government lawyers to seek immediate court guidance on how to legally continue payments for the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) amid the ongoing government shutdown, as the program faces imminent funding delays while Democrats refuse to pass a clean spending bill.

“Our Government lawyers do not think we have the legal authority to pay SNAP with certain monies we have available, and now two Courts have issued conflicting opinions on what we can and cannot do,” Trump wrote on Truth Social. “I do NOT want Americans to go hungry just because the Radical Democrats refuse to do the right thing and REOPEN THE GOVERNMENT.”

The president explained he has instructed lawyers “to ask the Court to clarify how we can legally fund SNAP as soon as possible,” warning that even with an immediate resolution, benefits may be delayed as states process payments. “If we are given the appropriate legal direction by the Court,” Trump declared, “it will BE MY HONOR to provide the funding, just like I did with Military and Law Enforcement Pay.”

Several days ago, Vice President JD Vance confirmed that U.S. troops would continue receiving paychecks during the shutdown, following a $130 million private donation accepted by the Department of War to cover military salaries.

The message follows warnings that the Democrat-led shutdown could halt November SNAP payments. Speaker Mike Johnson (R-LA) noted Thursday was the Democrats’ “15th chance” to reopen the government, warning that their continued opposition to a clean continuing resolution would cause benefits to “run dry.”

The U.S. Department of Agriculture previously cautioned that it lacks sufficient funds to issue November benefits, with a contingency reserve of $5 billion falling short of the $8 billion needed to sustain the program. Several governors, including Virginia’s Glenn Youngkin (R), have declared emergencies over the looming lapse.

The Washington Post editorial board this week faulted Democrats for prolonging the shutdown, writing that it is “wrong that Democrats have held the government hostage” over demands to extend Obamacare subsidies. The paper warned that if the standoff persists, “families could start to go hungry.”

Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-NY), Sen. Cory Booker (D-NJ), and fellow Democrats, including Sens. Alex Padilla (D-CA), Mark Kelly (D-AZ), and Mazie Hirono (D-HI) have argued that Trump could use emergency funds to continue SNAP, claiming he has “billions” at his disposal but is “choosing not to use them.” Rep. Andy Kim (D-NJ), meanwhile, accused Republicans of refusing to negotiate, stating that “Republicans control the House, the Senate, and the White House” and should “bring the House back into session to work and negotiate for the people they claim to serve.”

Trump rejected that characterization in his Truth Social message Friday: “The Democrats should quit this charade where they hurt people for their own political reasons, and immediately REOPEN THE GOVERNMENT.”

He ended his post by urging Americans who rely on SNAP to pressure Democrats directly: “Call the Senate Democrats, and tell them to reopen the Government, NOW! Here is Cryin’ Chuck Schumer’s Office Number: (202) 224-6542.”

Keep reading

President Trump Responds to Judge’s Ruling on SNAP Benefits

President Trump on Friday evening responded to a judge’s ruling on SNAP benefits.

More than 40 million Americans rely on SNAP benefits, and the $5 billion emergency fund was not enough to cover the program for November.

Unions and nonprofit groups filed a lawsuit against the US Department of Agriculture earlier this week ahead of the November 1 cutoff.

Funds for the SNAP benefits are drying up because Schumer and the Democrats refuse to vote for the clean CR bill to reopen the government.

US District Judge John McConnell, an Obama appointee, ordered Trump on Friday to use the emergency funds for the SNAP program.

A separate federal judge in Massachusetts ruled the USDA has the power to fund SNAP benefits.

Separately, Judge Indira Talwani, also an Obama appointee, stopped just short of issuing a Temporary Restraining Order and said she will hold a hearing on Monday.

President Trump said two courts issued conflicting opinions on how the SNAP benefits can be funded during the shutdown, so he instructed DOJ lawyers to ask the court to clarify how his administration can legally fund the program.

“Our Government lawyers do not think we have the legal authority to pay SNAP with certain monies we have available, and now two Courts have issued conflicting opinions on what we can and cannot do. I do NOT want Americans to go hungry just because the Radical Democrats refuse to do the right thing and REOPEN THE GOVERNMENT,” President Trump said on Truth Social.

“Therefore, I have instructed our lawyers to ask the Court to clarify how we can legally fund SNAP as soon as possible. It is already delayed enough due to the Democrats keeping the Government closed through the monthly payment date and, even if we get immediate guidance, it will unfortunately be delayed while States get the money out,” Trump said.

President Trump dropped Schumer’s office number!

“If we are given the appropriate legal direction by the Court, it will BE MY HONOR to provide the funding, just like I did with Military and Law Enforcement Pay. The Democrats should quit this charade where they hurt people for their own political reasons, and immediately REOPEN THE GOVERNMENT. If you use SNAP benefits, call the Senate Democrats, and tell them to reopen the Government, NOW! Here is Cryin’ Chuck Schumer’s Office Number: (202) 224-6542,” Trump added.

Keep reading

Cancer-Causing Drug Banned in Most Countries Still Allowed in U.S. Pork

Cancer remains one of the leading causes of death worldwide, with new cases rising steadily each year. That reality makes it all the more alarming when carcinogens are knowingly allowed to enter the food supply.

In the U.S., one example involves a feed additive used in pig farming that experts have already determined is unsafe at any level of exposure.

The concern is not limited to pork on your plate. Farm workers handling animal feed are directly exposed, and surrounding communities face contamination as waste from large-scale operations seeps into waterways.

When a compound carries risks for consumers, workers and the environment alike, the failure to act quickly carries consequences far beyond the farm.

Many countries have already responded by banning the additive outright, while American regulators have delayed meaningful action for decades. That leaves U.S. consumers vulnerable to a hazard others deemed unacceptable long ago.

This gap between science and policy has sparked closer investigation. Researchers and advocacy groups have examined how the additive persists in the food system and why regulators have been unwilling — or unable — to remove it. Their findings reveal how ongoing delays keep you at risk.

Keep reading

Judges Order Trump Admin to Fund SNAP — There’s Just One Problem

Two federal judges have just ruled that the Trump administration must use contingency funds for the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP).

Two federal judges ruled nearly simultaneously on Friday that President Donald Trump’s administration must to continue to fund SNAP, the nation’s biggest food aid program, using contingency funds during the government shutdown.

The rulings came a day before the U.S. Department of Agriculture planned to freeze payments to the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program because it said it could no longer keep funding it due to the shutdown.

The program serves about 1 in 8 Americans and is a major piece of the nation’s social safety net. Word in October that it would be a Nov. 1 casualty of the shutdown sent states, food banks and SNAP recipients scrambling to figure out how to secure food. Some states said they would spend their own funds to keep versions of the program going.

The Trump administration has long said it doesn’t have the legal authority to use the contingency funds to pay for SNAP benefits during the prolonged Schumer Shutdown.

Keep reading

Federal Judge Weighs Forcing USDA to Pay SNAP Benefits Despite Shutdown

A federal judge considered ordering the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) to tap into a $5 billion contingency fund to avoid a lapse in the national food stamp program on Oct. 30.

U.S. District Judge Indira Talwani, during a hearing in Boston, said the government should find a way to continue giving limited benefits to recipients of the Supplemental Nutrition and Assistance Program (SNAP), rather than cutting it off completely.

“The steps involve finding an equitable way of reducing benefits,” she said.

Talwani is expected to issue a ruling by the end of Oct. 30.

Approximately 1 in 8 Americans benefit from SNAP, and at a cost of around $100 billion per year, it is one of the country’s most amply funded social service initiatives.

On Oct. 10, the USDA informed states that it would not disburse benefits for November because of the government shutdown.

The program is set to run out of funding on Nov. 1 if the shutdown continues. Senate Democrats have declined to support a House-passed bill to fund the government, and earlier this week, Republicans did not support a bill that provided standalone funding for SNAP.

As Republicans and Democrats continue to face off on the issue of reopening the government, 25 states sued on Oct. 27, insisting that the USDA could harness the $5 billion emergency fund to keep the program going.

However, Speaker Mike Johnson (R-La.) said this was illegal on Oct. 27, noting that those funds were meant to pay for school meals and infant formula.

A memo from the USDA echoed Johnson’s statement, noting that the emergency fund—along with $23 billion in tariff revenue—is being used to cover school breakfast and lunch programs, along with the Women and Infant Children (WIC) program, which provides infant formula and healthy foods to babies and their mothers.

That memo also notes that state governments cannot be reimbursed if they choose to cover SNAP benefits, a program that costs about $8 billion per month. Some states, such as Virginia, are planning to launch their own stop-gap programs to ensure food security.

The plaintiff states argue that, in addition to harming the tens of millions of Americans who rely on SNAP, the program’s suspension will harm the businesses where they shop.

Attorneys for the government argue that the program cannot be funded during the shutdown, since this is a violation of the Antideficiency Act, which dictates how the government operates during a funding lapse and “forbids the United States from making such an obligation without an appropriation.”

Keep reading

How China could use U.S. farmland to attack America

Chinese entities have been acquiring land in key locations near U.S. military bases, sparking national security concerns about possible spying — or even a potential attack.

Former national security official David Feith laid out the potential risk in an interview with 60 Minutes. Feith worked on U.S.-China policy for the State Department in the first Trump administration, and until April, worked in Trump’s second administration on the National Security Council. While there, he grew increasingly alarmed by where China owns America’s farmland. 
 
“The ability to own large tracts of land, especially close to sensitive U.S. military and government facilities, can pose an enormous problem given the nature of technology today, which is that hostile actor from all across the world can very easily exploit access to land, access to buildings and warehouses, access just to a shipping container or two and do enormous damage, either in intelligence terms or in military terms,” Feith told 60 Minutes.

Feith cited Ukraine’s recent drone attack in Russia as an example. In June, the Ukrainian military attacked Russian nuclear-capable bombers with remotely operated drones it had smuggled into the country.

For China, Feith explained, owning farmland in the United States gives America’s geopolitical rival more operating room for potential strikes.

“It’s an entirely new way of war,” he cautioned.

Keep reading

3 Reasons Why Zohran Mamdani’s City-Run Grocery Stores Will Fail

New York City Mayoral candidate Zohran Mamdani says City Hall needs to get into the grocery business because New Yorkers are being “priced out” of private supermarkets. If elected, Mamdani says he’ll spend $60 million on opening one government-run grocery store in each of the five boroughs that would deliver healthier produce at lower prices. Here’s why that’s a terrible idea.

1. Mamdani-Marts Can’t Compete With Discount Grocery Chains

Mamdani says that New Yorkers should think of city-run grocery stores as a “public option” that would deliver cheaper food by saving on rent and taxes. And they wouldn’t need to make a profit.

Except profit margins for grocery stores are typically below 2 percent, and private grocers keep costs down by utilizing complex supply chains and economies of scale that Mamdani’s stores won’t have access to.

“The grocery business is really tough,” says Scott Lincicome, who is the vice president of general economics at the Cato Institute. Private grocery stores provide “a vast variety of fresh frozen produce and other goods that everybody wants all the time, which is actually really difficult to do, particularly at reasonably low prices.” In Kansas City, a government-run grocery store scheme lost nearly $900,000 just last year. 

Lincicome says that if New York politicians want to give their constituents access to cheaper groceries, they could allow Walmart in the Big Apple. But New York politicians have used zoning regulations to keep the nation’s largest and most affordable supermarket from opening a store anywhere in the five boroughs. 

“Walmart is the absolute leader in supply chain efficiencies,” Lincicome told Reason. It “does this via a truly global network of warehouses and trucks and airplanes and all of these amazing things that shave off fractions of a penny off of every transaction.” The idea that New York “could somehow try to replicate Walmart’s global supply chain and entire business model is just laughable.”

2. New York Has Fewer “Food Deserts” Than Any Other City 

Mamdani says his grocery stores will help address the problem of neighborhoods lacking easy access to fresh food. But Lincicome cites a recent study showing that “ranked the Big Apple the No. 1 U.S. metro area in terms of residents’ ‘equitable access’ to a local supermarket.”

“You can basically walk almost everywhere in New York City in 10 minutes and find a grocery store,” he told Reason.

Lincicome cites multiple studies (1, 2, 3) showing that new grocery stores don’t improve food access. But this is old news: In 2012, Reason covered three earlier studies that exploded the myth that adding neighborhood supermarkets improves the diets of their surrounding communities.

3. It’s a waste of money

Mamdani said that he is going to pay for his grocery stores by “redirecting” $140 million worth of city funding that is already being spent subsidizing corporate grocers. As the Washington Examiner’s Timothy Carney was the first to notice, that number is based on a misreading of a city website. The city subsidizes some private grocery stores at a cost of about $3.3 million per year.. As some Bronx residents told Fox News‘ Kennedy in a new video published by Reason, the city should focus instead on helping the homeless, dealing with “rats the size of cats,” and cleaning “all of the needles on the street.”

Direct assistance is a more cost-effective and less destructive way to support low-income households than government-run supermarkets, and it’s something the federal government already does in abundance. Through the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP), or food stamps, 1.79 million New Yorkers—20 percent of the city’s population—receive help purchasing groceries each month.

As one New Yorker told Kennedy in Reason‘s latest video, “you’re focusing on the wrong things, Mamdani.”

Keep reading