Editor’s note: This article was originally published by the Southern Poverty Law Center on September 3, 2026, and was written by Gina Azito Thompson, a policy analyst at the Southern Poverty Law Center. The Southern Poverty Law Center is a member of the Coalition on Human Needs.

Food Security Programs Already Cannot Reach Those in Need

Everyone needs food to live. Nearly 48 million people across the country experienced food insecurity in 2024, meaning they had difficulty providing enough food for all members of their households because of a lack of money or other resources. Public assistance efforts such as the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) are meant to help people experiencing poverty when they need it most by providing monthly cash assistance to people with low incomes to help them afford groceries.  SNAP helps keep people fed, and because of this, SNAP is one of the most effective food assistance programs for reducing hunger, while also allowing recipients to reinvest money back to local businesses.

Who Does SNAP Serve?

In FY 2024, most adults participating in SNAP (56%) were women. Additionally, 39% of participants were children. Nearly 75% of participating children were school age (ages 5-17). Forty-one percent of participants were non-elderly adults. In Alabama, for example, well over half (58%) of the state’s SNAP recipients are children or elderly (age 65 or over). SNAP is a critical lifeline in the Deep South, with over 6.1 million recipients, or 15% of all SNAP households in the country.

Congressional policymakers passed the budget reconciliation bill HR 1 in the summer of 2025. Once fully implemented, it will impact food assistance by cutting federal funding available to states, further endangering people experiencing poverty by weakening programs that help families access necessities like food.

Evidence continually demonstrates the benefits of SNAP assistance during times of food insecurity. From a public health perspective, SNAP helps improve health outcomes related to obesity and diet-related chronic diseases — among the leading causes of death in the U.S. Obesity also increases the risk of other illnesses and disabilities like certain cancers, diabetes and cardiovascular disease.  Additionally, research suggests that stable access to food is associated with improved overall well-being. Elderly participants who received SNAP assistance were less likely to be admitted to a nursing home or hospital compared to those with similar incomes who did not.

SNAP participation can also decrease healthcare expenditures. According to the 2019-2023 American Community Survey, at least 12 million participated in both Medicaid and SNAP, which makes sense given both programs serve people with low incomes. Meaning, participation in SNAP could potentially reduce what Medicaid pays on behalf of participants if participation in SNAP decreases Medicaid expenditures overall.

In short, SNAP keeps adults and children fed and communities healthy. Less food access will also affect the community and local economy, particularly in the rural Deep South. According to the Alabama Grocers Association, for example, SNAP supports 7,800 jobs across the state and around $350 million in wages. Additionally, SNAP supports the economy by supporting grocery retailers.

Food Insecurity Soars Amid Looming Federal Funding Cuts to Food Assistance

Most people experiencing financial hardship are already members of other vulnerable communities, especially Black people, who are directly linked to the history of Jim Crow and slavery-era racism that prevented ancestors from equal opportunity across government assistance programs including healthcare, housing, education and food.

Access to public assistance programs that are purported to be available for those who need them has never been equal, resulting in increased disparities between those who can fully meet their needs during a financial crisis and those who cannot. Throughout history, programs were created to assist people across the country, but the design of certain policies made it difficult for people of color — particularly Black people — to have the same experience accessing and receiving government benefits compared to white people.

1930s — U.S. Federal Housing Administration

The U.S. Federal Housing Administration (FHA) was created during the Great Depression, and one of its primary goals was to insure residential mortgages and extend mortgage loans. However, Black prospective homebuyers were not approved for loans for houses located in the same areas as white communities. The result of this was the divestment of businesses and economic growth in cities, and rapid declines in cities’ white populations in favor of more suburban areas.

1935 — Social Security Act

The Social Security Act of 1935 authorized seven distinct programs, one of which is commonly known as Social Security. The provision established an insurance fund that required both employers and workers to contribute through taxes. After years of paying into the system, workers would receive retirement benefits after reaching age 65. However, agricultural and domestic workers were excluded from eligibility for retirement benefits. Importantly, more than half of the country’s Black population lived in the South during that time, and Black workers were often relegated to working in these fields because of racism and lack of access to equal higher education opportunities. The result was that nearly 65% of Black people across the country were ineligible. While these exemptions were repealed in the 1950s, Black people were unable to access the same benefits as everyone else for over a decade — contributing to the racial income gap that Black people face.

1944 — Serviceman’s Readjustment Act

Following World War II, the 1944 Serviceman’s Readjustment Act (also known as the GI Bill) was supposed to help returning veterans with funding for education and housing.  However, in practice, Black veterans had a more difficult time accessing those benefits. While the GI Bill helped build the white middle class, many Black veterans had a difficult time accessing those same benefits despite serving in the same war. During that time, and even in the present day, education and housing were used to build generational wealth and help families boost wealth.

1972 — Supplemental Security Income

Supplemental Security Income (SSI) provides cash assistance benefits to people with disabilities or people with low incomes. However, people living in U.S. territories (including Puerto Rico, Guam, the U.S. Virgin Islands and American Samoa) are excluded from eligibility. Though the racial and ethnic demographics of these territories vary, most of their residents identify as people of color.

1996 — Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act

The Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act (PRWORA) is a critical piece of legislation that drastically altered assistance programs in the U.S. PRWORA created the state-run, block grant cash assistance program, Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (see below). For example, it tied eligibility of assistance for basic needs to work, established time limits for federally funded aid, and created incentives for states to keep caseloads low. Notably, PRWORA ended families’ individual right to cash assistance. As a result, these restrictions cut off access, especially for Black families across the country.

1996 — Temporary Assistance for Needy Families

The Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) program was created in 1996 and is the nation’s primary form of cash assistance for families with children experiencing poverty. However, the program was preceded by Aid to Dependent Children (1935) — renamed Aid to Families with Dependent Children some 30 years later. In all iterations of cash assistance, one pattern is clear: Black people were (and still are) unable to access cash assistance compared to other races, as they are more frequently denied access. Throughout history, many Southern states denied Black families cash assistance because of false stereotypes about Black parents’ willingness to work.

Photo illustrations by the SPLC (source images from iStock)

The U.S. government has never had an interest in fully meeting the needs of Black people with low incomes, and this is a result of paternalism and racism. As noted, the unwillingness to meet the basic needs of Black people experiencing poverty across all sectors — housing, income, education and food — will continue. Indeed, until policymakers meet the needs of Black people and families with low incomes with an effective and funded safety net, every other vulnerable community will continue to experience disproportionate outcomes compared to those with higher incomes. Notions of “deservingness” and of people being responsible for their circumstances, regardless of broader systemic issues, are designed to make accessing and receiving government benefits difficult and unpleasant.

Racism that led policy decisions of the past still permeates today’s disparities. For example, Black people in the Deep South experience higher rates of poverty compared to white people (and would perhaps be most in need of government assistance). In fact, research finds that poverty rates are above average in states where slavery was most prevalent (such as Louisiana and Mississippi). Federal funding cuts to food assistance come despite almost 48 million people living in food-insecure households across the country as of 2024, including 7.3 million children.

Additionally, people with disabilities on average experience poverty at twice the rate of people without disabilities. Food insecurity can exacerbate or cause disability. Conversely, disabled people are at higher risk of food insecurity. People with disabilities are more likely to have difficulty affording their basic needs because they have higher medical costs and either earn less or cannot work at all.

As such, we know that poverty, food insecurity and poor nutrition are closely intertwined. For example, studies have found more cardiovascular disease and higher overall death rates among those experiencing food insecurity. Poverty forces people and families to make hard choices about their nutrition and other basic needs that may not be met without access to more resources.

Where one lives also affects access to and affordability of food. Research has found that residents in rural communities are more likely to experience poverty as well. In addition, rural areas have fewer grocery stores where they can use their SNAP benefits.

The provisions of HR 1 will force states to shoulder 75% of the administrative cost of running their programs. Historically, there are several ways states can cover budget shortfalls, either by cutting funding or by increasing taxes on income, property, sales, or fuel.

HR 1 Provisions Will Weaken the First Line of Defense for Hungry People and Families

Quick Overview of HR 1 SNAP Provisions

• The largest federal funding cuts to SNAP in history.

• New SNAP work reporting requirements for parents with children over 14 and adults 55-64.

• Reduces eligibility for those based on U.S. residency status (only “green card holders” will be eligible).

• Increases the cost share for states by 25% while decreasing the federal funding provided to run the program by 25%.

The provisions of HR 1 will force states to shoulder 75% of the administrative cost of running their programs, rather than the previous 50/50 federal/state split. In addition, HR 1 implements a new payment error rate that drastically increases the financial penalty states must pay if they inaccurately distribute food assistance to program participants. The payment error rate is calculated by the sum of overpayments (when a household receives more aid than they are entitled), underpayments (when a household receives less aid than they are entitled) and payments to households later deemed ineligible for assistance, and comparing that percentage against a 6% federal threshold.

In economics, one common response to increasing costs is cutting back on consumption. Across the Deep South, we are already seeing this decrease in the number of people participating in SNAP programs, regardless of whether their food insecurity and circumstances that qualified them for SNAP are fully addressed (see Table 1).

Even in 2026, SNAP plays an outsized role in assisting people and families with unstable access to food (see Table 1). In addition, SNAP is critically important in rural America. According to the Food Research and Action Center, 1 in 7 rural households rely on SNAP. Rural communities are also more vulnerable to economic divestment, increasing residents’ reliance on food assistance following the disappearance of employment opportunities.

Weaponized Food and Weakened Government Food Assistance

Food is a basic need not just for survival but for thriving, supported by evidence demonstrating the importance of food and nutrition for both adults and children. For example, studies have found that infants have improved birth outcomes like higher birth weights and decreased neonatal mortality. The improved birth outcomes were particularly apparent for both white and Black people, with larger impacts for Black parents.

SNAP has a positive impact on adults as well. Older adults who participated in SNAP were more likely to be able to afford and use their prescription medication as directed instead of rationing or going without.

Recent estimates suggest that SNAP participation was down by at least 4.5 million people between July 2025 and April 2026. This is concerning since SNAP needs to be able to respond to food insecurity, according to 2026 research released by Feeding America, a nonprofit hunger-relief organization in the United States. Further, the USDA Economic Research Service predicts that food prices will increase by 3.1% in both 2026 and 2027. This is also happening at a time when wages have not kept pace with inflation, which reached its highest level in three years as of April 2026.

The latest iteration of the purposeful weakening of government programs was HR 1. Its SNAP provisions will further weaken the program’s mandate to support people and families experiencing financial crises by providing stable access to food and nutrition.

HR 1: Another Drop in the Ocean of Exclusionary Policy

As noted, several other assistance programs throughout history followed the same pattern as HR 1. These programs were advertised as available to those who needed it, but when the time came to apply, insurmountable barriers often kept Black people from ever receiving aid. Or, if Black people did qualify, there were many administrative requirements to dissuade people from relying on assistance.

HR 1 is another attempt to keep people from food aid. For example, HR 1 expands time limits and work requirements. Under previous federal law (HR 3746), certain adults without dependents were limited to three months of SNAP benefits every three years unless they met a 20-hour-per-week work requirement or qualified for an exemption.  Parents or caregivers with children over age 14 and adults ages 55-64, veterans, adults experiencing homelessness, and youth aging out of foster care are included in meeting the work requirements in exchange for food assistance.

To continue receiving food assistance, these participants must comply and document that they are meeting the requirements. However, research finds that most participants in SNAP are already working. In 2023, the American Community Survey confirmed that more than 80% of families that receive SNAP had at least one person working in the past 12 months before receiving benefits. The jobs and employment available often offer little control over the hours worked and minimal growth potential — which created the financial crisis and need for food assistance to begin with. And prioritizing work requirements rather than addressing the goals and needs of families through career and technical education opportunities creates a cycle that is not sustainable. In 2022, more than 1 in 5 workers who worked in home health or personal care, or as school bus monitors, agricultural graders and sorters or domestic workers, were also participating in SNAP.

In addition to impacting adults and families, work requirements are costly for administrators, and with the increased requirement, the cost demands on administrators are predicted to increase. Notably, HR 1 cut even more federal funding for SNAP benefits while shifting the fiscal responsibility to states.

States will be required to carry the burden of paying an increased portion of benefits themselves beginning in 2028, which will exacerbate disparities. States across the country, including in the Deep South, are already stressed about their state budgets, like Alabama and Florida.

Conclusion

SNAP is a critical lifeline to stable food access for millions of people and families across the country. Policymakers should be focused on helping people access food amid the soaring costs of the basics. Instead, they have continued the long legacy of policies like PRWORA through the new components of HR 1 that keep families from food and other necessities. As a result, every state and local district has households that report experiencing food insecurity — nearly 48 million people in the U.S. are food insecure.