AMERICA CAN’T CUT ITS WAY OUT OF HUNGER
Those in Need to Pay The Price of This Administrations Ineptitude
The Trump administration promised government accountability. But its SNAP policies raise a troubling question: Who pays the price when Washington confuses cutting spending with solving problems?
By Pragmatic Issues | November 11, 2026
There is nothing wrong with reforming government assistance programs.
Taxpayers deserve accountability. Fraud should be investigated. Government spending should be scrutinised, and programs should be evaluated to determine whether they are accomplishing their intended purpose.
But there is an enormous difference between responsible reform and cutting assistance without adequately addressing the realities of the people who depend on it.
And that as it turns out, really matters when the subject is food.
The new SNAP cuts are akin to what domestic violence charges were many years ago before reforms were put into place. It's the one box fits all scenario and it does not work.
President Donald Trump and his administration have made reducing government spending, strengthening work requirements, and tightening eligibility central elements of their approach to the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, commonly known as SNAP.
These priorities reflect longstanding conservative arguments about government dependency, fiscal responsibility, and encouraging employment.
Those arguments deserve consideration.
But, so do the facts.
And the facts raise serious questions about whether the administration has adequately accounted for the consequences of its decisions.
Poverty Does Not Mean Unemployment
One of the most persistent misconceptions surrounding government assistance is that people receiving benefits simply aren’t working.
That assumption overlooks millions of Americans who work but still struggle to afford basic necessities.
A person can have a job and remain poor.
A parent can work full-time and still struggle with rent, child care, transportation, utilities, and groceries.
An older American can have spent decades in the workforce and still face financial insecurity.
Someone can lose a job through no fault of his/her own and struggle with rent, child care when going to interviews, transportation costs, utilities and groceries. Right now millions of American's are looking for work and are not getting hired.
And someone living with a disability may face limitations that cannot be solved simply by demanding additional employment.
These aren’t excuses for avoiding responsibility. They are economic realities that public policy must account for.
If the objective is to reduce dependency, shouldn’t the government first examine why employment isn’t always sufficient to provide financial stability?
Shouldn’t policymakers consider wages, housing costs, child care expenses, and access to transportation before assuming additional work requirements will solve the problem?
Think about that, shouldn't policymakers consider those things does not matter because that would require them to actually think, come up with solutions and meet with each other somewhere in the middle?
We are punishing people for economic circumstances that the policy itself does nothing to change.
The Numbers Should Concern Everyone
The Congressional Budget Office estimates that the SNAP provisions enacted in 2025 will reduce federal spending by approximately $187 billion through 2034.
Now the administration is proposing another significant eligibility change.
According to reporting published November 10, the administration estimates that approximately 6.3 million people could lose SNAP eligibility under the new proposal.
The proposed changes could also affect access to free school meals for approximately 1.8 million children.
These are not insignificant consequences.
And while proponents argue that tighter eligibility rules would direct assistance toward those most in need, that claim should be tested against the financial circumstances of households that stand to lose benefits.
How many are employed?
How many are supporting children?
How many are older adults living on limited incomes?
How many need assistance because of a layoff?
How many would remain unable to afford adequate groceries despite earning too much to qualify?
These are the questions that should guide reform.
And it's abundantly clear that this administration used not a single brain cell when deciding to cut SNAP benefits.
Reducing the number of people receiving assistance is not, by itself, evidence that fewer people need assistance.
Accountability Requires More Than Cutting a Budget
The administration has emphasized program integrity and reducing improper payments.
Those are legitimate objectives.
But improper payments and fraud are not synonymous.
An administrative error can result from incorrect calculations, incomplete documentation, or mistakes made by agencies or applicants. Deliberate fraud involves intentional deception.
A government genuinely committed to accountability should distinguish between the two.
It should also examine whether additional paperwork, stricter verification requirements, and reduced administrative resources create new obstacles for eligible households.
A program cannot be judged solely by how much money it saves.
It must also be judged by whether it continues to serve the people it was designed to help.
Washington Should Understand the Lives Its Policies Affect
This is where I believe the administration’s approach deserves its greatest scrutiny.
It is possible to support stronger employment expectations while recognising that employment opportunities are not equally available everywhere. To that point ask anyone who has been looking for work how easy it's been to find work that will pay the bills the last two years, let alone just the basics without assistance?
The administration is ignoring issues just so they can say they cut spending, but at what cost? We starve people to death now in the United States? That's cool?
It is possible to oppose fraud while acknowledging that most people receiving assistance should not automatically be treated as dishonest.
And it is possible to believe government spending needs reform without assuming that every reduction represents progress.
The administration’s expanded work requirements also limit the circumstances under which states can obtain waivers for areas with insufficient employment opportunities.
That raises an obvious concern.
What happens when someone is willing to work but cannot find enough available hours or suitable employment?
What happens when transportation is unreliable, child care is unaffordable, or a person’s employer reduces their schedule?
Government policy should recognize the difference between refusing to work and being unable to satisfy a rigid requirement.
Otherwise, the policy may succeed in reducing enrollment without accomplishing its stated objective of improving economic independence.
Hunger Is Not a Budget Strategy
There is another consequence that deserves our attention.
When federal assistance decreases, the need for food does not necessarily disappear.
Families may turn to food banks, charitable organisations, churches, schools, and local governments. Those organisations have been running low for the past two years by the way so they may not be able to help.
States may face additional financial pressure as federal funding responsibilities shift.
Communities already struggling with affordability may be asked to absorb costs that federal policy has reduced or transferred.
That isn’t necessarily eliminating a problem.
It may simply be moving the problem somewhere else.
And the people caught between those decisions are not statistics on a federal spreadsheet.
They are Americans trying to feed themselves and their families.
Reform Should Begin With Reality
Read that again. Reform should begin with reality, something this administration is so far removed from that they pretend it does not exist.
I do not believe SNAP should be exempt from oversight.
I do not believe every existing eligibility rule is necessarily appropriate.
And I certainly do not believe that government assistance should operate without meaningful safeguards.
But I also do not believe responsible leadership begins with a predetermined spending reduction and treats the human consequences as secondary.
The administration has an obligation to explain not only how much money these policies will save, but what happens to the people who lose assistance and why they made this decision, this is about starving people and accountability.
It should demonstrate whether the changes increase employment, reduce poverty, improve program accuracy, or simply reduce participation.
Those are very different outcomes.
And Americans deserve to know which ones their government is actually achieving.
President Trump and his administration have the authority to pursue their policy priorities within the law.
But authority does not eliminate responsibility.
The American people deserve reforms grounded in evidence, informed by economic reality, and measured by more than the size of a budget reduction.
Because cutting SNAP benefits is relatively straightforward. Addressing the conditions that make SNAP necessary is considerably harder.
And that is the challenge Washington should be willing to confront.
When Immigration Policy Collides With Humanity
There is a legitimate argument that American taxpayers should have a say in how public assistance is distributed and who qualifies for it.
Immigration laws matter. But this administration has taken that way too far.
Eligibility requirements matter.
And a government has every right to establish reasonable boundaries around its assistance programs.
But somewhere in that discussion, we must remember that we are talking about human beings.
We are talking about families.
We are talking about children.
We are talking about people who may have fled violence, persecution, or circumstances most Americans will never experience.
The United States has spent generations condemning governments that disregard human suffering. We have criticised countries for mistreating vulnerable populations and failing to uphold basic human dignity.
What does it say about us if we become indifferent to that same suffering simply because the people experiencing it were born somewhere else?
A child’s hunger does not become less painful because of a parent’s immigration status.
And the need for food does not disappear because a government changes an eligibility requirement.
We can enforce immigration laws without abandoning compassion. We can establish limits on taxpayer-funded benefits while ensuring that families are not left without access to food.
This Administration has ignored the responsibilities of a nation that claims to value both the rule of law and human dignity.
If America expects other nations to respect human dignity, we should be prepared to uphold that same principle ourselves.
And before we close, we must remember another group too often forgotten in conversations about hunger: America’s veterans and military families.
There are men and women who have worn this nation’s uniform, served overseas, witnessed suffering and starvation, and returned home only to face financial hardship themselves. There are active-duty military families who struggle to afford groceries. Service to this country does not always protect a family from poverty.
Our veterans have witnessed what happens when human suffering is ignored. Many have served in places where hunger, displacement, and desperation were part of everyday life.
And now we must ask ourselves what kind of country we are becoming when families here at home face those same fears.
The United States is a nation shaped by immigration. Generations of people have come here seeking safety, opportunity, and the promise of a better life. That history is not erased by disagreements over immigration policy, nor should those disagreements erase our obligation to treat human beings with dignity.
We cannot speak proudly of freedom, sacrifice, and American values while ignoring the suffering of our own citizens, our veterans, our military families, and the immigrants who have helped build this nation.
Our veterans did not all fight for the same political beliefs. They came from different backgrounds, different generations, and different walks of life.
But their service deserves more than patriotic speeches and ceremonial gratitude.
It deserves a country willing to confront hunger, poverty, and human suffering with seriousness and compassion.
Because the measure of a nation is not simply what it is willing to fight for overseas. It is also how it treats the people who are struggling to survive at home.
Sources for publication and fact-checking:
Reuters — November 10 SNAP Proposal
Congressional Budget Office — 2026 Economic Outlook
https://www.cbo.gov/publication/62105
USDA — November 10 Proposed SNAP Work-Requirement Rule
https://fns-prod.azureedge.us/snap/fr-111026b
