logo
Funding cuts threaten to deepen hunger crisis in U.S. as rising costs send more families to food banks

Funding cuts threaten to deepen hunger crisis in U.S. as rising costs send more families to food banks

NEW YORK — The Campaign Against Hunger was already struggling to feed thousands of families a week when the Trump administration pulled more than $1.3 million in grants.
Demand has only increased at the New York nonprofit since the city emerged from the COVID-19 pandemic and the related economic insecurity. In a first for the pantry, however, it isn't just the jobless lining up for its fresh produce and meats. It's working people, too.
Food banks typically see the most need during periods of high unemployment and yet the U.S. is facing down a hunger crisis during a relatively resilient labor market. The latest U.S. Department of Agriculture research showed there were 1 million more food-insecure households in 2023 than in 2022.
Now, income stagnation and rising living costs are sending wage earners to food banks across the country — all as the federal government shuts off funding streams that provide millions with healthier, harder-to-get groceries. The squeeze comes as Republicans discuss budget plans that hunger relief groups fear will deepen the crisis by slashing food stamp spending.
'We were already in a bad state. But now we have been plunged head-down into a crisis that should never have been,' said Melony Samuels, executive director of The Campaign Against Hunger. 'If major cuts like these continue, I would imagine that our doors will close.'
Funding cuts began threatening food availability in March.
The USDA halted $500 million of expected food deliveries and cut another $1 billion for hunger relief programs supporting local producers. The Department of Homeland Security also rescinded Federal Emergency Management Agency grants for local governments and nonprofits — including Campaign Against Hunger — to shelter and feed newly arrived noncitizen migrants after their release.
'Secretary [Kristi] Noem has directed FEMA to implement additional controls to ensure that all grant money going out is consistent with law and does not go to fraud, waste or abuse, as in the past,' DHS Assistant Secretary Tricia McLaughlin said in a statement.
Samuels said her nonprofit is limiting normally twice-a-month food distributions to once a month due to the lost funds, which are being withheld amid what she called 'baseless allegations' from DHS that the nonprofit might have broken laws against transporting migrants in the country illegally.
That means fewer nutritious options for the dozens of people — some holding babies, many pushing carts — who recently waited to shop inside Campaign Against Hunger's Brooklyn mock-store on an overcast weekday in April.
Longtime Brooklyn resident Kim Dennis has noticed the uptick in need. On top of her Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program benefits, the 65-year-old retiree visits Campaign Against Hunger twice a month for groceries such as potatoes and pork chops that are more difficult to find at other food banks, which are often filled with canned goods.
'The lines are getting a lot, a lot, a lot, a lot,' Dennis said, partially due to recent immigration waves. 'Everything is going up and a lot of us cannot afford [it].'
Over half of responding food banks told Feeding America, the country's largest hunger-relief network, that they served more neighbors this February than the same month last year.
Christiana Santamaria said she visits a local food bank in Alameda, Calif., each week to feed herself, her husband and their daughter. They struggle to cover food costs, internet bills and car payments with a monthly household income of nearly $3,000.
'I mean, my husband, he works full-time. He has a quote-unquote 'good job.' But I mean, it's the military. And if even the military can't afford things, that's sad,' she said.
Feeding America is also feeling the strain.
The network consists of more than 200 member food banks. Their assistance is often easier to obtain than government benefits such as SNAP that some advocates say require burdensome applications. Many families put dinner on the table through a combination of the two — a strategy food bank leaders say could be upended if Republican lawmakers cut SNAP allotments or expand work requirements.
Houston Food Bank Chief Executive Brian Greene expects his organization, which operates the largest distribution among Feeding America partners, to lose somewhere around $4 million this year.
The government pullbacks amp up that pressure. If the cuts stay, Greene said, the projected losses include $3 million for food storage and distribution, $7 million supporting local farmers and producers, and 40 tractor trailer loads a month carrying key produce and protein.
Greene is trying to make up the difference through donations. But he's realistic. Surveys consistently place American philanthropy around 2% of gross domestic product and social services receive just a sliver of that. Even if charitable contributions spiked, he said, they couldn't replace federal support.
That makes SNAP availability even more critical to alleviating hunger. Cutting the program by 11%, he said, would be the equivalent of wiping out every food bank in the United States.
Food purchases are funded through the Farm Bill. Trump's trade war has also generated more money for USDA to buy food commodities under a 1935 program that dedicates tariff collections toward 'bonus' food purchases.
What concerns hunger relief groups, however, is that the suspended purchases are covered by a different funding pot that allows the USDA great discretion when responding to economic disruptions. The first Trump administration put more than $2 billion of those funds toward the Emergency Food Assistance Program, or TEFAP. However, USDA is now reviewing $500 million allocated last fall for the program.
Federal commodities programs provide some of the most reliable supplies of proteins. Vince Hall, who leads government relations for Feeding America, said TEFAP-purchased foods account for more than 20% of everything distributed by the entire network. That number rises in rural communities — where the cost of reaching distant populations is higher and donated products are less available.
The impact trickles down to smaller pantries that rely on larger food banks. Mother Hubbard's Cupboard is bracing for about 25% food reductions from a Feeding America partner in Bloomington, Ind.
'What we're likely to see then would be a dip in what are really the nutritional staples that we expect in the pantry,' said Mother Hubbard's Cupboard President Megan Betz.
A 2022 study measuring food pantries' value suggests participating families obtain between $600 and $1,000 annually from them. That's equivalent to a couple of months of food for some low-income households, according to co-author David Just, an applied economics professor at Cornell University.
The centers helped cushion families from the pandemic's economic shocks. But food insecurity started rising as the government rolled back its pandemic-era assistance.
Need has surpassed the height of COVID-19, according to Alameda County Community Food Bank Executive Director Reggie Young. The weight of the Oakland nonprofit's annual food distributions has doubled its pre-pandemic totals.
Food insecurity nationwide is the highest it's been in about a decade, according to Just, making it 'potentially a really difficult time to start cutting food assistance through the pantries.'
'This could cause some pretty significant pain,' he said. 'And I don't know that we're delivering something more efficient in the end.'
Pollard writes for the Associated Press. AP journalist Terry Chea in San Francisco contributed to this report.

Orange background

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Comments

No comments yet...

Related Articles

Bondi says violent LA protesters will face federal charges
Bondi says violent LA protesters will face federal charges

Politico

time18 minutes ago

  • Politico

Bondi says violent LA protesters will face federal charges

At least nine people are facing federal charges for their involvement in protests against immigration enforcement in Los Angeles, Attorney General Pam Bondi said Monday. Demonstrators face charges for attacking police with Molotov cocktails, looting and spitting on law enforcement, Bondi said in a TV interview. 'We are going to prosecute them federally,' she said in an interview on Fox News. 'If California won't protect their law enforcement, we will protect the LAPD and the sheriff's office out there.' Sporadic but at times raucous protests broke out in several parts of the Los Angeles area in recent days, prompting President Donald Trump to deploy National Guard troops and Marines despite the fact that Gov. Gavin Newsom and Los Angeles Mayor Karen Bass said the additional forces were not needed. Bondi said the Trump administration planned to take a hard line against demonstrators. 'You spit on a federal law enforcement officer no more,' she said. 'As President Trump said, you spit. we hit. Get ready. If you spit on a federal law enforcement officer, we are going to charge you with a crime federally. You are looking at up to five years maximum in prison.' Those charged already include David Huerta, president of the Service Employees International Union California, who was injured and arrested while protesting the arrest of workers in downtown Los Angeles. He was released Monday from federal custody on a $50,000 bond. The Trump administration's decisive treatment of demonstrators — and the president's focus on punishing those who assault police officers — stands in contrast to his sweeping pardons for roughly 1,500 people who stormed the Capitol on Jan. 6, 2021, seeking to overturn the election. Trump has deployed up to 4,000 soldiers from the California National Guard to help quell the demonstrations over the protests of Newsom and Bass — who say the moves are worsening tensions. The state has sued to reverse the deployments. The White House also ordered 700 Marines to join the National Guard, though it's unclear exactly what role they will play. The San Francisco Chronicle reported on Monday evening that Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem had asked Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth to direct military forces to arrest 'lawbreakers.' DHS did not immediately respond to request for comment from POLITICO, and the Department of Defense declined to comment on the story. 'You can run, you can't hide,' Bondi told Fox. 'We are coming after you federally. If you assault a police officer, if you rob a store, if you loot, if you spit on a police officer, we are coming after you.'

Sending money to family in foreign countries may be taxed more
Sending money to family in foreign countries may be taxed more

Yahoo

time24 minutes ago

  • Yahoo

Sending money to family in foreign countries may be taxed more

Jun. 9—Families hoping to send money to loved ones in other countries may be hit with additional fees from a tax and spending bill proposed by the Trump administration that would slap a 3.5% tax on remittances sent by anyone who is not a U.S. citizen. The "One Big Beautiful Bill Act" passed through the House in May and is now being debated by the Senate. The budget bill has several proposed tax changes, which include taxing money sent from an estimated 40 million non-US citizens — including green card holders, temporary workers and undocumented immigrants — to family and friends in other countries. The bill had a 5% tax but was reduced to 3.5%. The bill is another way the Trump administration is hoping to dissuade immigrants, both documented and undocumented, from coming into the country and moving money out of the U.S. economy. Republicans believe the bill would increase the average take-home pay of U.S. citizens, while Democrats believe the bill and increased taxes are "a transfer of wealth from the working class to the rich," said Daniel Garcia, spokesperson for the Democratic Party of New Mexico. What is a remittance? Remittances refer to sending money from one person to another and is typically done between family members from one country to another. A person living and working in the U.S. would send money to family members typically living in a developing country, where this money is a source of income that contributes to the country's gross domestic product (GDP). Payments are typically sent using an electronic payment service or a money transfer app. Banks, credit unions and money transfer services charge a fee for processing remittances, and fees average 10%, according to the International Monetary Fund. Cryptocurrency exchanges are not as heavily regulated and can be a way to avoid additional taxes and surcharges. "Taxing remittances would amount to a form of double taxation, since migrants already pay taxes in the country where they work," Esteban Moctezuma Barragán, Mexican Ambassador, wrote in a statement. "Imposing a tax on these transfers would disproportionately affect those with the least, without accounting for their ability to pay," Barragán added. However, some believe the 3.5% tax fee would give financial support to public services and is the most "pro-worker, pro-family and pro-American legislation we've seen in decades," said Amy Barela, chairwoman of the Republican Party of New Mexico. "Let's be clear, this measure is not about targeting individuals," she wrote in a statement to the Journal. "It's about ensuring the 3.5% fee, although modest, would also have a very meaningful impact in helping offset costs associated with public services, border security, and community infrastructure — relieving some of the financial pressure on hardworking New Mexicans who continue to bear the burden of an imbalanced system." Crucial source of revenue Mexico is the second-largest receiver of personally wired money behind India, according to the Center for Strategic and International Studies. In 2024, Latin America received $160.9 billion, with the U.S. accounting for 96.6% of all remittances to Mexico. They also make up 20-30% of GDP in countries like El Salvador, Guatemala, Haiti and Honduras. "Remittance is a very important source of revenue in our government," said Patricia Pinzón, consul of Mexico. "This would affect Mexican families and the economy in general, but I would say the basic needs of Mexican families is the most worrying thing." However, "whatever happens in one economy will affect the other," said Pinzón. "Our economies are so interrelated that everything that happens here has a consequence in Mexico," she said. "Mexicans will not stop sending money; they'll just look for alternative ways to send it." Mexican migrant workers sent 16.7% of their labor income back to their families, and more than 80% of the income remains in the U.S. economy. The average amount of remittance sent to Mexico is roughly $350 every one to two months, which "could seem like nothing for the U.S., but it's money that a whole family lives on and covers their basics in Mexico," Pinzón said.

Smithsonian rejects Trump's attempt to fire National Portrait Gallery director
Smithsonian rejects Trump's attempt to fire National Portrait Gallery director

Yahoo

time24 minutes ago

  • Yahoo

Smithsonian rejects Trump's attempt to fire National Portrait Gallery director

The Smithsonian Institution asserted its independence Monday evening in a statement that could be read as a rejection of President Trump's late-May firing of National Portrait Gallery Director Kim Sajet. The Smithsonian's statement said the organization's secretary, Lonnie G. Bunch, "has the support of the Board of Regents in his authority and management of the Smithsonian." The statement suggested that all personnel decisions will be made by Bunch, not Trump. The announcement came after a much-anticipated Board of Regents meeting to discuss the fate of Sajet. The Washington Post had reported that Sajet quietly continued to show up for work each day after Trump's social media post, which said he was firing Sajet for being 'a highly partisan person, and a strong supporter of DEI.' The Smithsonian's statement Monday did not explicitly state that Sajet would remain in her position, and the institution did not respond to a Times question on that subject. But the text of the statement is clear in its intent, beginning: "In 1846, the Smithsonian was established by Congress as an independent entity." It continues: "Throughout its history, the Smithsonian has been governed and administered by a Board of Regents and a Secretary. The board is entrusted with the governance and independence of the Institution, and the board appoints a Secretary to manage the Institution." The Smithsonian's move comes shortly after the White House proposed a 12% reduction in funding to the Smithsonian in the 2026 budget — including the elimination of funding for the National Museum of the American Latino, which is in the development stages and aims to open on or near the National Mall; and the Anacostia Community Museum, which opened in 1967 and honors Black culture. The Smithsonian became a target for Trump beginning March 27, when he issued an executive order titled "Restoring truth and sanity to American history." That order demanded an end to federal funding for exhibitions and programs based on racial themes that 'divide Americans.' "Once widely respected as a symbol of American excellence and a global icon of cultural achievement, the Smithsonian Institution has, in recent years, come under the influence of a divisive, race-centered ideology," the order read. It also instructed Vice President JD Vance to remove 'improper ideology' from the Smithsonian's 21 museums and the National Zoo in Washington. The order followed Trump's ongoing attempts to reshape federal cultural institutions, including his February takeover of the Kennedy Center. One major difference between the Kennedy Center and the Smithsonian: The Kennedy Center's board is appointed by the president, but the Smithsonian's board consists of officials representing all three branches of government. Vance is on the Smithsonian's Board of Regents, as is Chief Justice John G. Roberts. "Since its inception, the Smithsonian has set out to be a nonpartisan institution," the statement Monday read. "As the nation's museum, the Smithsonian must be a welcoming place of knowledge and discovery for all Americans. The Board of Regents is committed to ensuring that the Smithsonian is a beacon of scholarship free from political or partisan influence, and we recognize that our institution can and must do more to further these foundational values. "To reinforce our nonpartisan stature, the Board of Regents has directed the Secretary to articulate specific expectations to museum directors and staff regarding content in Smithsonian museums, give directors reasonable time to make any needed changes to ensure unbiased content, and to report back to the Board on progress and any needed personnel changes based on success or lack thereof in making the needed changes." Get notified when the biggest stories in Hollywood, culture and entertainment go live. Sign up for L.A. Times entertainment alerts. This story originally appeared in Los Angeles Times.

DOWNLOAD THE APP

Get Started Now: Download the App

Ready to dive into the world of global news and events? Download our app today from your preferred app store and start exploring.
app-storeplay-store