Texas food banks say SNAP cuts would worsen hunger
Over 22% of Bexar County children live in food-insecure households, per new estimates first shared with Axios from Feeding America, a nationwide network of food banks.
Why it matters: Texas food banks are warning potential cuts or changes to the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) could exacerbate the hunger crisis across the state.
At the same time, tariffs on imported foods could affect millions of Americans.
How it works: Feeding America's Map the Meal Gap report is an annual effort to make local estimates about food insecurity among different groups, in part by using government data.
The childhood food insecurity rate represents the share of children who live in food-insecure households, which lack or have uncertain access to adequate food.
See more about the methodology here.
By the numbers: The overall food insecurity rate in Bexar County is nearly 19%, and Black (31%) and Hispanic (26%) households are disproportionately affected.
Zoom in: Feeding Texas, the state association of food banks, said Tuesday that proposed cuts to SNAP would require states to pay 75% of administrative costs, instead of 50%, "which would hobble the program's ability to meet increased need," per a news release.
The association estimates the state would spend an extra $87 million per year on administrative costs if Congress approves that cut, adding that there's no guarantee Texas could make up the gap.
What they're saying: "The proposed SNAP cuts are of an unprecedented scale that food banks could never compensate for," Theresa Mangapora, Brazos Valley Food Bank executive director and Feeding Texas board chair, said in a statement.
"I worry that the only solution for us is just to ration, and that means give families less food," Eric Cooper, CEO of the San Antonio Food Bank, told KSAT.
Zoom out: An estimated 14 million U.S. children overall live in food-insecure homes. That's about one out of every five kids.
The rate tends to be higher in relatively poor, rural counties — but there are urban areas with high rates as well, like New York's Bronx County (33%).
Hancock County, Georgia (47%), Perry County, Alabama (47%), and Holmes County, Mississippi (46%), had the highest estimated childhood food insecurity rates as of 2023, per Feeding America.
The big picture: Childhood food insecurity is one piece of a broader hunger problem exacerbated by rising food costs.
The total amount of money people in food-insecure U.S. households need to buy enough food rose from $28.5 billion in 2022 to $32.2 billion in 2023, up 8.4% when adjusted for inflation.
What's next: As the school year nears its end, the perennial threat of "summer hunger" will be an issue for students who rely on school meals to get enough to eat.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
41 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Musk Vs. Trump: Poll Says This Is The Person To Support In Feud, While Near Majority Say They Would Publicly Support Neither
A highly public feud between Tesla Inc (NASDAQ:TSLA) CEO Elon Musk and President Donald Trump took the world by storm last week and sent shares of the electric vehicle company lower. As the feud continues on, here's a look at where Benzinga readers stand. What Happened: A back-and-forth between Musk and Trump across social media platforms saw the two well-known individuals escalate a feud related to differences on the "Big Beautiful Bill." Trending: Maker of the $60,000 foldable home has 3 factory buildings, 600+ houses built, and big plans to solve housing — The feud comes after Musk left his White House position working for the Department of Government Efficiency to spend more time working on his other companies, such as Tesla. Benzinga recently asked readers who they side with in the battle, which includes Musk criticizing the new debt the country will take on if the bill that Trump supports is passed by Congress. "In the feud between Donald Trump and Elon Musk, who are you more likely to publicly support?" Benzinga asked. Here are the results: Neither: 44% Elon Musk: 25% Donald Trump: 17% Both: 14% The poll found that a near majority said they would publicly support neither Trump or Musk in the feud between former friends. Of the two well-known candidates, Musk received the largest support with 25% of the poll, ranking ahead of Trump at 17%.Why It's Important: Over the weekend, the battle between Musk and Trump minimized some with the Tesla CEO deleting some of his tweets that brought some claims against the current president. Tweets about ending the SpaceX Dragon program were also deleted. A battle between Trump and Musk over the long run could see many losers, including the country's space program and the launch of robotaxis, with Musk a leader in both sectors and Trump able to slow down progress made by the billionaire. Tesla stock saw its largest one-day market capitalization drop last week on the heels of the feud. Tesla stock trades up 1.61% at $299.72 at publication on Monday versus a 52-week trading range of $167.42 to $488.54. The stock has fallen 15% over the last five days and is down 22% year-to-date in 2025. Read Next: Are you rich? Here's what Americans think you need to be considered wealthy. If there was a new fund backed by Jeff Bezos offering a 7-9% target yield with monthly dividends would you invest in it? The study was conducted by Benzinga from June 5, 2025, through June 9, 2025. It included the responses of a diverse population of adults 18 or older. Opting into the survey was completely voluntary, with no incentives offered to potential respondents. The study reflects results from 259 adults. Photo: Shutterstock Up Next: Transform your trading with Benzinga Edge's one-of-a-kind market trade ideas and tools. Click now to access unique insights that can set you ahead in today's competitive market. Get the latest stock analysis from Benzinga? This article Musk Vs. Trump: Poll Says This Is The Person To Support In Feud, While Near Majority Say They Would Publicly Support Neither originally appeared on Error while retrieving data Sign in to access your portfolio Error while retrieving data Error while retrieving data Error while retrieving data Error while retrieving data
Yahoo
43 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Trump brings receipts he called Newsom amid LA riots as California gov claims there wasn't 'even a voicemail'
President Donald Trump hit back at Democratic Gov. Gavin Newsom's claims that the president did not recently call him, telling Fox News he spoke to the governor for about 16 minutes on Saturday. Trump told Fox News Tuesday while traveling to Fort Bragg, North Carolina, that Newsom did not pick up his first call over the weekend, but that he picked up the second call and the pair spoke for about 16 minutes on Saturday. "I told him to, essentially, 'Get his ass in gear,' and stop the riots, which were out of control," Trump said Tuesday. "More than anything else, this shows what a liar he is – said I never called." Trump provided a screenshot of the phone call dated June 7 at 1:23 a.m. White House director of communications Steven Cheung added in comment to Fox Digital Tuesday afternoon: "The President called Gavin Newsom to tell him to get his ass in gear. The Governor has clearly decided to disgustingly side with the violent rioters instead of protecting Californians. The only liar here is Newsom who continues to fail his state as he prioritizes doing interviews with leftist media to gaslight the public instead of helping his state." 'Delusional' Hillary Clinton Savagely Mocked For La Riots Response: 'Only Leftists Disable Comments' Read On The Fox News App Earlier Tuesday, Trump held an event addressing wildfire response and prevention from the Oval Office, where he fielded a handful of questions from the media regarding the ongoing anti-ICE riots in Los Angles, telling a reporter he spoke to Newsome "a day ago." "A day ago. I called him up to tell him (he's) got to do a better job. He's done a bad job," Trump said. In a response post on X, Newsom claimed Trump did not call him or leave a voicemail in the past day. "There was no call. Not even a voicemail. Americans should be alarmed that a President deploying Marines onto our streets doesn't even know who he's talking to," Newsom posted to X Tuesday afternoon, accompanied by video of Trump in the Oval Office. "This call is from 3 days ago," the governor's press office added on X following the White House's pushback on Newsom's claim that Trump did not call. Newsom's office added in an email to Fox News Digital Tuesday that: "The Governor's comment is clearly in regards to the President's comment this morning of 'a day ago,'" adding that Newsom had already confirmed his Saturday phone call in a media interview on Sunday. Newsom spokesperson Izzy Gardon added in a comment to the Sacramento Bee Tuesday: "I just personally looked through the governor's phone. No missed call. No voicemail. Nothing. The last time they spoke was Friday when the governor called him." Watch: Dem, Media Outlets Insist La Anti-ice Riots Are 'Peaceful' Despite Violence, Injured Cops Los Angeles descended into violent riots Friday when federal immigration officials converged on the city to carry out raids targeting illegal immigrants. Local leaders such as Los Angeles Mayor Karen Bass and Newsom, however, quickly denounced the raids in public statements while offering words of support for illegal immigrants in the state. Protests over the raids soon devolved into violence as rioters targeted and launched attacks on federal law enforcement officials. Trump announced Saturday that he was deploying 2,000 National Guard troops to help quell the violence. The Trump administration also deployed hundreds of U.S. Marines to respond to anti-immigration chaos on Monday evening as the violence continued. "If I didn't 'SEND IN THE TROOPS' to Los Angeles the last three nights, that once beautiful and great City would be burning to the ground right now," Trump posted to Truth Social on Tuesday article source: Trump brings receipts he called Newsom amid LA riots as California gov claims there wasn't 'even a voicemail'
Yahoo
43 minutes ago
- Yahoo
National monuments have grown and shrunk under US presidents for over a century thanks to one law
America's public lands, from its majestic national parks to its vast national forests, are at the heart of the country's identity. They cover more than a quarter of the nation and large parts of the West. Some are crisscrossed by hiking trails and used by hunters and fishermen. Ranchers graze cattle on others. In many areas, the government earns money through oil, gas, timber and mining leases. These federally managed public lands have long enjoyed broad bipartisan support, as have moves to turn them into protected national parks and monuments. Research consistently shows that a majority of Americans want their congressional representatives to protect public access to these lands for recreation. One avenue for protection is the creation of national monuments. But the status of national monuments can change. Presidents have expanded and contracted national monuments, as the U.S. saw with Bears Ears National Monument in Utah over the course of the past three presidencies. The rules for the use and maintenance of various public lands can also change, and that can affect surrounding communities and their economies. The U.S. is likely to see changes to public lands again under the second Trump administration. One of the new administration's early orders was for the Department of Interior to review all national monuments for potential oil and gas drilling and mining. At least two national monuments that President Joe Biden created in California are among the new administration's targets. The avenue for many of these changes is rooted in one century-old law. The Antiquities Act of 1906, signed into law by President Theodore Roosevelt, gave Congress or the president the authority to establish national monuments on federal land as a means of protecting areas for ecological, cultural, historical or scientific purposes. From Theodore Roosevelt on, 18 of the 21 presidents have used the Antiquities Act to create, expand or contract national monuments through a presidential proclamation. By using the Antiquities Act to create, expand or reduce national monuments, presidents can avoid an environmental impact statement, normally required under the National Environmental Policy Act, which also allows for public input. Supporters argue that forgoing the environmental impact statement helps expedite monument creation and expansion. Critics say bypassing the review means potential impacts of the monument designations can be overlooked. The Antiquities Act also offers no clarity on whether a president can reduce the amount of area protected by prior presidents. The act simply states that a president designates 'the smallest area compatible with the proper care and management of the objects to be protected.' This has led to the shifting of national monument boundaries based on the priorities of each administration. An example is Bears Ears, an area of Utah that is considered significant to several tribes but also has uranium, gas and oil resources. In 2016, President Barack Obama designated Bears Ears a national monument. In 2017, President Donald Trump signed a proclamation reducing Bears Ears by 80% of its total designated size. The monument's size and scope shifted a third time when President Joe Biden reestablished Bears Ears to the boundaries designated by Obama. In the span of just over five years, the monument was created, reduced, then restored to the original monument designation. The uncertainty about the long-term reliability of a designation makes it challenging for federal agencies to manage the land or assure Indigenous communities that the government will protect cultural, historical and ecological heritage. National parks and monuments can help fuel local economies. A 2017 study by Headwaters Economics, a nonprofit research group, found that Western rural counties with more public land have had greater economic growth, including in jobs and personal income, than those with little public land. National monuments can also benefit neighboring counties by increasing population, income and employment opportunities. While many counties adjacent to public lands may be dependent on natural resource extraction, the establishment of a national monument can open up new opportunities by expanding tourism and recreation. For example, four national parks and monuments in southeastern Utah, including Natural Bridges, drew about 2.4 million visitors who spent nearly US$400 million in surrounding communities. However, when there is uncertainty over whether public lands will remain protected, communities may be hesitant to invest in that future, not knowing whether it will soon change. There are a few ways to increase the certainty around the future of national monuments. First, lawsuits could push the courts to determine whether the president has the authority to reduce national monuments. Since the Antiquities Act doesn't directly address presidential authority to reduce monument size, that's an open question. Advocacy groups sued the government over Trump's authority to shrink Bears Ears National Monument, but their cases were put on hold after Biden expanded the monument again. The U.S. Supreme Court declined to hear other cases in 2024 that argued that a president's authority to declare and expand national monuments should be far more limited under the law. Second, Congress could permanently protect designated national monuments through legislation. That would require presidential approval, and the process would likely be slow and cumbersome. Creating White Clouds Wilderness in Idaho, for example, took decades and a public campaign to have it designated a national monument before Congress approved its wilderness designation. Third, Congress could take new steps to protect public lands. For example, a bipartisan bill titled Public Lands in Public Hands Act could block privatization of public lands and increase and maintain access for recreation. One of the bill's lead sponsors is U.S. Rep. Ryan Zinke, a Republican from Montana who served as Interior secretary during the first Trump administration. Whether the bill will pass and gain the president's approval remains to be seen. The Antiquities Act has led to the creation of 163 terrestrial and marine monuments and subsequently the protection of land and waters that hold cultural, scientific or historic significance. These monuments tend to have broad support. During the first Trump administration, there were over 650,000 public comments on Trump's review of national monument creation. An analysis found that 98% of the comments expressed broad support for both the creation and expansion of national monuments. Public lands are more than just physical places. They are spaces where our ideals and values around public land unify us as Americans. They are quintessentially American – and in many ways define and shape the American identity. This article is republished from The Conversation, a nonprofit, independent news organization bringing you facts and trustworthy analysis to help you make sense of our complex world. It was written by: Monica Hubbard, Boise State University and Erika Allen Wolters, Oregon State University Read more: Yellowstone is losing its snow as the climate warms, and that means widespread problems for water and wildlife In America, national parks are more than scenic − they're sacred. But they were created at a cost to Native Americans FDR's forest army: How the New Deal helped seed the modern environmental movement 85 years ago The authors do not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organization that would benefit from this article, and have disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.
