The federal government shutdown has entered its second week with no resolution in sight. As congressional Democrats and Republicans grapple with a highly charged funding deadlock, experts in nutrition are sounding alarms over the increased vulnerability of women and children who depend on federal food assistance programs, risking a loss of their grocery benefits.
Amid this ongoing crisis, the U.S. government’s capability to assess the real-world implications of the shutdown on hunger is deteriorating. Right before the shutdown, the Department of Agriculture announced plans to eliminate the Household Food Security Report, the primary mechanism for monitoring food insecurity in the country, thereby dismantling essential infrastructure needed to combat rising hunger.
“For a country to function effectively where its citizens are food-secure, this survey serves as a critical indicator of people’s food security status. Data from it indicates an uptick in food insecurity,” remarked Zia Mehrabi, a data scientist exploring the intersections of climate change and food insecurity at the University of Colorado Boulder. “Instead of addressing this issue, the government’s response seems to be, ‘Let’s just eliminate the survey altogether.’”
Should the shutdown drag on into the following week, nearly 7 million Americans, including pregnant women, new mothers, infants, and young children who benefit from the WIC program, or the Special Supplemental Nutrition Program for Women, Infants, and Children, could directly feel the consequences. The National WIC Association has raised alarms that the program may soon run out of funds. Last week, the USDA informed state agencies that they would not receive their scheduled quarterly funding for WIC due to the funding lapse, as reported by CNN here.
On Tuesday, the White House announced plans to utilize revenue generated from some of President Donald Trump’s tariffs to cover the shortfall in the WIC budget. However, the specifics regarding the amount of funding and logistics remain undisclosed according to a USDA spokesperson. “While Democrats continue to block funding for mothers and infants relying on WIC, we plan to use tariff revenues to sustain WIC funding for the near future,” the spokesperson told Grist. No further comments were provided on how the shutdown affects nutrition funding, nor was there additional information on the tariffs proposal. The White House did not respond to Grist’s request for clarification.
Mitch Jones, managing director of policy and litigation at Food & Water Watch, remarked that the president’s move with tariff funds is “highly questionable” without Congressional approval to allocate those funds. A nonprofit has mapping resources to identify where the largest number of children stand to lose access to benefits, revealing that the shutdown will impact the highest proportions of children in Puerto Rico, California, and New York.
“It’s the poorest women and children who will bear the brunt of these effects first and foremost,” Jones asserted.
Food insecurity in the U.S. isn’t a matter of low food production; America produces and imports a surplus of food sufficient for all citizens. Instead, food insecurity represents an economic and social dilemma. Families with limited incomes constantly face the tough choice of prioritizing expenses for housing, utilities, transportation, or food, often leading to food being among the first areas they cut back on.
The 2023 Household Food Security Report indicated that 13.5 percent of U.S. households, encompassing about 47.4 million individuals, struggled to acquire sufficient food to meet minimal nutritional standards. Nearly 14 million of these individuals were children. This survey collects information on economic conditions, food access, and engagement in federal and other food assistance programs from a representative sample of approximately 30,000 households. The most recent report also pointed out that not only had food insecurity risen from the previous year, but the number of food-insecure children surged by 3.2 percent over the same period.
The impetus for this survey materialized during Ronald Reagan’s presidency, when discussions about effectively tracking the economic drivers contributing to food insecurity intensified among anti-hunger activists and policymakers. It became clear that relevant government data was lacking, impeding efforts to counteract the Reagan administration’s attempts to reduce nutrition assistance funding based on outdated measures of food benefit usage—an inadequate indicator of national hunger, especially considering the increasing demand for food bank assistance and what was being reported by activists and media at that time.
Subsequently, in 1990, Congress enacted legislation mandating nutritional monitoring and research, establishing the foundation for the Department of Agriculture’s Economic Research Service, or ERS, to carry out annual food security surveys.
Since then, the data generated has been recognized as the government’s most accurate and comprehensive method for measuring national food insecurity and monitoring Americans’ economic challenges. “It’s akin to indicators like the unemployment rate and the poverty rate. It’s a fundamental measure,” noted Colleen Heflin, a Syracuse University professor examining food insecurity, nutrition, and welfare policy.
When the USDA announced the discontinuation of this report on September 20, it described the survey as “redundant, costly, politicized, and extraneous,” claiming it merely incited fear. This announcement was promptly followed by the placement of around a dozen ERS employees on administrative leave.
Although other federal datasets feature some indicators tracked by the food security survey, these alternative reports are limited in scope and infrequency, according to Heflin. The Household Trends and Outlook Pulse Survey, for example, is conducted bi-monthly but contains significantly fewer and less detailed inquiries regarding food insecurity. Heflin asserts it is an inadequate replacement for the annual survey, vehemently objecting to the USDA’s portrayal of the survey’s intent. “Clearly, the individual who composed that announcement hasn’t examined the food security report. It’s devoid of fear-mongering, providing an objective account of statistics,” she asserted.
The USDA’s press release also claimed that the trends in food insecurity have remained “virtually unchanged” despite considerable increases in SNAP spending, while earlier surveys reveal a rise in food insecurity.
“For three decades, this study, initially instituted by the Clinton administration to support elevation of SNAP eligibility and benefits, has failed to offer anything beyond subjective liberal rhetoric,” a USDA spokesperson remarked to Grist. When inquired about future measures for monitoring food insecurity, the representative stated the agency would prioritize statutory obligations, utilizing more timely and precise datasets as necessary.
Heflin cautions that the loss of the report portends far-reaching repercussions. “This development creates a significant void in our insights concerning who is food insecure, where food insecurity is most pronounced, and how evolving economic and policy dynamics influence the American populace,” she emphasized.
“It’s like driving without a speedometer,” she concluded. “We lack accurate information guiding our responses at both federal and community levels. It’s essentially being blind while driving.”
The timing of this situation could not be more critical. Food prices are at the highest level seen in five years, with rates soaring 29 percent since 2020, according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics. Additionally, the societal safety net is contracting: Trump’s “One Big Beautiful Bill Act” has slashed an estimated $186 billion from the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) while tightening the work prerequisites necessary to qualify for benefits.
“People are battling to meet their nutritional needs, farmers are losing vital support, and food banks are overwhelmed,” articulated Jenique Jones, executive director of the nonprofit WhyHunger. “The removal of this data specifically conceals the extensive reality of hunger in America.”
Simultaneously, climate change is exacerbating food costs. University of Colorado Boulder’s Mehrabi warns that as Trump continues his misguided denial about climate issues and rolls back regulations, the destabilization of food supply chains is worsening, a consequence of extreme weather events, rising global temperatures, disease and pest proliferation, alongside migration and conflict. According to the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, climate change stands as one of the largest threats to global food security.
Moreover, increasing carbon dioxide levels are reducing the nutritional content of the food we consume, complicating the challenge of obtaining sufficient nutrition. “Research clearly indicates that essential micronutrients like zinc, vitamin A, and iron will diminish as climate change progresses,” stated Mehrabi. “With food prices climbing and nutritional quality declining, how can low-income families adequately nourish their children who require these essential nutrients?”
During this government shutdown, thousands of workers nationwide have been left without income, at risk of failure to manage their expenses and facing the “hunger cliff.” In the absence of national hunger data, Mehrabi cautions that tracking the long-term repercussions of government policies on food insecurity—especially concerning the potential loss of food assistance benefits—will become exceedingly challenging. Addressing drivers of food insecurity will be equally difficult.
“The government’s aim is to diminish accountability. This represents a larger narrative at play. To regard this solely as a USDA issue is short-sighted; it’s a systematic attack. There’s a narrative suggesting that these changes will enhance the nation, yet they may instead lead to further decline in America’s well-being,” Mehrabi concluded.
