The NPR Politics Podcast - Millions Of Americans Set To Lose Federal Food Aid Nov. 1 Due To Shutdown

Episode Date: October 28, 2025

Millions of Americans are set to lose federal food assistance on Nov. 1, unless lawmakers step in. We discuss how food banks are handling the imminent crisis and whether the deadline will push congressional leaders back to the negotiating table.This episode: voting correspondent Miles Parks, political reporter Stephen Fowler, and congressional correspondent Barbara Sprunt.This podcast was produced by Bria Suggs and edited by Rachel Baye. Our executive producer is Muthoni Muturi.Listen to every episode of the NPR Politics Podcast sponsor-free, unlock access to bonus episodes with more from the NPR Politics team, and support public media when you sign up for The NPR Politics Podcast+ at plus.npr.org/politics.Learn more about sponsor message choices: podcastchoices.com/adchoicesNPR Privacy Policy

The news is saturated with coverage of President Trump, but it is easy to get overloaded. So on Trump's terms, we bring you short, digestible stories, five minutes or less, about the 47th president. Listen for same-day developments on tariffs, the economy, and all of the ways that Trump is governing like no president ever has before. Trump's terms. Listen on the NPR app wherever you get your podcasts. Hi, this is Aaron, and I'm with my nine-year-old son Beckett. washing or shuffling the tiles as we prepare to teach our next mahjong lesson in Atlanta Highlands, New Jersey. This podcast was recorded at 12.23 p.m. on Tuesday, October 28th, 2025. Things may have changed by the time you hear this.

But we'll have completed the Charleston with a new set of mahjong players. Okay, here's the show. That's so cute. Yeah, I was just talking to Elena Moore about wanting to learn that game. I've never played before. I know. It feels like a good thing to know how to do, and I don't know how to do it. Yeah. And I did think, I don't know when you heard that.

I knew it was board games. I knew it was something game adjacent. I thought it was mancala. Board game activation. Yeah, right? Hey there. It's the NPR Politics podcast. I'm Miles Parks.

I cover voting. I'm Stephen Fowler. I cover politics. I'm Barbara Sprint. I cover Congress. And today on the show, the federal program millions of low-income Americans rely on for food is about to run out of money on November 1st this Saturday because of the government shutdown. Stephen, let's start there. Some parts of the government still operate during a government shutdown, but why isn't the federal food stamp

program, also known as SNAP, one of them? Well, SNAP is a mandatory benefit, but it is funded through the annual appropriations process. Right now, there are no annual appropriations because of the government shutdown and Congress's inability to pass a spending plan, so there is no money available to spend on the benefits. And that's what the Trump administration says is the case. There are, however, contingency funds that Congress put together. It's about $6 billion or so in accounts. But the Trump administration says that those cannot be used for SNAP benefits. In fact, they say it's illegal to use them for these benefits. That seems a little strange to me. I mean, contingency funds, I guess I have a lay person, but that sounds like exactly, what is the point of a

contingency fund, if not for a moment like this? Well, the U.S. Department of Agriculture says the contingency fund is supposed to be spent on contingencies like natural disasters or other unexpected things that pop up, and they say it's supposed to supplement regularly scheduled funds that go out, and since there are no regularly scheduled funds, it can't be used to supplement. Several budget experts that I spoke with say that Congress was pretty clear when they created these contingency funds that Funding benefits is exactly the type of contingency that they should have been planning for. There's also this argument that the Trump administration has made other transfers to other programs,

and so the Trump administration does have the power to do these things. I mean, quickly, can you put this into context for us, Stephen? I mean, if this money runs out like it is set to do, how many people are going to be impacted? I mean, how many people rely on SNAP funds? Where are they located generally? Give us a little bit of sense of the landscape. Miles, it's about one in-aid Americans that received federal food aid. That's about 40 million people in the last calendar year. They are all over the country. The people who receive SNAP benefits are children, senior citizens, low-income working family, disabled Americans, veterans. So this is a large swath of America that is about to be without federal food aid with pretty much last-minute notice because it takes time for the federal government. government to send money to the states and the states to load those funds onto cards for people to

use and people to make those choices for how they're going to feed themselves. Well, Barbara, you traveled to Texas recently to a town hall hosted by a Republican lawmaker, if I'm not mistaken. Did this issue the SNAP program come up? It did. I went to Lano, Texas, which for people who are not familiar, it's about 90 minutes northwest of Austin. And it's represented by Republican Congressman August Lugar. And he talked about how SNAP potentially screeching to a halt. He considers it a top issue, a top concern. And it was something that a lot of the constituents who went to hear him speak were worried about. That district, just for the numbers, it's about 10.5% of households in this Texas district receive SNAP. And that's according to a survey estimate from the U.S. Census. And when I talked to some of these folks, they said we're really concerned about this benefit going away for people, especially children. And we just really hope that food banks can step in. Can food banks step in? I mean, that is a lot of money if you think about all of those people showing up to food banks. It is. I mean, food banks are doing a lot

of work in Texas and across the country, stepping up efforts to meet increased demand. I've spoken to several food bank administrators about this. The reality is that by and large, they are just not equipped to bridge this divide if federal funding goes away for SNAP. Food banks are designed to be a supplement to food budget shortfalls. And if food banks are trying to cover another intended supplement, it's literally in the name like SNAP, they're going to be overtaxed. And the administrators that I've spoken with are adamant. They're going to keep doing everything they can. They're trying to increase their resources to meet this increased demand. But long term, nonprofits just are not designed to be a safety net for funding something in place of a government program like SNAP.

I spoke with Sari Vatsky, the Central Texas Food Bank CEO. And just for a perspective, she said that if November SNAP benefits are gone, that translates to about 127,000 households in central Texas that rely on SNAP services. And she said that on average, it's about $44 million of SNAP benefits that will be gone from families who would have used that money to go to the store and purchase food. The scale of this, I think, Miles gets lost a lot. $44 million is a lot. Asking a local food bank to step up and meet that demand is a challenge. thing. And this is not just in Texas. I mean, I spoke with Jason Riggs, who's the Director of Advocacy and Public Policy at the Roadrunner Food Bank in New Mexico, which is one of the highest, if not the state, with the highest percentage of people who use SNAP. And he says that all of their partners are reporting increasing numbers of clients. This is going to be similar to what we've seen during the Great Recession. During the pandemic, when people are suddenly out of work and there's this huge increase in need. But that's where comparisons end.

those two previous national crises, there was a robust SNAP program with all its flaws, doing what it is designed to do, which is to be an expanding safety net. The difference with what's happening right now is there will not be SNAP. There will just be the same kind of catastrophic need for food. And, you know, this is not only about SNAP when we're talking about food banks. You know, it has been difficult for them for well over a year because of inflation, rising costs of goods. I stopped by when I was in Texas, a local food pantry, and volunteers told me that at every distribution they have, they see new faces. And that's not because of SNAP about to go away.

That's because groceries are more expensive. And for food banks themselves, like, dollars don't go as far when they're purchasing food for their food pantries. And so in this particular place, these volunteers were sort of musing to me, like, you know, we serve a broad population. We don't really see people who are also, you know, receiving SNAP benefits. And then they had this moment where they were like, oh, wait, but if SNAP goes away, then, like, we'll probably see even more new phases. Soon, potentially. Yeah.

Stephen, you know, as you think about this is a federal program, but I do wonder, as states are looking, this deadline is fast approaching. Are the states doing anything or can they do anything to try to fill this gap for these millions of people who could be impacted? Well, you know, to build off of what Barbara said about the scale, it's about $8 billion a month that goes towards SNAP benefits to Americans. That's a lot of money. States don't really have that kind of money,

and there's not the mechanism in place for states to offer these benefits. It is a federal program that is administered by the states, so there is a mismatch even for some of these larger states that are trying to find pockets of money and ways to do it. There's just not the infrastructure set up. Now, just before we started taping this, a coalition of more than two, dozen states sued the Trump administration and the U.S. Department of Agriculture saying,

hey, what you're doing to suspend SNAP benefits is illegal, it's arbitrary and capricious, and there are contingency funds that we're supposed to use that you need to use. And reading through the filings, they said they have already spent millions of dollars in October just trying to prepare for the possibility of not having funds, and they expect those costs to increase unless the courts step in and say pay these benefits. Oh, that's interesting. Okay, so we'll be watching kind of the legal fight around those contingency funds as well. Let's take a quick break and more on all of this in just a moment. And we're back, and we're talking today about the food benefits program known as Snap,

which is due to run out of money this Saturday. Let's just look at the politics here. How likely is this deadline to actually spur movement on Capitol Hill, considering there is basically been no movement up to this point on the government shutdown. Yeah. I mean, this would seem like a point at which there would be serious negotiations. Right. I mean, you're talking about one in eight people. And that, by the way, doesn't even address, like, how difficult, as Stephen alluded to.

Like, it's not just like a flip switch if they decide to do this. And also, like, the House is out. If the Senate does something, this is not like a quick in and out kind of thing. Missouri Senator Josh Hawley, a Republican, has introduced a bill that would provide appropriations for the Department of Agriculture. to give uninterrupted SNAP benefits during a government shutdown lapse. And it would provide retroactive payments for SNAP benefits that were missed once the shutdown started if that applies to any states.

So he has 10 Republican co-sponsors. He has one Democratic co-sponsor, but there is no commitment at this point, as of this taping time, from leadership to bring that to a vote. And I think that that is telling about sort of where we are politically on Capitol Hill. I talked to Rich Tao. He's a president of Engage, a firm that's, specializes in public policy message testing. He conducts the swing voter project, focus groups that are Biden to Trump swing voters in swing states. And he told me that he did one recently on

October 21st in Pennsylvania. 13 people. Nine of them blamed both parties for the shutdown. Three blamed Democrats, one blamed Republicans. And he said that he just heard this like complete contempt for Congress. And so much of the shutdown, as we've been talking about, is about who caves first. These sides are really dug in. So I asked him about that political dynamic. Here's what he had to say. The question is who's going to blink first? And I imagine each side has some strategy that causes them to think the other side is going to blink first. But they're playing with fire. When it comes to their food and their ability to eat and feed their children, that is a very profound loss if you can't do that as a parent. And I don't see where this is a win for either

political party. Right now, this is a net loser for the American people and for Congress as an institution. Okay, but I guess thinking about how the social safety net is such a pillar of the Democratic party's ideals, and considering they are the party who is withholding votes right now to fund the government, I do wonder whether the risk of November 1st is a little bit bigger for them. Well, I think it's important, Miles, to take a step back and look at its core, Republicans control the White House. They control the House. They control the Senate. They don't have enough votes in the Senate without the Democratic Party. So Democrats have been holding out based on their stance that Republicans need to extend health care subsidies that would

prevent the health care costs for millions of Americans from potentially doubling or tripling, which itself is a break glass in case of emergency type situation that affects millions of people's and their livelihoods. So that hasn't moved the needle for weeks now. Now you've got food benefits and it's still not moving the needle. There's no sense of negotiation from Democrats or Republicans or from the White House. In fact, the White House strategy throughout the entirety of the shutdown has been to find ways to target Democrats and blame Democrats. If you go to the U.S. Department of Agriculture website right now, there's a banner on the top of the page that blames Democrats for the shutdown and for the lack of funding saying that the well has run dry, calling this an inflection

point for Senate Democrats. And I'm wondering, though, after everything else that's happened so far, Miles, it's not clear that even this is going to be an inflection point for now. And yet one has to wonder why. I mean, I hear everything that Stephen is saying and I think it's true. And like, you know, there's a there's a memory in the Democratic Party of when Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer provided a key vote in March, which feels like forever ago. It's actually like not that long ago. And there was all of this sort of anger, especially among House Democrats. Like we have an opportunity as the party and the minority to use this leverage of Senate needs some of our votes. What can we get out of it? It is just really hard for me to see how Democrats avoid more of the blame here. There have been votes to fund the government. Democrats have not provided the votes to get that over the threshold. And they have talked. There are press conferences every day about why they are doing that. But as Stephen said, it's not moving the needle on a negotiation for these enhanced subsidies that are expiring at the end of December. And Republicans keep saying that's

end of the year issue, that expires in December. The government is running out of money now. And as more people go without food and as those pantry lines get longer and longer, I just don't see how Democrats can hold this argument. Well, and Stephen, I feel like the big beautiful bill also made cuts to the SNAP program as well, right? I mean, what have we learned at this point this year throughout the Trump administration about the president and Republicans' views on the SNAP program more broadly? virtually every budget proposal in Trump's first term and now his second term, there has been the proposal to cut access to SNAP, to roll back the benefits, to make fewer people eligible. So SNAP benefits are not a hill that Republicans are willing to reopen the government for. And it's also part of the larger trend of the Trump administration this year, trying to shrink the size of the government, trying to make changes that it wants to change. then just looking ahead quickly, I guess, at the next couple weeks and months. Where does this go from here? I mean, you have this November 1st deadline, which seems like it's going to impact potentially millions of people. And then the holidays are going to come. And we know the travel delays can come from the government shutdown as well. Barbara, I guess how are you looking at the next couple weeks of this government shutdown? I mean, I'm just really curious about at what point negotiations open up and how quickly does it escalate as that date gets closer.

It's hard to imagine that that date comes and there's no impact. I mean, I will say like a lot of the traditional pain points of a shutdown, including no pay for the military, has been sort of adjusted in other ways. And it's also, it strikes me that, you know, we don't think of that population who rely on SNAP benefits as like. a very powerful group in this country. And I think about the stories that are going to come from this, the visuals that are going to come from this. And I just think like these are the stories of this like smaller group of people in this country that lawmakers are going to have to contend with the most. And I think that that's kind of an interesting dynamic there. The other thing I'll say is, you know, lawmakers are still getting paid. And I struggle to see how.

how that will not become a even more inflated issue among their constituents as more people go hungry. I mean, I don't know anyone who would say that that's a good political look. And I kind of wonder how that dynamic as well, like I'm watching that in the next few weeks as well to see. Does that come up more from the public? I've heard it from people like here and there, but it hasn't been like this huge groundswell. And I'm curious about how that adjust. I mean, the house is out. They are back home.

They're getting paid. And their constituents are about to lose access to. a key benefit. And quickly, to the point about the politics of it, we will have some of an idea after next week's gubernatorial elections in Virginia, in New Jersey. So far, there are a lot of people watching to see if Democrats do well there. And to see the results in that election as sort of the beginning of the kickoff of the 2026 cycle and the beginning temperature check of how people feel about a Republican trifecta in

Washington, D.C., their direction for the country, and frankly for both parties that have had what is approaching potentially going to be the longest shutdown in history. So even though it is still a long ways from November 26, November 2025 may start to tell us just how much people don't like what's going on in Washington. All right, well, let's leave it there for today. I'm Miles Parks. I cover voting. I'm Stephen Fowler. I cover politics. And I'm Barbara Sprint. I cover Congress. to the NPR Politics Podcast.