We’re setting fire to food aid

Summary

Today, Explained: We’re Setting Fire to Food Aid – Detailed Summary

Released on July 21, 2025, “Today, Explained” by Vox delves into the controversial decision by the Trump administration to destroy a significant portion of U.S. emergency food aid. Hosted by Sean Rameswaram and featuring insights from Hannah Quiros, Gabrielle Burbet, Peter Balanon Rosen, and Tracy Roof, this episode explores the implications both internationally and domestically.

---

1. The Destruction of U.S. Emergency Food Aid

Hannah Quiros' Investigation

The episode begins with assistant editor Hannah Quiros from The Atlantic discussing her impactful piece titled, “The Trump Administration is About to Incinerate 500 Tons of Emergency Food.” This report uncovers the Trump administration's plan to destroy nearly 500 metric tons of specialized nutritional food aid, which could have sustained approximately 1.5 million children for a week.

Details of the Plan

Gabrielle Burbet elaborates on the specifics:

“The Trump administration gave the order to burn it. This is according to current and former government officials interviewed by the Atlantic” (02:41).

Peter Balanon Rosen adds that these high-energy biscuits were originally intended for distribution in Afghanistan and Pakistan. However, due to logistical challenges and the dismantling of USAID under the Trump administration, the food remained in warehouses, particularly in Dubai, leading to its eventual spoilage.

Consequences and Accountability

Tracy Roof highlights the gravity of the situation:

“This is the biggest cut to food assistance in American history” (17:12).

Despite warnings from officials about the perishability of the food, the administration proceeded with its destruction. When questioned about accountability, Sean Rameswaram asks:

“Has anyone confronted Marco Rubio or President Trump about this? Just point blank said, hey, why are we letting food be destroyed instead of feeding hungry children?” (07:42).

However, no direct confrontations have occurred, although the Senate Foreign Relations Committee has taken notice.

Global and Domestic Implications

Peter Balanon Rosen discusses the broader impact:

“About every 15 seconds a child dies of malnutrition” (11:18).

He emphasizes that incinerating food aid not only fails to address global hunger but also tarnishes the United States' reputation internationally. Additionally, the food aid process inherently benefits American farmers and businesses, as the aid is produced and shipped from the U.S., aligning with an “America first” approach.

---

2. Shifts in Domestic Food Assistance: The SNAP Cuts

Congressional Budget Office's Projections

Transitioning to domestic repercussions, the Congressional Budget Office has estimated that approximately 3 million Americans may lose their SNAP (Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program) benefits in the coming years. Tracy Roof, an associate professor at the University of Richmond, underscores the severity:

“4 million children will go to bed hungry because of this cruelty to pay for tax cuts for billionaires” (17:12).

Structural Changes to SNAP

Gabrielle Burbet outlines the proposed changes:

“There's going to be a lot of shifting of cost from the federal government to the states” (17:31).

For the first time, states will bear 75% of both the administrative and benefit costs, compelling them to either find additional funds or reduce SNAP enrollment. This shift is expected to disproportionately affect poorer states, leading to increased hunger and economic strain.

Historical Context of SNAP

The discussion provides a historical overview of SNAP, tracing its origins back to the 1960s. Initially introduced to address domestic poverty and support American agriculture, SNAP has evolved into a critical safety net for millions. However, political resistance, particularly from conservatives like Ronald Reagan, has long targeted the program for cuts and restrictions.

“Like some other government programs that grew out of our compassion for the needy, food stamps have gone out of control” – Tracy Roof (22:06).

Current Political Climate

The Trump administration’s current moves are described as the most significant cuts SNAP has faced. While not eliminating the program entirely, the increased financial burden on states is expected to lead to substantial reductions in benefits and eligibility.

“This is likely to be the biggest cut we've seen” – Gabrielle Burbet (23:08).

Potential Future Impacts

Gabrielle Burbet warns that these changes will have long-term consequences, especially if the economy falters:

“When we slip into a recession, states face really, really tough choices” (26:06).

States with limited budgets will struggle to maintain SNAP benefits, exacerbating poverty and hunger during economic downturns.

---

3. Broader Implications and Reflections

Moral and Ethical Considerations

Tracy Roof poses a poignant question reflecting on moral responsibility:

“What do you think Martin Luther King Jr. would say about a nation that purchased food for starving kids and then locked it in a warehouse until it expired?” (08:02).

This highlights the ethical dilemma of wasting resources that could save lives, challenging listeners to consider the moral implications of such policies.

American Self-Reliance vs. Assistance

The episode contrasts American ideals of self-reliance with the realities of expanding welfare programs. Critics argue that programs like SNAP foster dependency, while supporters emphasize their necessity in combating hunger and poverty.

“In a nation that's taken pride in self-reliance for 200 years, we're actually encouraging able-bodied young men and women to go on the dole” – Tracy Roof (22:36).

Future Outlook

As the episode concludes, the hosts reflect on the potential trajectory of U.S. food aid policies. With the administration’s current stance and projected economic challenges, the future of both international food aid and domestic assistance programs like SNAP remains uncertain and heavily dependent on state-level decisions.

---

Conclusion

“We’re Setting Fire to Food Aid” sheds light on the critical and often overlooked decisions impacting global and domestic hunger. By destroying substantial amounts of emergency food aid and proposing significant cuts to SNAP, the Trump administration's policies may have far-reaching consequences, both humanitarian and political. This episode underscores the importance of food assistance programs and the ethical responsibilities that come with managing them.

Notable Quotes:

• Sean Rameswaram: “But no matter what your politics may be, you would not agree with lighting a bunch of food on fire.” (00:34)

• Gabrielle Burbet: “We're destroying 500 metric tons of food that could feed one and a half million children a week.” (08:31)

• Tracy Roof: “What do you think Martin Luther King Jr. Would say about a nation that purchased food for starving kids and then locked it in a warehouse until it expired?” (08:02)

• Peter Balanon Rosen: “About every 15 seconds a child dies of malnutrition.” (11:18)

---

This summary encapsulates the key discussions, insights, and conclusions from the “We’re Setting Fire to Food Aid” episode of “Today, Explained,” providing a comprehensive overview for those who have not listened to the original podcast.

Transcript

[Sean Ramsdell]

Depending on your politics, you might see some of Trump 2 Trump Harder's policies as cruel from third party deportations.

[Hannah Quiros]

Trump administration has deported eight migrants to South Sudan. They were held at a military base.

[Sean Ramsdell]

In Djibouti for weeks to Alligator Alcatraz.

[Tracy Roof]

Don't run in a straight line.

[Sean Ramsdell]

Run like this to just the general broad erasure of trans people.

[Tracy Roof]

Thousands of transgender troops are facing removal from the military because of the Trump administration's ban on their service.

[Sean Ramsdell]

But I'm willing to bet that no matter what your politics may be, you would not agree with lighting a bunch of food on fire.

[Tracy Roof]

Food grown in the United States, manufactured in the United States to be sent out to the most vulnerable people on the planet with a sticker with the United States emblem on it. What the hell are we doing here?

[Sean Ramsdell]

We're going to ask on Today Explained.

[Gabrielle Burbet]

Introducing the new Dell AI PC. Powered by the Intel Core Ultra processor, it helps do your busy work for you so you can fast forward through editing images, designing presentations, generating code, debugging code, summarizing meeting notes, finding files, managing your schedule, responding to Jim's long emails, leaving all the time in the world for the things you actually want to do. No offense Jim. Get a new Dell AI PC starting at $[e-mail] AI PC avoiding your unfinished home projects because you're not sure where to start. Thumbtack knows homes so you don't have to don't know the difference between matte paint, finish and satin or what that clunking sound from your dryer is. With thumbtack, you don't have to be a home pro, you just have to hire one. You can hire top rated pros, see price estimates and read reviews all on the app. Download Today.

[Sean Ramsdell]

Today Explained here with Hannah Quiros. She's an assistant editor at the Atlantic, but she recently wrote a piece that unsurprisingly got a lot of attention. It was titled the Trump Administration is about to incinerate 500 tons of emergency food.

[Peter Balanon Rosen]

So the US has agreed to incinerate nearly 500 metric tons of emergency food. Or, you know, enough to feed about 1.5 million children for a week.

[Tracy Roof]

Alarming new report in the Atlantic reveals.

[Gabrielle Burbet]

That the Trump administration is planning to.

[Tracy Roof]

Destroy a massive amount of emergency food.

[Gabrielle Burbet]

The Trump administration gave the order to burn it. This is according to current and former government officials interviewed by the Atlantic and.

[Peter Balanon Rosen]

Reuters, the food in question. It's a specialized nutritional product. They're called high energy Biscuits. And what these are are calorie, dense Biscuits that are designed to serve as sort of a meal replacement that cram in all of the nutritional needs of a child under the age of five. And these biscuits were originally slated to be distributed in Afghanistan and Pakistan in January.

[Gabrielle Burbet]

According to a report from USAID's Office of Inspector General, more than 489 million of food aid is sitting at ports, in transit, and in warehouses around the world where it's at risk of spoiling 415 children per hour. That will not get the life saving.

[Tracy Roof]

Food that we couldn't make.

[Gabrielle Burbet]

And right now, as you're running basically.

[Tracy Roof]

Half capacity, that equates to 200 children.

[Gabrielle Burbet]

Every hour, that will not get this life savings that has been paid for by the United States taxpayers.

[Peter Balanon Rosen]

But those warnings weren't heeded. And now the food is past the point where it can even be made into animal feed. And the US has agreed to pay over $100,000 to incinerate it. The US uses pre positioned warehouses that are in strategic locations around the world. And the idea is that you have the food there so that, you know, if a famine breaks out, if a natural disaster breaks out, if you want to prevent people from dying from starvation, then you can quickly deploy it. So this food was in a warehouse in Dubai. It was procured around the end of the Biden administration. The idea was that, you know, in January is when the food was meant to, you know, handed over to the World Food Program and it would begin distributing it around then. But at that time, USAID was being dismantled. The humanitarian agency that the US has used for around 70 years to distribute this stuff.

[Gabrielle Burbet]

Thousands of USAID workers cleared out their.

[Tracy Roof]

Desks today after being laid off or fired.

[Gabrielle Burbet]

The Trump administration has terminated 90% of its contracts for international development and humanitarian aid.

[Tracy Roof]

I spent time in Washington on projects related to keeping people from starving. And that actually benefited American farmers. It benefited the American workers who load food into rail cars and send it to ports and those who actually load and unload at ports. This program helped people.

[Sean Ramsdell]

How does it usually go when this food gets to a site in Dubai?

[Peter Balanon Rosen]

Normally, the World Food Program will enter into an agreement with USAID and they will begin making plans to distribute the food. And they might partner with other NGOs. The UNICEF usually plays a pretty big role in this as well. And the goal is really just to get it to the last mile. And getting food into a crisis situation can be sort of bowling a strike in the middle of a war zone. And in order to make that happen, the World Food Program, unicef, they work with local clinics to distribute this stuff, maybe they'll have distribution sites in schools. And so it's a pretty complicated ecosystem. And what the US Government typically does is they procure it and then they'll hand it off. And so there's a call that goes out maybe a year in advance of when the products might be used, and the US Procures them, and then they get into the World Food program's hands or UNICEF's hands, and then they, they're off to the races trying to get the stuff to the last mile.

[Sean Ramsdell]

And if they're destroying food because they couldn't get it out in time, is there any plan to replace the stuff that's being destroyed?

[Peter Balanon Rosen]

Tammy Bruce, who is the spokesperson for the State Department, said in a press briefing or suggested that the destroyed stockpile would be replaced.

[Gabrielle Burbet]

The story here is the nature of the commitment of the United States to food aid, which we all commit to, but also still, like everything else, doing it more efficiently with less expense, but with the same framework. So, yes, I mean, there's a dynamic there where we're going to destroy and we have before the emergency food rations in particular, that might expire and then replenish that.

[Peter Balanon Rosen]

But so far, the Trump administration hasn't purchased any new specialized nutritional products. So I guess we'll just have to see.

[Sean Ramsdell]

Has anyone confronted Marco Rubio or President Trump about this? Just point blank said, hey, why are we letting food be destroyed instead of feeding hungry children?

[Peter Balanon Rosen]

No one has confronted Marco Rubio or President Trump about this. The Senate Foreign Relations Committee has been meeting.

[Tracy Roof]

What do you think Martin Luther King Jr. Would say about a nation that purchased food for starving kids and then locked it in a warehouse until it expired and incinerated it, rather than giving it out so that 27,000 starving kids could survive meagerly for one more month?

[Peter Balanon Rosen]

During that meeting, the top Democrat on that committee, Jean Shaheen, she pressed a deputy secretary on the destruction of this food.

[Gabrielle Burbet]

We're destroying 500 metric tons of food that could feed one and a half million children a week. And we're destroying it because for no other reason than the administration put a hold on getting that foreign assistance out to people. And so now it's spoiled. I mean, I don't think that's consistent with the values of the United States or consistent with American taxpayers and how they want to see their money spent.

[Peter Balanon Rosen]

And she secured a commitment from him to produce an inventory of all of the current food aid stockpiles the US has around the world. And this deputy secretary also pledged that The US Would try to distribute the food before it expires.

[Sean Ramsdell]

Is it just hungry people around the world that are going to suffer if this doesn't get figured out? Or will this shift in international food aid have any effects here in the United States?

[Peter Balanon Rosen]

So something that I think gets lost in the conversation a bit is that the way that the US Delivers food aid overseas is already quite America first in its approach. For certain types of food that the US gives, there are stipulations that, you know, it can only be sourced from American farmers. It can only be shipped abroad using ships that the US Owns. Part of the way that we deliver food aid is designed to benefit American farmers, benefit American freight forwarders. And that's part of why, you know, some of the Republicans that have really been advocating for this food assistance to continue have been in states where there's a large contingent of farmers that are.

[Tracy Roof]

Saying, it's telling the American farmers that we're not even considering your part and role in this. We are the people that grow this food that's. That's going to these needy families. USAID annually buys about $2 billion worth of surpl ag commodities like wheat and grain sorghum that Louise and I grow right here on our farm.

[Gabrielle Burbet]

There's only so many Kansans, and we.

[Tracy Roof]

Cannot barely eat all the wheat that we produce or the.

[Gabrielle Burbet]

Or the grain sorghum. And so we rely on customers, whether that's USAID or other countries through usaid.

[Tracy Roof]

You know, we need customers to buy our product or we're sol.

[Gabrielle Burbet]

I mean, we're, you know, we don't have a market. And it's critical, absolutely critical.

[Peter Balanon Rosen]

It's also something that has an impact domestically on farmers that are losing a big share of their market if the US Isn't buying food from them for this purpose.

[Sean Ramsdell]

And what does it say about foreign aid from the United States or even just the impression people have of the United States abroad that the country is currently letting this happen?

[Peter Balanon Rosen]

About every 15 seconds a child dies of malnutrition. And that seems very much like something you would hear during an infomercial with the arms of an angel in the background. But, you know, those are like, you know, children that could have gone on to live a full life. And I just think that in the conversation, you know, the person who is suffering, often due to, you know, absolutely no fault of their own, can get lost. So part of why there's been a strong reaction to this story is just that if the US Buys food to feed children that are hungry, not feeding them just feels very mean and counterintuitive. And I think that literally like incinerating the food at additional cost to taxpayers, it doesn't feel like something we want to be doing.

[Sean Ramsdell]

You can read [e-mail] the Trump administration is incinerating food abroad, but it's also scaling back food benefits at home. We're going to get into that when we're back on Today Explained Foreign.

[Hannah Quiros]

For today's show comes from Vanta. If your mind can be blown by compliance automation, let Vanta blow your mind, says Vanta. Vanta is a trust management platform that says they help businesses automate security and compliance. Demonstrating trust to customers and prospects is critical to closing deals. I wouldn't know that's according to Vanta, but it can also be costly and complicated. Vantis says they help companies of all sizes, large, small, medium get compliant fast and stay that way with industry leading AI automation and that continuous monitoring you do know so well. So whether you're a startup tackling your first SoC2 or ISO 27001 or an enterprise managing vendor risk, Vanta says their trust management platform makes it quicker, easier and more safe scalable. Vanta also says they help you complete security questionnaires up to five times faster, which could help you win those bigger deals sooner. You can visit vanta.com explain to sign up for a free demo today. That's V A N T a dot com explained. Support for Today Explained comes from Deleteme. Deleteme says they can make it easy, quick and safe to remove your personal data online at this perilous time. They send you regular personalized privacy reports showing what info they found, where they found it, what they removed. Sounds like great gossip. Our colleague Claire White has actually used Delete Me. Here's what Claire has to say.

[Gabrielle Burbet]

The Delete Me dashboard is super user friendly. All I had to do was log in, complete a quick survey including a bit of my information and they did the rest. They have predetermined list of all of the sites that seem unsafe and all of the places where your information could be hiding in plain sight. They send continuous privacy reports that include all of the websites that they've scanned, which has been great.

[Hannah Quiros]

You can take control of your data and keep your private life private by signing up for Delete Me now at a special discount for our listeners today. You can get 20% off your delete me plan when you go to JoinDeleteMe.com today and use promo code today at checkout. The only way to get 20% off is to go to JoinDeleteMe.com today and enter code today at checkout. What is that? That's joindeleteme.com today code today. Support for Today Explained comes from Greenlight Real World Money Skills Start with Greenlight says Greenlight. Greenlight is a debit card and money app made for families that helps kids learn how to save, invest and spend wisely. Parents can send money to their kids while keeping an eye on their spending and saving. Meanwhile, Greenlight says that kids and teens can build confidence with money and and develop skills in fun and accessible ways. Our colleague Odisham uses Greenlight with her own family. Here's what Oda has to say.

[Peter Balanon Rosen]

My kids enjoy using the Greenlight card. They like not having to carry cash. They like not having to scrounge around looking for change in their pockets to pay for whatever snack they want. They also know that like if they're going somewhere to buy something and they don't have enough in their account, they can call me or I can see how much they have on the Green Light card. If they need more, I can quickly put more into their account so that they're not left without enough money to pay for whatever they want to get.

[Hannah Quiros]

You don't need to wait to teach your kids Real world money skills. You can start your risk free Greenlight trial [e-mail] explain that Greenlight.com explain to get started. Greenlight.com explained.

[Sean Ramsdell]

Today explained is back. I'm Sean Ramsfirm and Tracy Roof joins us now. She's an associate professor at the University of Richmond who focuses on domestic policy and is writing a whole book about the history of food assistance in the United States. And this is a big moment for her because the United States is dramatically shaking up food aid, not just abroad, but here at home. The Congressional Budget Office estimates that 3 million Americans will likely stop receiving food assistance in the next several years due to the President's signature spending program.

[Gabrielle Burbet]

Tracy okay, so there's several provisions and the big beautiful bill, as they are calling it, that are going to make some pretty big changes to the food stamps program, which is now referred to as SNAP.

[Tracy Roof]

4 million children will go to bed hungry because of this cruelty to pay for tax cuts for billionaires.

[Gabrielle Burbet]

The nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office has confirmed that the Senate bill would end SNAP for nearly a million seniors and 270,000.

[Tracy Roof]

Veterans, biggest cut to food assistance in American history.

[Gabrielle Burbet]

There's going to be a lot of shifting of cost from the federal government to the states. So currently the federal Government and the states split the cost of administration, which is like hiring all the caseworkers and the welfare agencies that split equally. And they're going to shift that now to 75% of the cost will be borne by the states. So that's one way states are going to have to pay more. And then the other is that they're going to shift a portion of the cost of the benefits to the states. And that is for the first time in the history of the program, will the states have to take on a share of the cost of the actual benefits?

[Sean Ramsdell]

What's the history of food assistance in the United States, of snap? Like, whose idea was this and why did we want to do it as a country? Originally.

[Gabrielle Burbet]

In the 1950s, you got more attention to certain pockets of poverty in the United States. So one of the areas that got the most attention was in Appalachia with coal miners who were losing their jobs. So you were starting to see more mechanization of coal mines as well as competition from things like oil. And so you had all of these coal miners that were losing their jobs in the middle of areas that didn't have other economic opportunities. And because you had able bodied workers in the household, a lot of these families didn't qualify for cash assistance.

[Tracy Roof]

What are your plans if elected president for the situation existing in the coal mines in West Virginia? Well, I think that I've been in the Congress now for 14 years.

[Gabrielle Burbet]

John F. Kennedy, when he was running for president in 1960, toured some of these areas and saw how widespread the problem of starvation was.

[Tracy Roof]

What do you think about so much help going to the foreign countries instead of being given to the United States and the depressed areas? Well, now, one of the things which we send abroad is surplus food. I've been the sponsor. Some of the other senators sponsored a food stamp bill. One of the things which I sponsored was to take it out of the Department of Agriculture and put it in the Department of Health, Education and Welfare.

[Gabrielle Burbet]

At the same time, you had members of Congress who made the argument that we were spending all of this money to store surplus grain and we could not find enough places to sell that grain. So, so we started sending some of it abroad to starving people in other countries. But we had starving people in the United States who were not getting access to that food. And so the idea came about trying to get some of these surplus commodities to people. When Kennedy came into office, his very first executive order was to create a pilot program.

[Tracy Roof]

The diet which is being provided for the people who are unemployed is still inadequate nevertheless, we have used the, the funds that are available to the maximum.

[Gabrielle Burbet]

People were given these coupons, they look like Monopoly money almost, that people could take into grocery stores and use to buy any food within the grocery store. You couldn't get alcohol, you couldn't get cigarettes, but pretty much any consumable food you were able to purchase with it. Then during the kind of mid-1960s, into the late 1960s, you started to see more and more attention to the plight of tenant farmers in the South.

[Tracy Roof]

Man can manage to live without shelter, without clothing, even without love. Poverty, unpleasant as it is, is bearable, but man can't remain alive without food.

[Gabrielle Burbet]

You saw a documentary from CBS called Hunger America came out and it just showed. I mean, starving children.

[Tracy Roof]

This baby is dying of starvation. He was an American, now he is dead.

[Gabrielle Burbet]

And when Nixon came in, there was a very famous speech where he pledged to end hunger.

[Tracy Roof]

The plain fact is that a great many Americans are not eating well enough to sustain health.

[Gabrielle Burbet]

And so that ultimately led to the creation of a permanent program in 1964 that was expanded over the course of the late 1960s, 60s and ultimately every jurisdiction was required to have it by 1974. It was set up such that the federal government would cover all the cost of the benefits and the states would still be responsible for administering it, but a lot of the cost would be borne by the federal government. So that's kind of the origins of the program.

[Sean Ramsdell]

Epic. This isn't the first time that people have wanted to cut this program or curtail this program or prevent certain people from accessing this program. That's been a long established history as well.

[Gabrielle Burbet]

Yeah. So pretty much from the beginning there've been critics of the program. I mean, there were people in Congress that just didn't think it was necessary or they thought that it should be treated as a welfare program and not as a nutrition or agricultural program because it was always put into something known as the Farm Bill. But as inflation grew in the 1970s, enrollment really started to take off. And you saw people like Ron Ronald Reagan, you know, in his run for the presidency, became very critical of people becoming overly dependent on it.

[Tracy Roof]

Like some other government programs that grew out of our compassion for the needy, food stamps have gone out of control. In a nation that's taken pride in self reliance for 200 years, we're actually encouraging able bodied young men and women to go on the dole.

[Gabrielle Burbet]

The argument was very similar to what we've just heard, that we needed to protect the program for the truly needy and get people you know that could fend for themselves off of it.

[Sean Ramsdell]

Is this most recent adjustment to SNAP or cut? To snap, the like most drastic cut we've ever seen?

[Gabrielle Burbet]

Yes, yes, it's likely to be the biggest cut we've seen.

[Sean Ramsdell]

But it isn't an elimination. It's saying states, you gotta figure this out. Your move.

[Gabrielle Burbet]

Exactly.

[Sean Ramsdell]

Who's it gonna affect? Is it gonna affect Democrats, Republicans, white people, black people, Asian people, poor people, tall people, what?

[Gabrielle Burbet]

A lot of that is going to be up to the states. So rather than the Congress coming in and saying we're going to eliminate eligibility for these categories of people, it's telling the states you're going to have to bear a larger share of the benefits. And if you can't cover that, you're going to have to figure out how you reduce enrollment in the program or come up with ways to cover the additional cost. Some of the bluer states are probably going to try to make up those differences and maintain assistance to people. And some of the poorer states are probably going to cut back. People will be hungry.

[Sean Ramsdell]

Why let people go hungry? We're the richest country on earth. Why do people want to cut food aid for the poor?

[Gabrielle Burbet]

You always have a number of people that could be getting something like snap, but they don't apply either because of the stigma associated with it or because they don't want to go through all the paperwork or for whatever reason. They don't know they're eligible for whatever reasons. The participation rate had fallen into the 50s back in the 90s in the midst of welfare reform, reform. And then over the course really of the George W. Bush administration. That number came up into the 70s as they tried to make the program more accessible. And that took off during the Great Recession. What you saw was a real steep increase in the percentage of people that were on Snap. It went up to 15% of the population at the peak in 2013, but it remained pretty high even as the economy started to recover. And that was largely because it took a long for the economic recovery to hit low income workers. And it was partly because of the decline in stigma. And so that criticism became really loud in Congress once Republicans took control of Congress during the Obama years.

[Tracy Roof]

No president has put more people on.

[Gabrielle Burbet]

Food stamps than Obama.

[Tracy Roof]

Now. This is not an attack, it's a statement. It's not negative, it's a fact. Thanks Obama.

[Gabrielle Burbet]

And it carried over into the Trump administration. This isn't the first time that the Trump administration has tried to cut benefits. They tried to do it back in the wake of the 2016 election as well. They just weren't successful. And so now they see this as an opportunity to finally get some of these cuts in place.

[Sean Ramsdell]

And you know, we talked in the first half of the show, as I mentioned, about basically having to destroy food, which is so dramatic. This feels less dramatic. But how much of a shakeup do you think this is of food aid in the United States ultimately?

[Gabrielle Burbet]

Well, shifting these costs to the states, I mean, where you're really going to see the biggest impact is when the economy turns down again. If we slip into a recession, most states have to have balanced budgets either because of their constitutions or because of state laws. They can't just sell more treasury bonds the way the federal government does. So that means that when we slip into a recession, states face really, really tough choices because they need to fund education, they need to fund Medicaid, they need to fund all the other services that states provide. They're going to face some really tough choices about where they allocate their resources. And that's when you'll see a lot more people will be looking to apply for snap. You'll see a lot more people needing SNAP to be able to meet their basic needs. And so that's when you're going to see the biggest consequences and it's going to be hard, very, very difficult for the states to meet those needs.

[Sean Ramsdell]

Tracy Roof her book's not out yet, but it will be one day soon, we hope. Gabrielle Burbet and Peter Balanon Rosen made the show. Amina Al Saadi Edited Laura Bullard Fact Checked Patrick Boyd and Patrick Boyd were on the mix for today. Explained.

[Gabrielle Burbet]

Support for this show comes from 7Rooms. For the restaurant operators out there who want to create more regulars on the Regular, check out 7Rooms. 7Rooms is an all in one CRM marketing and operations platform that helps you make more money and more magic for your guests. It gives your staff the tools to deliver service that keeps your guests coming back for more. From direct reservations to smart table management to targeted text and email marketing, SevenRooms helps you grow your brand and your covers and not your workload. Learn [e-mail] 7rooms make magic, make Money.