The Hunger Games, D.C. Version

In modern times, mass starvation is usually a man-made event. Famines and widespread hunger generally result from political actions, not natural disasters.

In the early days of the Soviet Union, Josef Stalin engineered a massive famine in Ukraine to subdue the fiercely independent farmers there, who were resisting the imposition of collective farming. At least 13% of the population, or about four million Ukrainians, died from hunger in a region that had been a breadbasket for centuries.

During China’s “Great Leap Forward” in the late1950s, Chairman Mao Zedong disrupted agricultural production with hare-brained ideas to industrialize the country rapidly. He encouraged farmers to forge steel using mini-foundries in their backyards, rather than tending to their crops. This caused food production to plummet (and explosions in many backyards). An estimated 30 million Chinese starved to death during the resulting Great Famine.

More recently, a brutal conflict between two warlords has raged in Darfur (western Sudan), causing widespread famine. About 25 million people face a severe risk of starving. Hunger has also been used as a pressure tactic in the war between Israel and Hamas.

But until now, we have not seen a democratically elected leader wield hunger as a weapon against his own people, just so he can win a political dispute. Donald Trump cut off food assistance (SNAP) payments to 42 million Americans--one in every eight—to force his Democratic opponents to capitulate in a battle over the budget.

We have entered a new, even more dangerous stage in Trump’s imperial regime. This President will endanger Americans’ lives to advance his agenda. One simply cannot imagine this happening in another Western, parliamentary democracy. The government would be promptly swept out of power by an infuriated public.

Trump Channels His Inner Scrooge

What is particularly striking is the lengths to which Trump and his advisers have gone to inflict misery upon the poorest Americans. They have used them as pawns in a political dispute. It’s important to understand why they resorted to such a brutal tactic.

Trump’s One Big Beautiful Bill had eliminated Biden-era subsidies that enabled millions of Americans to purchase medical insurance policies under the Affordable Care Act. The Democrats shut down the government with the goal of restoring those subsidies; this was the crux of the budget battle. Instead of negotiating, Trump responded by freezing a food assistance program that helped 12% of Americans. This was an unprecedented, vicious move.

Ebeneezer Scrooge would have been impressed.

The Administration deliberately chose to stop the SNAP payments, even though Congress had appropriated special funds that could be tapped during a government shutdown. Those funds were to pay for the operating expenses of providing SNAP benefits, which are considered an essential government function during a shutdown.

Numerous states sued the Administration, seeking to force it to continue SNAP payments, and they won in court. A Federal district court judge ruled in their favor, and an appellate court upheld his decision. But the Administration took the fight all the way to the Supreme Court. Once again, the Court sided with Trump, granting a temporary stay of the lower courts’ rulings.

While the legal skirmishing continued, the Administration threatened “severe penalties” against states that had started to provide SNAP benefits, based upon the lower courts’ decisions. This was an extraordinary spectacle: the Federal government was pulling out all the stops to prevent local authorities from helping poor Americans get food. What happened to the concept of “government for the people”?

US Navy serviceman standing on food bank line/photo: Getty Images

Government For the Rich, By the Rich

We have known for a long time that there is something profoundly inhuman about Donald Trump. He is missing the empathy gene; he is callously indifferent about the well-being of other people, both in his own country and abroad.

This leader cares only about power, money and his own self-image. His One Big Beautiful Bill will cut off 10 to16 million Americans from affordable medical insurance policies, by restricting coverage and removing the Biden-era subsidies. The subsidies would have cost about $26 billion a year. That may sound like a lot, but bear in mind that the Federal government spent $7 trillion in fiscal year 2025.

Meanwhile, the One Big Beautiful Bill will shower tax benefits on the top 0.1% of taxpayers and businesses, just as Trump’s 2017 tax cuts did. It is estimated that these tax breaks will cost the Treasury roughly $4 trillion over the next decade. They will sharply increase the nation’s deficit and debt.

Trump’s Enablers

But what about the Republicans in Congress? Why were they willing to inflict such pain on their constituents? After all, SNAP is a national program that assists 12% of Americans…throughout the country, not just in Democratic-led states.

Many Republicans in Congress are terrified of Trump. But beyond that, many seem determined to roll back not just Great Society programs but even those of the New Deal. The predecessor food assistance programs to SNAP date from Franklin D. Roosevelt’s presidency. After all, one of his Four Freedoms was “freedom from want”. Yet almost 100 years later, many Republicans still reject the idea of helping hungry Americans.

This is primarily an ideological divide: many conservatives don’t believe in so-called “handouts”. But their views are also based on some myths about the SNAP population.

Some Inconvenient Truths About SNAP

Conservatives often complain that SNAP benefits are handouts to lazy people who should have jobs. But SNAP mostly helps the working poor. Most able-bodied recipients (except women with children) do work. They just don’t earn enough money to pay for their expenses, including basic needs such as food.

This may seem strange in the richest country in the world. But about 12% of Americans are poor, so it is not surprising that about 12% of our fellow citizens receive SNAP assistance.

And people on SNAP are poor. To be eligible for the program, a family of four cannot have an income above $42,000. SNAP provides a critical safety net, but not a very generous one. The program provides about $190 per participant a month…or $190 a week for a family of four. As you probably know from your own trips to grocery stores, that does not go very far these days.

Conservatives also complain that SNAP is plagued by fraud and waste. There may be some abuses, but there’s no evidence of widespread fraud or mismanagement. To look at it another way: for $100 billion a year, the US keeps 42 million people from going to bed hungry at night. That’s not a bad return on investment.

The Working Poor

In 2021, at least one person was working in 85% of SNAP families with a nondisabled person, according to the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities. And in 2023, 55% of SNAP families with children had earned income, based on data from the US Department of Agriculture.

In 2023, only 42% of SNAP participants were 18 to 59 years old; 39% were children and 19% were 60 years or older.

The program contains work requirements. However, it exempts participants who are caring for a young child, physically or mentally unfit, or already working at least 30 hours a week.

Since almost 40% of SNAP recipients are children (younger than 17), they should not be expected to hold jobs. And for the 20% who are senior citizens, many of them may have difficulty finding jobs or continuing to work. (The One Big Beautiful Bill will tighten work requirements starting in 2026).

Political Fallout

As Trump is no doubt keenly aware, the poorest Americans have a low propensity to vote. They work in blue-collar jobs and may not be able to take time off to vote. They may be primarily focused on simply getting by. So even though SNAP recipients are no doubt outraged by Trump’s callous treatment, they still might not be a significant factor in the midterms.

However, the Democrats have done a good job of publicizing the suffering that the President and Congressional Republicans have inflicted on this vulnerable and large group of Americans. Many independent voters may have be alienated by Trump’s cruelty toward these people, and some moderate Republicans may be disgusted, too. That is bad news for a President whose favorability ratings are already rock-bottom.

Trump seems increasingly delusional and out-of-touch with the public, as he pursues his dreams of imperial rule. My wife and I recently spent four weeks in France and Italy, touring many ancient sites. Upon our return to the US, we were greeted by the news that the President plans to issue a dollar coin with his image on both sides, ostensibly to commemorate our republic’s 250th anniversary. (La République, c’est moi?) That would violate yet another guardrail in a democracy. However, it would also constitute additional proof that Trump is two-sided.

During our trip, we admired the lavish coins that Roman emperors issued to honor themselves and to proclaim their divinity. Our would-be king should remember, though, that the emperors provided bread, as well as circuses, to their subjects. Those who failed to do so did not fare well. One named Nero comes to mind…

The Wall Street Democrat