Key Takeaways

• Michael Cohen says refusing SNAP funding is using hunger as a weapon.
• President Trump tapped reserve funds for the military but won’t touch SNAP.
• The government faces a $4 billion shortfall for food aid.
• Thousands of families risk going hungry amid a political standoff.
• Cohen urges leaders to choose compassion over “cruelty as leverage.”

In a recent essay, Michael Cohen, once a lawyer for President Trump, slammed the move to block more SNAP funding during the shutdown. He argues that lawmakers are treating hungry Americans like pieces on a chessboard. Meanwhile, troops keep getting paid with reserve money. But families, seniors, and children could lose access to meals.

Why SNAP Funding Matters

SNAP funding, short for the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, helps millions afford groceries. It stands as the nation’s main tool against hunger. Without it, families struggle to eat healthy meals. Furthermore, seniors and people with disabilities often rely on SNAP to cover hunger gaps. In fact, the program reaches one in eight Americans.

SNAP funding also affects local economies. Stores and farmers depend on the spending power SNAP brings. When benefits flow, communities thrive. Yet, a $4 billion hole now threatens this lifeline.

The Political Chess Game Over SNAP Funding

Right now, Congress debates a funding bill to reopen parts of the government. President Trump demands money for a border wall. In return, he won’t boost SNAP funding. This tactic creates a standoff where basic needs hang in the balance.

Cohen points out the irony. The president found money for military salaries, but not for feeding kids. He calls this “cruelty as leverage.” In his own words, “Politicians are gambling with people’s ability to eat.” He adds that hunger isn’t a theory. It’s pain, shame, and violence within the body and mind.

Real Lives at Stake

Imagine a single mom buying cereal instead of fresh fruit. Or a senior skipping dinner to make prescription costs. These stories aren’t rare. They’re everyday struggles of SNAP recipients. Without SNAP funding, more families face food insecurity.

Cohen recalls going three days without food in jail. He felt humiliation and fear. He warns that hunger changes people forever. Moreover, kids suffer too. Hungry children can’t focus in class. They get sick more often and lag behind their peers.

This isn’t about numbers in a budget. It’s about human lives. Each missed meal can lead to long-term health problems. Experts say that early-life hunger affects brain development. It also raises the risk of chronic disease later on.

The Moral Choice Behind SNAP Funding

Cohen argues that refusing SNAP money reveals deep values, or the lack of them. He notes that the U.S. once prided itself on feeding the world. Now it can’t guarantee meals for its own children.

Politicians talk about fiscal discipline and debt ceilings. Yet they ignore the real price of hunger. For those facing SNAP cuts, the stakes are survival and dignity. Cohen urges leaders to admit that this debate is about values, not just numbers.

Steps Congress Could Take

First, lawmakers can pass a short-term bill that includes full SNAP funding. This move would instantly restore benefits for millions. Second, they could negotiate long-term reforms without cutting aid. Third, both parties might tie SNAP to broader food security plans, like supporting local farms.

Also, states can tap emergency funds or reallocate resources to fill gaps. Some community groups offer additional food assistance. But none of these solutions match the reach of the full SNAP program.

What Happens Next

As the shutdown drags on, SNAP funding remains in limbo. Families watch the calendar, unsure when they’ll see their next benefits. Food banks report rising demand. School lunch programs brace for more hungry students. Meanwhile, the political standoff grows colder.

Public pressure could push leaders to act. Protests, petitions, and media coverage shine a light on this crisis. Yet, unless the president or Congress shifts, SNAP funding will stay hostage to other priorities.

Ultimately, the decision rests with elected officials. Will they choose to feed the nation first? Or will they keep hunger as a bargaining chip? The answer will reveal much about our country’s true character.

FAQs

Why is SNAP funding short right now?

A government shutdown paused regular funding streams. The program needs an extra $4 billion to continue full operations.

How many people rely on SNAP?

Roughly 42 million Americans use SNAP each month, including children, seniors, and people with disabilities.

Can states fill the SNAP funding gap on their own?

States have limited flexibility. They can use emergency reserves or adjust budgets, but these steps won’t fully replace federal aid.

What impact does SNAP have on local economies?

Every dollar spent on SNAP generates about $1.50 in economic activity. It supports grocery stores, farms, and local workers.