Janine Jackson interviewed the Food Research and Action Center's Crystal FitzSimons about cuts to SNAP for the November 21, 2025, episode of CounterSpin. This is a lightly edited transcript.
Janine Jackson: In 1997, corporate news media were feeling good. A program they had vigorously championed—it was called “welfare reform”—was in the books. “The debate is over,” then-President Bill Clinton announced. “We now know that welfare reform works.”
Neil deMause reported it for FAIR, noting, among many examples, Newsweek'sdeclaration that one year in, the Personal Responsibility Act that abolished federal guarantees of aid to struggling people “blows the doors off even the most optimistic predictions.” At the Cleveland Plain Dealer, it was, “Despite the Chicken Little warnings, welfare reform has been a success.”
Now, the foundation for this excitement was a White House report saying that the welfare rolls had dropped by 1.4 million people between August 1996 and May 1997. Clinton advisor Bruce Reed told the Houston Chronicle that that 12% decrease was “totally unprecedented in the history of welfare.”
What Reed didn't answer, because he wasn't asked, was: Where did those people go? Did they get jobs, or did they just get so frustrated by new requirements that they stopped applying for aid? Did localities cut their caseload figures by ignoring the long-acknowledged "churning," wherein people are kicked off for missing an appointment, and then have to reapply?
The Dallas Morning News declared that “researchers have found no evidence of widespread suffering.” But they later admitted that in Wisconsin, which implemented welfare restrictions sooner than any other state in the nation, homeless shelters were reporting increased demand for aid, and that most states didn't even study what had happened to those who had lost aid. The Dallas Morning News had a sole source: so-called “conservative welfare scholar” Lawrence Mead, who said “there has been no widespread suffering. If there had been, we'd surely have heard about it.”
All of which brings us to November 2025. Now, as then, we are hearing about policy more from its makers than from those whose lives are shaped by it. We continue to endure so-called debate about whether or not some people deserve to buy their children cupcakes. After all of this time, we still have a public conversation that is myth-informed more than informed by data or, in many cases, human decency.
Joining us now to talk through all of this is Crystal FitzSimons, president of the Food Research and Action Center. She joins us now by phone. Welcome to CounterSpin, Crystal FitzSimons.
Crystal FitzSimons: Oh, thank you. Thank you so much for having me today.
JJ: We're going to pull back to a wider view in a second, but let's start with the right now. We're hearing that SNAP and food benefits are being reinstated, now that the government is open again. But that doesn't really convey the situation properly, does it? I mean, how would you describe the situation of SNAP, and cuts to SNAP, right at the moment?
CF: Last week, the government shutdown ended, and the US Department of Agriculture for the first time, during this shutdown, actually stopped SNAP benefits from going out to families. It was completely unprecedented. So for about 13 days, families were really struggling to figure out how to put food on the table. The administration actually went to court, to appeals court, and then to the Supreme Court, to stop a judge's ruling that they would have to provide these benefits to the families who are eligible for them. And so people are recovering from that.
But, as you mentioned, there were historic, unprecedented cuts made to the SNAP program last summer, through the budget reconciliation bill, and those are starting to be felt as well.
JJ: So even reopening the government doesn't mean that these cuts will be reinstated, and HR1 suggests that there are more permanent cuts going forward.
CF: Correct. And, as you mentioned, with welfare reform, one of the requirements was around work. SNAP has always had some work requirements, as part of welfare reform. So there were some work requirements that were placed on receiving SNAP for able-bodied adults without dependents. But there have always been significant exceptions.
And at FRAC, we believe that food is a human right, that everybody should be able to access the SNAP program who is eligible, and that work requirements really do not increase long-term employment. The research definitely does not support that. What it really does is increase poverty and hunger.
JJ: I want to draw you out on that because, while I wish I didn't need to do this, and, frankly, if news media did their job, I wouldn't need to do it. But there are many media templates that are harmfully distorted. And one of them is, even in an article that might wind up being somehow sympathetic, there still is this framework of “workers versus SNAP recipients.” And you can't really have a conversation if you don't understand that these are not different groups.
CF: That's absolutely right. So when you think about SNAP, we have 42 million people in this country who participate in SNAP. Close to 14 million of them are children. And then a number of them are older adults, people with disabilities. We have over a million people on SNAP who are veterans, who served the country. And then there were also waivers that states and communities could get if there was high unemployment in the area.
So if you're covered by these time limits, how it translates is that you get three months of benefits for three years. So you are really out of luck.
And the work requirements are not just about work, it's 20 hours a week. It really is about making sure that you're able to document and prove that you're working. And so we expect people who are meeting the requirements to fall out as well.
JJ: I think a lot of folks think, “Well, if folks just tried harder, if folks just would be better, if they would just try harder to get a job.” I wonder, if you're just talking to that person, in an elevator, as they say, and you've got a few minutes to talk to them, and they say, “I work. I don't understand why any dollar that I work for should be given to someone who doesn't work.” How do you break it down for people? I mean, how do you break it down, even for people who just don't think they should care about somebody else, in general?
CF: There's a couple of things that I would say. First is, if somebody's looking for a job, it is very hard to do anything when you're hungry. And so if we want to encourage people to be able to be productive in our workforce, we need to make sure that people are not going hungry.
So you have people who participate in SNAP you would not expect to work. You've got kids, you've got parents with young children, you've got seniors, you have people with disabilities.
But it also is a work support. So some people do work, and they receive SNAP to help augment their salaries and wages because they are so low.
JJ: I'm frustrated, frankly, by the way media center the conversation around, “Should somebody be able to buy soda? That doesn't seem healthy and, uh….” It's frustrating to narrow the conversation down in that way, because, as FRAC’s work lifts up, this is so beyond individuals who need food assistance. This is about small-town stores, it's about farms, it's about local economies, it's about healthcare. So many things are in play here, and when media tell people this is about "them" and it's not about "you," that's a real misdirection, right? Because there are a lot of ripple effects of cuts to SNAP that people maybe don't know about.
CF: Right. And I would also say that a lot of our neighbors are participating in SNAP; one in eight households across the country participate in SNAP. SNAP supports the families who participate in the program, but also, as you point out, has a huge economic impact throughout the nation. And so for every dollar that's spent in SNAP, it generates up to a $1.80 in economic activity. And that supports local jobs and local businesses. It supports local grocers.
Some of these cuts that they're proposing with SNAP, we're very, very concerned what it's going to mean for rural grocers, and for grocery stores in general, because SNAP is a huge support to lots of rural grocery stores. In some communities, there is just one grocery store, and SNAP benefits could cover 20% of the purchases that are taking place in that store. And grocery stores are on a very tight margin, and losing SNAP benefits could really cause them not to be able to survive.
JJ: You mentioned people with disabilities, and I always like to lift that up. I'm looking at a piece from Sara Luterman at the 19th, talking about how those living in a household with at least one disabled person experience rates of food insecurity about double those without. And I'm not sure that people understand that food insecurity is about the household, and not just the individual.
So there's a way to think about this that we're not encouraged to think about it, but if you could just see the picture a little clearer, you would understand that if the supposedly load-bearing adult has a disability, that that might affect the entire household's ability to provide for themselves. It's just a more holistic picture than we are often told.
CF: Yeah, you're absolutely right. It is outrageous that people with disabilities are more at risk for poverty and hunger, and we should be doing more to protect both the person experiencing the disability, and then the entire household.
JJ: And the idea that, like, “Well, just get a job”—we should be so beyond that. “Obviously you wouldn't need public assistance if you would just get a job.” It's such a misinformed conversation.
Crystal FitzSimons: "The problem isn't that we have 42 million people on SNAP. The problem is that we have 42 million people who live in poverty."
CF: Yeah, I mean, it's outrageous. So we have 42 million people in this country who participate in SNAP, and the problem isn't that we have 42 million people on SNAP. The problem is that we have 42 million people who live in poverty. We do not have wages that are high enough to support all of our workers and move them out of poverty. And we have too many kids who are growing up in poverty, and all the negative impacts that that has on their ability to thrive as they grow.
JJ: What was the substance and the import of the letter that FRAC, along with the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, and then, I know, more than a thousand other national, state and local groups, just sent to Congress. What were you trying to say with that letter, and what do you hope might come from it?
CF: Yeah, well, we are really excited about a bill that was introduced today, the Restoring Food Security for American Families and Farmers Act. And that would reverse the cuts that were made through the budget reconciliation law last summer. And we think that's critical. We think that we need to reverse course, we need to recommit to building a nation free from hunger, and this bill would reverse those cuts that were made to SNAP last summer.
JJ: Tell us a little bit more about that, because I think we're seeing folks look to states and local communities for meaningful action. Does that seem like moving the locus might be important?
CF: Well, so, a couple of things. For every nine meals that SNAP provides, charitable food provides one. So charitable food is an important part of making sure that people do not go hungry in this country, but SNAP cannot be replaced by states or localities.
But what the bill did was, it shifted the federal responsibility for SNAP to states by creating new cost shares. So in some states, states are going to be required to cover a portion of SNAP benefits if their error rates are too high, and most states are covered by this. And so they're scrambling to figure out how they would be able to provide state resources to cover those benefits. And we are very, very worried that some states may end up dropping out of the program, which would mean that everyone in the state would lose access to SNAP.
So right now, states are looking at how to cover the additional costs that are being transferred to them. They're also facing increased administrative costs. Historically, the administrative costs of running SNAP at the state level have been shared by the federal government with a 50/50 split, and they shifted it so that states would have to cover 75% of those costs, at the same time when they're making the program more complicated to operate. So they're increasing the administrative costs of running the program, and then also shifting those costs back to the state. So it's incredibly problematic.
That's the first thing that's going to kick in as far as the state share, is the increase in the administrative costs. And that would happen October 1, 2026. And so now is when states are thinking about their budget, and figuring out how to meet those costs.
JJ: And that's where I want to ask you to talk about state-level media, local-level media, because this is going to land on them like an alien from outer space. Suddenly these new costs, these new concerns, these new budget pressures, and I don't want journalists to act as though it's coming from nowhere. I wonder what you would see as the best possible journalistic response, as these responsibilities land on states, and these new budget concerns land on states. What would you ask journalists to be asking about, refuting? What would you like to see from media on this?
CF: Yeah, well, I think it's going to be really important for media to dig into the impact that SNAP has, and how important it is for people within their state. So taking a look at who's participating in the program, and how important it is, and really telling the story about the importance of SNAP.
What happened with the government shutdown was heartbreaking, but I think it really did elevate how important SNAP is. And I do think, across the country, people have a better understanding of how many people are vulnerable to hunger and poverty, and how important the federal response is. And so even if states are going to have to spend some more money to cover and operate SNAP, that program is critical to making sure that people in their state are able to put food on the table.
So the hope is that people will really take a look at it, and that all the understanding that people have gained, including the media, over the last three weeks, will translate into a story about this. But it is going to be really tough for states if Congress doesn't reverse the state cost share on benefits and administrative costs, because states are either going to have to make really difficult decisions, cutting their budget to pay for additional SNAP costs, increasing taxes. Most states do not have a reserve fund that is going to cover this.
JJ: And we want to bring it all back to people. It's just people who want to put food on the table. It's not a mystery, it's not a partisan question. It's a question of whether or not we want people to go to bed hungry.
CF: That's absolutely right. I mean, we have historically had a commitment to make sure that people were not going hungry in this country. SNAP is a core part of that. It is our largest and most effective anti-hunger program. It improves health, it lifts people out of poverty. And then we also have school meals and summer food and summer EBT and childcare food, and all these programs that make sure that kids have access to the food they need at home and at school, or at childcare or at summer programs or afterschool programs. And that has always had a bipartisan commitment.
I do think that most people in the United States do not want their neighbors to be going hungry. And now is the time that we really need to reverse the course that we're on, where we're making dramatic cuts and changes to our federal nutrition safety net.
JJ: Alright then, I'll end on that note. We've been speaking with Crystal FitzSimons. She's president of the Food Research and Action Center. You can follow their work online at FRAC.org. Thank you so much, Crystal FitzSimons, for joining us this week on CounterSpin.
