Rural Americans feel the sting of sweeping federal food aid restrictions —KCUR Kansas City News and NPR

Antonio Perez/Chicago Tribune

More than 5 million people are no longer getting food aid in the wake of a slew of cuts and changes to the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program. As changes to the program continue to unfold, rural Americans face unique problems.

Harvest Public Media | By Anna Pope

September 14, 2026

Buy-Rite Foods is the kind of place shoppers can pick up a little bit of everything, from flour to toothpaste, in the small town of Pond Creek in central Oklahoma.

“There's a lot of regulars that we know exactly what they want when they walk in the door,” said Chrystal Hamblin, who runs the store’s register. “And I think this store depends on things like that, and so does this town.”

This is the only place in town where people can use their Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program benefits to buy food.

Hamblin said accepting SNAP means people don’t have to drive as far for groceries, and it’s important for the store’s bottom line.

But recently, the store’s owners have seen about a 90% drop in SNAP sales, especially since Oklahoma enacted restrictions on what people can purchase with their benefits.

“I don’t see near as many. I mean, it used to be after school, parents would just send their SNAP card with their kid, ‘Hey, go get your snacks or whatever you need after school,’” Hamblin said. “And a lot of that can't be used on SNAP now and so we don't see that.”

Since President Donald Trump took office again, the administration and Congress have made sweeping changes to SNAP that affect nearly every aspect of the program.

Federal officials say the measures will help cut waste and fraud or make the program healthier. But food and hunger experts say the changes could result in fewer people being able to afford groceries.

That’s especially a concern in rural areas, where SNAP participation is higher than in cities, according to the Food Research and Action Center. Gina Plata-Nino, SNAP director for the advocacy group, said rural places also often have higher poverty rates, fewer job opportunities and less transportation options.

“We're highly concerned,” Plato-Nino said.

SNAP policy whiplash 

Large structural and programmatic changes to SNAP were set in motion when Congress passed the Trump administration’s One Big Beautiful Bill Act, or H.R. 1, last July.

The bill expanded work requirements for participants, scrapped the SNAP Education program, cut off eligibility for certain legal immigrants such as sex-trafficking survivors and refugees, and shifted hundreds of millions of dollars in administrative costs to states.

Leah Millis | Reuters

On top of that, the Trump administration approved waivers for states to exclude certain junk foods from SNAP purchases – including in Oklahoma, Kansas, Texas, Missouri and North Dakota. Proponents of restrictions say they are to encourage healthy habits but experts say there is little research backing up their efficacy, and they could make the program more complicated.

In a lawsuit, a federal judge has blocked restrictions in other states, such as Nebraska and Iowa, saying the USDA failed to follow the required process for making those changes.

There are also new rules set to take effect this month that require stores to stock more fresh foods in order to keep accepting benefits. Experts say the change will leave SNAP shoppers, especially in rural areas, with fewer options.

Since July 2025, about 5.4 million people have fallen off the program.

It’s unlikely reduced need is the reason behind declining enrollment, according to the think tank Center on Budget and Policy Priorities. Plata-Nino, with the Food Research and Action Center, said the months of policy twists and turns — including executive orders and the program's rule changes — have helped lead to a decline in enrollment.

“H.R. 1 was just the thing that like — it's the main piece of the pie, but all of these other things are also impacting them. So it's not just one thing, it's everything,” Plata-Nino said. “But H.R. 1 is the biggest driver.”

Rural food insecurity above the national average 

Nearly 16% of rural households were food insecure in 2024, 2 percentage points higher than the national average. That’s according to the U.S. Department of Agriculture’s Household Food Security Report, which the Trump administration canceled last year.

Researchers found food insecurity in rural areas is also nearly on par with the country’s largest cities.

James Ziliak, director of the University of Kentucky’s Center for Poverty Research, said dropping SNAP enrollment is likely to have a big impact in rural areas, where incomes tend to be lower. Americans in remote areas also face distinct challenges, he said, including fewer available jobs and longer distances to the grocery store.

“Many of those folks are going to be affected by these changes in the program,” Ziliak said. “And they already face a number of significant challenges to making ends meet.”

SNAP is the largest food assistance program in the country, and Ziliak said it is one of the most effective programs in the social safety net.

He said evidence shows SNAP reduces food insecurity, helps lift people out of poverty and has positive effects on health outcomes.

Ziliak said there’s been negative rhetoric from Congress focusing on the challenges that all programs face. Instead of addressing issues, he said people on the program end up vilified. For him, that’s not a productive approach.

“I think we should be proud of how effective the program’s been, but also vigilant and always trying to improve,” Ziliak said. “And it's just not so clear that the goal of the Congress with H.R. 1 was to improve the program, so much as it is to punish those who are on the program.”

Ziliak said losing SNAP dollars could especially hurt small grocery stores with thin margins. It is estimated for every program dollar used, more than $1.50 is generated.

“If you cut both enrollment in the program, as well as the benefits, then that's going to be less money spent in the local community, which could have a spillover effect on the local grocery sector,” he said.

‘As long as I have SNAP, I have food.’

There are just a few convenience stores that offer SNAP in Cache, Oklahoma, a town of about 3,000 people in southwestern part of the state.

Savannah Huling has relied on the benefits to feed her and her 7-year-old son and goes to a local food bank to fill in gaps. She said food prices have also been high for a while.

But she knows not everyone in her community understands food insecurity.

“There's really not as big of an awareness as you'd want because it's like the battle of the stereotypes,” Huling said. “Some people are thinking, ‘Oh, if you just get up and get a job…’ but then you got the people who actually know.”

And experts worry food insecurity could get worse because of another change coming to SNAP.

Beginning as early as 2027, many states may become responsible for millions of dollars of SNAP program costs.

How much states will have to pay for the benefits will depend on their SNAP error rate – which includes both overpayments and underpayments made to recipients. As of fiscal year 2025 figures, 37 states will owe something.

Brian Colby, vice president of the Missouri Budget Project, said Missouri currently has to pay at least $50 million in administrative costs. If the error rate remains above 8% this fiscal year, costs may rise to $150 million.

“If you add a further responsibility to the state for the SNAP program it's going to be exceedingly painful to deal with,” Colby said, “because Missouri just doesn't have $150 million sitting around unappropriated or unspent.”

With a tight state budget, Colby said it will make it hard for the state to administer SNAP and for people to participate.

“They'll simply opt out or lose benefits because of paperwork, errors, or other types of programming,” he said. “That is really exacerbated by having to react so quickly to the changes at the federal level, much quicker than had been in the past.”

There is concern that some states could cut SNAP altogether because of the higher cost, leaving millions of people unable to afford groceries.

For now, Savannah Huling is hopeful.

She’s starting a new job and is optimistic she’ll qualify for SNAP. Huling knows her wages won’t be enough to cover all her costs.

“I'm going to get this job, work my hours, hopefully get SNAP and have groceries and keep going,” Huling said. “As long as I pay my bills, I have a house. As long as I have SNAP, I have food.”

---

This story was produced in partnership with Harvest Public Media, a collaboration of public media newsrooms in the Midwest and Great Plains. It reports on food systems, agriculture and rural issues. 

The importance of voice

Associated Press (AP Photo) / Howard Sochurek

I'll bet your heard the voice in your head as soon as you looked at the picture: The warm tone, the smooth cadences, the vibrant rhythm. It's indelible, powerful and inspirational.

Think of John Kennedy's speeches, or FDR's. No matter what you think of his policies, it's hard to argue that Ronald Reagan was a superb speaker—even his rival Jimmy Carter admitted that some years later. But great voice needn't be limited to speaking: Thomas Jefferson was a master of the pen and highly uncoordinated on the podium. And his voice helped make a country.

"Ten times a better writer..."

When Jefferson said he wanted John Adams to write the Declaration of Independence, the latter replied, "You must do it...You are ten times a better writer than I am."

Adams knew the importance of the right words, the right tone, the right rhetoric. And he, despite his outward modesty, was no slouch with the pen himself. But he knew Jefferson's prose was simply more memorable. It sure must be: We've been reciting it repeatedly since July 4th, 1776.

Which brings me to your grant proposal.

I see so many proposals, for wonderful programs that will change lives, reduced to a heap of limp words on the page, resembling broccoli that's been cooked for an hour.

Now, I get it. We're not writing fiction here (though I've done that too). Grant writing is, in many ways, an exercise in constraint. There are eligibility requirements to meet, character limits to respect, budgets to balance, outcomes to quantify, attachments to include, evaluation plans to explain and countless little boxes that must be checked before a proposal can even be considered. A grant writer has to understand the funder’s priorities, follow the application instructions precisely and make sure every claim can be supported.

In other words, grant writing is not exactly known for its creative freedom.

And yet, there is a danger in taking that too far. A grant proposal can be technically flawless and still fail to move anyone.

Because ultimately, a grant proposal is not being read by a spreadsheet. It is being read by a human being. That human being may have read dozens of proposals before yours. They may have encountered the same familiar language about underserved populations, community impact, measurable outcomes, stakeholder engagement and transformative change again and again. They may be perfectly capable of determining whether your program meets the eligibility requirements.

But the question is whether, after reading your proposal, they care.

That is where voice comes in.

Think About Martin Luther King Jr.

Back to Dr. King. (Because, really, can we ever get enough of that voice, of that speech that is music?)

Virtually everyone knows that sound. Instantly. That doesn't mean every sentence he wrote or spoke was poetic. It doesn't mean every speech was delivered at the same emotional pitch. And it certainly doesn't mean a grant proposal should sound like a civil rights sermon.

The point is something more fundamental: Dr. King had a voice that was unmistakably his. 

His language had rhythm. It had conviction. It had moral clarity. It knew when to build momentum and when to become quiet and direct. Most importantly, his voice was appropriate to his purpose. He wasn't using beautiful language merely to decorate an argument. The language served the argument.

You could remove his name from much of his most famous writing and still recognize the speaker.

That is the lesson worth borrowing for grant writing—not King's vocabulary, rhetorical flourishes or cadence, but his command of voice.

Your Grant Should Sound Like Your Organization

A nonprofit serving children should not sound exactly like a food bank. A community health organization should not sound like an arts organization. A workforce-development program should not sound like a university.

Yet grant proposals sometimes flatten those differences. They become exercises in "grant speak"—a strange dialect in which every organization is "leveraging community partnerships," every program is "transformative," every participant is "empowered," and every outcome is "measurable."

Some of those terms are useful. Many are necessary. But when every organization uses the same language, the organizations themselves begin to disappear.

A strong proposal should make the reader feel that there is a real organization behind the words. You should be able to sense what that organization cares about. You should understand the problem not simply as a statistic, but as something that matters to the people doing the work every day. And you should come away understanding why this organization, rather than another one, is particularly well equipped to do something about it.

That doesn't require purple prose. In fact, it usually requires the opposite.

It requires clarity.

Facts Are What Make the Case. Voice Makes It Matter.

None of this means abandoning the factual side of grant writing. Quite the opposite. Facts are the foundation. A compelling proposal still needs credible data, clearly defined objectives, realistic budgets, sound methodology and measurable outcomes. You cannot substitute eloquence for evidence.

But evidence alone doesn't necessarily create urgency.

Imagine writing: "Last year, 37 percent of students in the district experienced chronic absenteeism." That's an important fact. But what does that number actually mean? It means students are missing instruction, falling further behind, becoming disconnected from classmates and teachers, and potentially seeing their educational opportunities narrowed before they have even reached adulthood.

The data establishes the problem. The writing gives the problem meaning.

That distinction matters. Grantmakers aren't simply investing in activities. They are deciding whether they believe an organization can produce meaningful change. Your job as a writer is to help them see that change—not through exaggeration or manipulation, but through a compelling and credible narrative.

Inspiration Doesn't Mean Hype

There is another important distinction here: inspiring writing is not the same thing as hype.

A proposal doesn't become stronger because every program is "groundbreaking," every participant is "empowered," and every anticipated result is "transformational." In fact, excessive superlatives can have the opposite effect. Experienced grantmakers have seen them all before.

Real inspiration usually comes from specificity. Instead of telling a funder that your organization is "changing lives," show what changes. Instead of saying that your program "strengthens the community," explain how. Instead of describing your participants as "under-served," tell the reader what barrier they are facing and what your organization is doing to remove it.

The more concrete the writing becomes, the more powerful it often becomes.

And that is another quality worth noting in King's writing: beneath the rhetoric was an extraordinary ability to make an abstract idea understandable and immediate. Justice. Equality. Freedom. Dignity. Big concepts became something people could see, feel and act upon.

A grant proposal has its own version of that challenge. You may be asking a funder to support literacy, food security, youth development, environmental restoration or economic mobility. These are broad concepts. Your writing has to make the particular version of that problem—and the particular opportunity to address it—come alive.

The Technical Requirements Are Not the Enemy

There is a temptation among writers to think that technical requirements somehow get in the way of good writing.

They don't. They're simply part of the assignment.

A good grant writer can work within a 500-word limit and still produce something memorable. They can describe evaluation methodology without putting the reader to sleep.

They can explain a budget without making the proposal feel like an accounting document.

The trick is not to choose between precision and personality. It's to make them work together.

The best grant writing is precise enough to be credible and compelling enough to be remembered. It answers the funder's questions without sounding as though it was written solely to answer questions. It satisfies the application requirements while maintaining a sense of humanity. And it gives the reader a reason to keep reading.

Give the Grant a Voice

Every organization has a story to tell. The grant writer's job isn't to manufacture a voice that doesn't exist. It's to discover the organization's authentic voice and make it audible within the constraints of the application.

That voice may be warm. It may be urgent. It may be optimistic, determined, pragmatic, compassionate or fiercely focused. Whatever it is, it should belong to the organization.

Martin Luther King Jr. didn't become one of the most recognizable voices in history because he discovered a clever formula for sounding inspiring. He had something to say, he understood why it mattered, and he developed a voice capable of carrying that message to the universe.

Grant writers face a much smaller—and considerably less historic—task. But the principle is similar.

You still have facts to establish. Requirements to satisfy. Boxes to check. And a limited number of words in which to make your case.

So check the boxes. Follow the rules. Get the numbers right.

Then do something more:

Make the reader believe that what happens next—saying yes—really matters.

Doing philanthropy proud

With so many billionaires hoarding their bananas these days while spending every waking moment trying to accumulate more, it's refreshing to see one of the richest women in the world doing good—and Snap founder Evan Spiegel is paying attention. This article is from the Times of India.

timesofindia.indiatimes.com

Jeff Bezos ex-wife MacKenzie Scott who sold half of her Amazon stake helped write a 'donation playbook' that Snap founder Evan Spiegel is following

TOI Tech Desk

Snap co-founder Evan Spiegel and his wife, supermodel Miranda Kerr, recently made a multimillion-dollar donation that will wipe out $550 million in medical debt for over 261,000 Californians.

Interestingly, this sophisticated philanthropic model was pioneered by MacKenzie Scott, Jeff Bezos ex-wife, who has donated more than $26 billion to over 2,700 non-profit organisations through her platform, Yield Giving. By leveraging a high-impact “donation playbook” to effective nonprofits, Spiegel is emulating the strategy that transformed Scott into the most prolific philanthropist of her generation.

Snap founder Evan Spiegel is following the Scott model. The donation was made to Undue Medical Debt, a nonprofit organisation that gained national prominence largely through early, substantial investments from MacKenzie Scott. The massive debt relief effort will target vulnerable residents across the state, with San Diego and Los Angeles counties receiving the largest shares of assistance. Scott donated a combined $80 million to the organization between 2020 and 2022, helping the once-scrappy nonprofit abolish over $40 billion in medical debt across all 50 states.

Spiegel’s strategy mimics Scott’s signature approach: identify scalable organisations, provide massive, unrestricted capital, and leverage unique market opportunities for maximum impact. “The scale of this gift to Californians is truly astonishing, unburdening over a quarter million families of over half a billion dollars of un-payable medical debt,” said Allison Sesso, president and CEO of Undue Medical Debt. The unique way of abolishing medical debt. The mechanism that enables this exponential impact lies at the intersection of distressed debt markets and American healthcare dysfunction. Hospitals routinely sell uncollectible patient debt to collectors in bulk portfolios for pennies on the dollar. Undue Medical Debt enters this market as a bulk buyer, acquiring these portfolios at the same steep discounts. However, instead of trying to collect the money, the organisation permanently abolishes the debt. Starting in mid-July, eligible Californians began receiving letters informing them that their medical debt has been erased. The relief is targeted toward residents whose medical debt threatens access to essential care and economic stability.

Read the full article here.