Become a Patron!

“Struggling families face a new challenge as vital food aid gets cut in the Midwest.”

By Darius Spearman (africanelements)

About the author: Darius Spearman is a professor of Black Studies at San Diego City College, where he has been pursuing his love of teaching since 2007. He is the author of several books, including Between The Color Lines: A History of African Americans on the California Frontier Through 1890. You can visit Darius online at

Support African Elements at and hear recent news in a single playlist, plus get early access to ad-free video content.

Introduction to the Summer Food Program Crisis

In a sudden turn of events, Iowa and Nebraska’s Republican governors decided to opt out of the federal summer food program. This move leaves countless low-income families without the crucial $40 monthly food assistance during summer. Previously, this aid was a lifeline for families when school lunch programs were on break.

Iowa’s Controversial Decision

Iowa Governor Kim Reynolds focused her decision on the program’s sustainability and its approach to childhood obesity. She firmly stated:

“Federal Covid-era cash benefit programs are not sustainable and don’t provide long-term solutions for the issues impacting children and families. An EBT card does nothing to promote nutrition at a time when childhood obesity has become an epidemic.” (The Root)

This decision has sparked significant controversy, highlighting the delicate balance between addressing obesity and ensuring food security for low-income families.

The Human Cost: Iowa’s Children Left Hungry

 "Street-style image capturing a family with children showing expressions of disappointment, standing near an empty fridge or pantry in a home setting during summer.
The Human Face of Policy: Disappointment and Concern in an Iowa Family. Image generated by Midjourney.

The fallout of Iowa’s decision affects over 240,000 children, denying them $120 in essential summer food assistance. The Iowa Hunger Coalition expressed deep concern, comparing the situation to a Dickens novel:

“Announcing three days before Christmas that we’ve deliberately chosen not to feed hungry kids?” – Luke Elzinga, Iowa Hunger Coalition (Common Dreams)

Nebraska’s Firm Rejection of Federal Aid

In a similar vein to Iowa, Nebraska took a hard stance against federal food assistance. Governor Jim Pillen declared his refusal of $18 million intended to feed children facing food insecurity. His statement was blunt:

“COVID-19 is over, and Nebraska taxpayers expect that pandemic-era government relief programs will end too. I don’t believe in welfare.” (News Channel Nebraska)

Pillen’s words echo a broader sentiment against welfare programs, igniting debates about the role of government in supporting vulnerable populations.

Key Arguments Against Federal Aid:

  • The COVID-19 pandemic is over.
  • Taxpayers expect an end to pandemic-era relief programs.
  • Fundamental disapproval of welfare.

Community Response and Advocacy in Nebraska

Photorealistic image showing concerned families in a low-income neighborhood with empty food program facilities in the background, under a bright summer sky.
A Glimpse into the Impact: Families in a Low-Income Neighborhood Reflect on the Canceled Federal Food Program. Image generated by Midjourney.

Responding to this decision, Nebraska Appleseed, an advocacy group, mobilized support. They presented a petition with over 6,100 signatures, advocating for the state to engage with the Summer EBT program. This move highlights the community’s recognition of the program’s importance, especially amid ongoing economic challenges.

Community ActionDescription
Petition DeliveryNebraska Appleseed delivered a petition with 6,100+ signatures.
Advocacy FocusUrging state engagement with the Summer EBT program.
Community SentimentRecognizing the necessity amid economic struggles.

The Irony in Government Decision-Making

The situation in Iowa and Nebraska also brings to light a striking paradox in governmental decision-making. While parents are considered capable of making informed choices about their children’s education, the same trust is not extended to decisions about their children’s nutrition. Luke Elzinga of the Iowa Hunger Coalition sharply criticized this inconsistency:

“Starvation is not a legitimate strategy to reduce childhood obesity.”

(Common Dreams)

This critique underscores the complex challenges in balancing public policy with the diverse needs of families and children.

Racial Undercurrents in Welfare Debates

In the U.S., welfare discussions are deeply intertwined with race. The historical baggage of racial coding in these debates significantly impacts policy and public perception. This context is vital to fully grasp the ramifications of recent decisions in Iowa and Nebraska.

Historical Context of Racial Coding in Welfare:

  • Myth of the “welfare queen.”
  • Racially charged political rhetoric.
  • Disproportionate impact on communities of color.

The Long-Standing Fight Against Welfare Services

The resistance to welfare services in the U.S. has a lengthy history. Children in poverty, regardless of race, are now the newest casualties in this ongoing battle. The diminishing support for welfare programs continues, reflecting a persistent reluctance to embrace these services.

Timeline of Welfare Opposition
1980s: Reagan-era rhetoric against welfare.
1990s: Reforms and increasing restrictions.
2020s: Pandemic-era programs under scrutiny.

Pandemic-Era Policies and Food Insecurity

The COVID-19 pandemic relief programs played a crucial role in addressing food insecurity. Now being phased out, these programs were pivotal in supporting countless families during unprecedented times. Their withdrawal marks a significant shift in the landscape of welfare and public assistance, raising concerns about America’s future of food security.

Looking Ahead: The Future of Food Assistance Policies

As we look to the future, the evolving landscape of food assistance policies remains a critical area of concern. The decisions in Iowa and Nebraska signal potential shifts in how governments approach welfare and public assistance, especially in post-pandemic America.

Key Considerations for Future Policies:

  • Balancing nutritional needs with financial sustainability.
  • Addressing the stigma associated with welfare.
  • Ensuring equitable access to food assistance for all communities.

These considerations set the stage for an ongoing dialogue about the best ways to support those in need while navigating complex social, political, and economic challenges.

Frequently Asked Questions (FAQ)

Q: Why did Iowa and Nebraska opt out of the federal summer food program?
A: Iowa cited sustainability and the program’s approach to childhood obesity, while Nebraska’s governor disagreed fundamentally with welfare programs.

Q: How many children are affected by Iowa’s decision?
A: Over 240,000 children in Iowa are impacted, losing essential summer food assistance.

Q: What has been the community response in Nebraska?
A: Advocacy group Nebraska Appleseed delivered a petition with over 6,100 signatures, calling for the state to utilize the Summer EBT program.

Q: What are the racial implications of welfare debates in the U.S.?
A: Welfare discussions in the U.S. often carry racial undertones, historically laced with biases that affect public perception and policy.

Q: What is the future of food assistance policies?
A: The future will likely involve balancing nutritional needs with fiscal sustainability, addressing welfare stigma, and ensuring equitable access to food assistance.

Sources Cited

  1. “Thousands Of Children Will No Longer Get Summer Food Program” – The Root.
  2. “‘Deplorable’: Iowa’s GOP Governor Opts Out of Summer Food Program for Kids” – Common Dreams.
  3. “Nebraska governor stands firm on rejection of federal money to feed food-insecure children” – News Channel Nebraska.