The United States federal government shutdown, which started on Oct. 1 and went for 43 days, paused many federal programs including the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, or SNAP. The shutdown limited monthly food benefits to low-income individuals and families, resulting in many SNAP recipients struggling to access food.
The shutdown ended on Nov. 13 when the House of Representatives passed a bill to fund the government until the end of January.
During the shutdown, legal battles between states and the federal government over SNAP benefits sowed confusion and distress. Chris Richardson, a volunteer for the Palo Alto Downtown Food Closet, said he has seen an increase in people relying on the shelter’s resources.
“We’re certainly seeing a lot more extremely vulnerable folks attending, for example, the Thanksgiving meal,” Richardson said. “Our numbers at the food closet have gone way up. They’ve gone way up across the country. There was a lot of uncertainty, and even the folks that are getting paid, they missed almost a month where they weren’t getting their SNAP benefits, and so they didn’t have access to food outside of charity in a lot of cases.
Palo Alto resident Pamela Chesavage, who volunteers with local food distribution programs, said the shutdown also forced SNAP recipients to reduce their daily food consumption.
“We’ve definitely heard from folks that they were struggling (to find) what they were going to eat during the day, even the folks in the shelter,” Chesavage said. “They might get some breakfast foods, and they’ll get dinner, but they don’t get lunch, so they would have to go without anything to eat all day.”
Although SNAP benefits have since resumed, prior legislative mandates had already tightened restrictions on access to benefits. Under the “One Big Beautiful Bill” signed in July by President Trump, SNAP recipients must now submit to expanded work requirements. In addition, the bill raises the required work age from 54 to 64 years old in order to qualify, and it increases the number of required work hours to 80 per month.
As a result of increased restrictions, the bill will reduce SNAP funding by approximately $186 billion — a 20% cut — over the next 10 years. An analysis by the Congressional Budget Office estimates the expanded work requirements alone will reduce SNAP participation by 2.4 million people over the next decade.
The bill also imposes a five-year waiting period to qualify for benefits directed at some residents, including legal immigrants and refugees.
Supporters say these new restrictions are an attempt to combat supposed waste, fraud or abuse in the SNAP program, despite an April Congressional Research Service report finding SNAP fraud “rare.”
“There are people who just are not making enough money to support their food needs,” Chesavage said. “Anybody who qualifies for those benefits would be really struggling without them.”
Currently, to qualify for SNAP, a person’s gross monthly income, income before taxes or other deductions, generally must be at or below 130% of the poverty line of $2,798 a month — about $33,576 a year for a three-person household.
Additionally, Chesavage said there is also public uncertainty about why benefits are actually necessary.
“There’s a misconception that people who get these benefits don’t actually need them. My experience has been that there are people who are in pretty dire straits that really do need them,” Chesavage said. “The income that you can get is pretty low. If you make more than $1600 a month, you don’t get benefits. I think it’s a little bit different for families. They get additional food benefits for their children. But seriously, it’s for feeding children. Why would you not want to do that?”
Michael Jackson, who said he has been homeless in Palo Alto for 33 years, said social welfare programs like SNAP are critical resources for those who aren’t able to provide for themselves.
“I do believe we need a social network for people who just can’t (work) or are unable to at certain times,” Jackson said. “Then there’s people who are just different, mentally or physically. So different that they’re never really going to fully integrate like everybody else, so they need a little help.”
Chesavage agreed and said SNAP benefits are particularly crucial for those unable to work due to disabilities or other limitations.
“There are a lot of people who aren’t able to work,” Chesavage said. “They are either on disability or are applying for disability, so they are literally without any kind of financial ability to make any money because they’re either mentally disabled or physically disabled. CalFresh and the general assistance is what they can survive on until they can either get disability benefits or they get better and they can get a job.”
Jose Reyes, a retired Air Force member who relies on SNAP, stressed its importance.
“If it wasn’t for SNAP, what do you think everybody would be eating?” Reyes said. “I’ve seen people eat out of garbage cans … If they say we’re the richest country, then why are people suffering?”
However, even with SNAP, benefits rarely cover the cost of food for an entire month. In California, the average CalFresh benefit – the SNAP program in California is referred to as CalFresh – per person per day is $6.23, but the estimated minimum food cost is $12.20 per day. This discrepancy forces many to rely on food pantries even while receiving SNAP benefits.
Chesavage said many SNAP recipients run out of funds even without a government shutdown.
“When those bits of money are not loaded onto that card, then those folks don’t have anything to live on,” Chesavage said. “Even with CalFresh benefits as they are, most people cannot survive off of their CalFresh all month long, because they usually run out. Even if they’re frugal, they’ll run out within the third week.”
Reyes said the government should provide SNAP recipients with adequate resources so they don’t need to rely so heavily on external sources.
“I really would like to see that they give everybody what they really need to survive,” Reyes said. “A lot of people, when they get that food for the month, it doesn’t last long, and then they have to (seek other resources) or they have to suffer.”Richardson said SNAP cuts have worse effects.
“When folks have to decide whether to buy food or pay their rent or address their medical needs, those are long-term effects based on even just a month of missing out on a benefit, like SNAP,” Richardson said. “They’re having a very tough time meeting all their basic needs. And so when you remove a benefit like SNAP, it’s like a house of cards: everything else falls down as well.”
Despite being what she called an efficient and effective program, Chesavage said there are common misconceptions about SNAP.
“One very obvious misconception is that people without documentation can get food stamps, and they just can’t,” Chesavage said. “It’s impossible for anybody without a proper ID and a Social Security number to get government benefits. That’s a huge misconception that has been spread by the current administration.”
According to the Department of Agriculture, 90% of SNAP recipients are native born, and 96% are U.S. citizens.
Adding on, Chesavage said people often assume the unhoused have steady access to resources and support, even though that isn’t the case.
“There’s a huge misconception that these people are hooked up with services, and there’s plenty of things that they can do to help themselves,” Chesavage said. “But what’s pretty obvious when you volunteer or work with people who are unhoused is that they suffer not only from financial poverty, but from relational poverty. They don’t have anybody working with them who really cares about them and can really walk alongside them to get the services they need. And some unhoused individuals have trouble navigating the mountain of administrative tasks needed in order to access benefits and access resources.”
But Jackson said government assistance like SNAP can also sometimes trap people in a cycle of poverty.
“I don’t see the government help as helping because I think it actually keeps you in this middle ground where you have just enough,” Jackson said. “I do know there are certain rules, like you can’t have over $2,000 in your bank account … Well, how do they expect you to advance in life and get up and out of that poverty level if you can’t have more than $2,000?”
Food insecurity is also more widespread than many people assume. Nearly 42 million Americans receive SNAP benefits, with children living in about 34% of participating households. In California, SNAP serves nearly 5.5 million people, including roughly 132,000 in Santa Clara County. According to a Feeding America interactive, 7.2% of the population in Santa Clara County is food insecure.
Even in wealthy areas, Richardson said food insecurity remains a serious issue.
“In the richest state with the (fourth) biggest economy in the world here in California, you’d think that we wouldn’t have food insecurity, but it’s pretty rampant, even in affluent communities like here in Palo Alto,” Richardson said.
And apart from increasing food insecurity, Chesavage said the SNAP cuts increased public distrust of the government.
“People are pretty angry at the government for how much they went to bat to keep SNAP benefits away from people,” Chesavage said. “Of all of the money that they could have distributed, that would have been the thing they should have done first, and the thing they should have cut last. There were emergency funds for such a situation, and they refused to release those, and so I think it puts a much greater distrust in the government to be pulling something like that.”
Richardson, though, has hope despite these uncertain times.
“Not only did we get donations for places like the food closet and other food sources for low-income individuals, but we noticed a lot more community involvement,” Richardson said. “We’re noticing more and more folks wanting to volunteer now, and that’s really heartening. No matter what’s going on at the federal level, communities (want) to stick together and take care of their neighbors. And hopefully, that’s what we’ll see through the rest of this administration.”