During a recent House Agriculture Committee hearing, Rep. Alma Adams (D-NC) immediately zeroed in on one of the most pressing concerns facing working families: the potential cuts to the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP). Addressing Agriculture Secretary Brooke Rollins directly, Adams set the tone by asking hard yes-or-no questions about the USDA’s proposals. As grocery prices are expected to increase by 3.3%, Adams wanted clear answers on how the USDA could justify reducing food aid now.
States Could Slash Benefits for Millions
Rep. Adams pointed to a troubling Congressional Budget Office (CBO) estimate. According to the CBO, shifting SNAP administrative costs to state governments could force states to reduce or eliminate food assistance for 1.3 million Americans. She asked Secretary Rollins for a direct answer: would these changes lead to lost food aid? Rollins sidestepped the yes-or-no format, instead highlighting the USDA’s current $400 million daily spending and its “partnership” with the states.
Unfunded Mandates Called Out
Adams wasn’t satisfied with vague answers. She pressed further, pointing out that both the CBO and local governments, including the North Carolina Association of County Commissioners, had flagged the proposed changes as unfunded mandates. Adams formally entered a letter from the commissioners into the record to reinforce the seriousness of the situation. “Are you in support of these unfunded mandates?” she asked. Rollins responded by stating her support for “fiscally responsible” efforts but still didn’t commit to a firm position.
Food Insecurity Is Rising – And USDA Knows It
Adams then asked Secretary Rollins if she was aware that USDA reports show food insecurity has been increasing for three years straight. Again, Rollins dodged the yes-or-no question and shifted focus to employment statistics. She noted that SNAP currently supports 42 million Americans, compared to 17 million at a similar point in the last economic cycle. It was a roundabout answer to a straightforward concern.
Grocery Prices Keep Climbing
The hearing grew more tense when Rep. Adams brought up another USDA report predicting that grocery prices will rise by 3.3% this year. Rollins responded by noting that inflation is down compared to previous years, but Adams made it clear that she wasn’t interested in spin. “We should not be taking food assistance from families,” Adams said bluntly, especially not when rural economies rely on SNAP dollars to stay afloat.
SNAP Is an Economic Engine, Not Just a Safety Net
Rep. Adams emphasized the broader economic role SNAP plays. During economic downturns, every SNAP dollar spent generates up to $1.80 in economic activity. By shifting SNAP costs to state governments, Adams argued, Congress would be removing that stabilizing effect, particularly in rural towns where grocery purchases support local farmers and small businesses. Her main question: why weaken a program that actually stimulates the economy?
Do These Cuts Help or Hurt Rural Communities?
When Adams asked if Rollins supported removing these economic benefits, especially for farmers and small towns, Rollins replied, “No one in America should go hungry.” But once again, she did not directly answer the yes-or-no question. The exchange highlighted a deep divide in priorities – Adams focused on protecting vulnerable families, while Rollins leaned into budget restraint without fully addressing the human impact.
States Already Pay Their Share, Adams Says
Pushing back against the idea that states need more “skin in the game,” Adams reminded the committee that states already pay 50% of SNAP’s administrative costs. She cited Pennsylvania, which was recently fined $40 million for having a high payment error rate. In other words, states are already penalized for mistakes – now they’re being asked to shoulder even more costs without additional support.
Fewer Staff, Bigger Problems
One of the most practical concerns Adams raised was how states would manage increased responsibilities with fewer resources. With staffing levels already stretched, she asked whether the USDA would be able to provide timely support for complex policy changes, technical assistance, and investigations into fraud. For once, Secretary Rollins gave a clear answer: “To this I can say yes.” It was one of the few direct responses she gave during the hearing.
Delays in SNAP Processing Already Happening
Adams didn’t let up. She followed up by asking if USDA was actively helping states reduce delays in SNAP application processing – delays that are already occurring due to staff shortages and outdated systems. Rollins admitted she would “need to look into that” but assumed the USDA was doing what it could. It wasn’t the strong assurance Adams appeared to be looking for.
Hollow Promises or Real Support?
What’s troubling here is that while Secretary Rollins repeatedly says she supports effective programs and doesn’t want anyone going hungry, she avoids taking a hard stance on the very changes threatening food security for millions. As a viewer, it feels like the USDA is trying to have it both ways – cutting costs while claiming to protect access. If that sounds confusing, it’s because it is.
This Shouldn’t Be a Political Tug-of-War
Here’s where things get especially frustrating. SNAP isn’t just about politics – it’s about real people, real families, and real meals that won’t get served if benefits are cut. When lawmakers like Rep. Adams bring facts, reports, and constituent voices into the conversation, they deserve more than political talking points in return. The USDA should be held to a higher standard of transparency, especially in the face of rising prices and growing need.
Rep. Adams Leaves a Mark – But Questions Remain
In the end, Rep. Alma Adams delivered a focused, passionate interrogation that exposed gaps in the USDA’s messaging and planning. Secretary Rollins kept her answers cautious, but that caution may not satisfy Americans who rely on SNAP for basic survival. With food costs climbing and food insecurity on the rise, the stakes are too high for half-answers.
Time for Straight Answers, Not Sidesteps
As this hearing shows, SNAP isn’t just a budget line – it’s a lifeline. And when lawmakers press USDA leadership for clarity, especially in times of financial pressure, the American public deserves clear, honest, and complete answers. If the goal is truly to feed the hungry and support rural economies, then every policy proposal needs to be weighed not just by dollars, but by the damage it might do.
Growing up in the Pacific Northwest, John developed a love for the great outdoors early on. With years of experience as a wilderness guide, he’s navigated rugged terrains and unpredictable weather patterns. John is also an avid hunter and fisherman who believes in sustainable living. His focus on practical survival skills, from building shelters to purifying water, reflects his passion for preparedness. When he’s not out in the wild, you can find him sharing his knowledge through writing, hoping to inspire others to embrace self-reliance.