Posted on

A Letter from the Board Chair

Hi everyone, it’s Luke Elzinga, board chair of the Iowa Hunger Coalition. Being an anti-hunger advocate feels a bit like drinking from a fire hose these days. SNAP and other nutrition programs are under increasing threat at the state and federal level, while frontline feeding organizations in Iowa are continually being asked to do more with less.

Before I update you on all the various threats we’re facing right now, I want to extend an invitation to join us next month at IHC’s 2025 Annual Meeting on Friday, June 27, 1:00-3:00pm, in Des Moines.

At the annual meeting, we will be strategizing on policy priorities for the 2026 state legislative session. Please join us to provide your feedback and help collaborate on IHC’s policy agenda for the coming year. Registration is free, and you do not have to be a dues-paying member of IHC to attend. We’d love to see you there!

The 2025 state legislative session has concluded, and unfortunately our legislature did not take meaningful action on common sense solutions to address food insecurity. Despite early positive momentum, we once again saw no state investment in the Double Up Food Bucks program. There were no actions to improve access to SNAP or healthy school meals, though we did help stop a harmful bill that would have waived federal school nutrition standards.

One small win of the 2025 state legislative session was making the Choose Iowa Food Purchasing Program a standing appropriation, and allocating $200,000 for matching funds for local food purchases by food banks and emergency feeding organizations. Unfortunately, this amount was less than last year’s appropriation, and schools are no longer included in the program.

And although we stopped legislation to restrict certain foods and beverages from SNAP, Gov. Kim Reynolds unilaterally requested a waiver from USDA to do so, and it was approved last week. These restrictions will take effect on January 1, 2026. (Read our statement.)

Iowa also recently announced the state has received funding from the federal government to operate Healthy Kids Iowa, a summer feeding demonstration project being billed as an alternative to Summer EBT, which Iowa has refused to participate in. While Summer EBT could have provided 245,000 children with $120 in nutritional benefits on an EBT card, Healthy Kids Iowa aims to assist 65,000 kids by providing $40 worth of food once per month at participating food pantries and summer meal sites. (Read our statement.)

In March, USDA Secretary Brooke Rollins announced the cancellation of local food purchasing programs, leading to a loss of $11.3 million in federal support in Iowa. (Read our statement.)

That same month, Sec. Rollins also announced that USDA was cancelling half a billion dollars for The Emergency Food Assistance Program funded through the Commodity Credit Corporation (CCC). This represents a large portion of total TEFAP dollars, and an estimated loss of $3.8 million in food for Iowa’s food banks and pantries this year. (Read our statement.)

And just last week, the U.S. House of Representatives voted on the largest cut to SNAP in the history of the program. All four of Iowa’s Representatives voted in favor of the reconciliation bill and its $300 billion cut to SNAP.

The good news? We can still stop these massive cuts to SNAP in the Senate. Contact Sen. Joni Ernst and Sen. Chuck Grassley and urge them to reject these severe cuts to SNAP! You can expect to hear more from us in the coming weeks as the Senate attempts to pass their version of the reconciliation bill before the July 4th holiday.

Finally, I want to thank you for all that you do to advocate for the end to hunger in Iowa. We know it’s not an impossible task.

Hunger is a policy choice. That could not be more clear than it is right now. We know the solutions – but our elected officials lack the willpower.

It’s our job to keep showing up, keep speaking out, and keep taking care of each other.

Thank you for your support,

Luke Elzinga
Board Chair

P.S. – We’re always just an email away. If you ever have questions, please don’t hesitate to reach out to us at iowahungercoalition@gmail.com.

Posted on

Iowa Hunger Coalition Denounces U.S. House Passing Massive Cuts to SNAP in Budget Reconciliation Bill

Yesterday morning, after an all-night debate, the U.S. House of Representatives passed its budget reconciliation bill, which contains the largest cut to the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) in the history of the program. The bill cuts $295 billion in federal funding to SNAP over the next 10 years, a 30% cut to our nation’s largest anti-hunger program. All four members of Iowa’s federal delegation to the House voted in favor of the cuts.

“Every Iowan should know that Rep. Ashley Hinson, Rep. Mariannette Miller-Meeks, Rep. Zach Nunn, and Rep. Randy Feenstra all just voted for the largest cut to SNAP in the history of the program,” said Luke Elzinga, policy and advocacy manager at the DMARC Food Pantry Network and board chair of the Iowa Hunger Coalition. “Our elected leaders in Congress are failing the people of Iowa.”

Food banks, food pantries, and other anti-hunger organizations across the state continue to contend with record-breaking levels of Iowans turning to them for assistance. According to data recently released by Feeding America’s Map the Meal Gap study, food insecurity increased in every single county of Iowa in 2023. The gap between the number of Iowans experiencing food insecurity and the number of Iowans enrolled in SNAP continues to widen. For too many hungry Iowans, SNAP is already inaccessible and inadequate.

“We should be focusing on streamlining and improving access to SNAP and ensuring greater benefit adequacy,” said Elzinga. “This bill does the complete opposite.”

The House reconciliation bill would shift tens, if not hundreds, of millions of dollars in annual program costs to the state of Iowa, expand work reporting requirements to older adults and parents and caregivers of school-age children, eliminate the SNAP Nutrition Education Program (SNAP-Ed), and freeze Thrifty Food Plan updates, cutting future benefit amounts for Iowans.

“Yesterday’s vote is unconscionable,” said Nicole McAlexander, executive director at Southeast Linn Community Center . “SNAP is the best tool we have in addressing hunger and food insecurity and has very low rates of fraud. If this bill goes through, people will suffer.”

The House budget reconciliation bill not only includes the largest cut to SNAP in history, but the largest cut to Medicaid. These policy changes could also impact the number of children who qualify for free school meals, because when families lose access to SNAP and/or Medicaid, they are no longer automatically eligible for free school meals.

“The House reconciliation bill would do incredible harm to children and families in our state,” said Paige Chickering, Iowa State Manager for Save the Children Action Network. “With hunger and food insecurity rates steadily climbing we need more investment and support for the most vulnerable among us, not massive cuts that will make it much more difficult for hard working Iowan’s to put food on the table for their families.”

The Iowa Hunger Coalition calls on Iowa Senators Chuck Grassley and Joni Ernst to push back against these deep, structural cuts to SNAP as the reconciliation bill now heads to the Senate.

“Sen. Grassley and Sen. Ernst have an opportunity to do what’s right and stand up to protect vulnerable Iowans against these devastating cuts,” said Elzinga. “We are calling on all Iowans to contact your Senators and demand they step up to protect SNAP.”

Posted on

Help Protect SNAP from the Largest Cut in the History of the Program

The U.S. House of Representatives is gearing up for a full vote on the House budget reconciliation bill, a massive legislative package that includes the largest cut to SNAP in the history of the program.

The bill directs $295 billion in cuts to the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) over the next 10 years, a nearly 30% funding cut to the program. There is not a way to make such massive cuts to SNAP that will not cause harm.

We’ve previously outlined the specific threats to SNAP included in the House budget reconciliation bill, including proposals to leave states on the hook for tens of millions of dollars – likely leading to programmatic cuts, expanding work reporting requirements to older adults and parents of school-age children, kicking refugees off the program, and eliminating the SNAP Nutrition Education Program (SNAP-Ed).

In addition to the SNAP cuts, the budget resolution also includes the largest cut to Medicaid in history and deep cuts to Medicare and Pell Grants. And when families lose access to SNAP and Medicaid, they can also lose access to free school meals.

Find Your Representative


Now is a critical time to contact your U.S. Representative and urge them to reject these harmful cuts to SNAP, Medicaid, and other essential programs!

Not sure what to say? Here’s a script you can use:

“Hello, I am calling today because I am a constituent and I am urging the Representative to reject the $295 billion in cuts to SNAP included in the House budget reconciliation bill. This would be the biggest cut to SNAP in the history of the program. According to Feeding America, 12% of Iowans experience food insecurity, including 17% of children. Food banks and food pantries across the state continue to see record-breaking need. I am asking the Representative to please vote NO on the House budget reconciliation bill.”

Questions? Reach out to us at iowahungercoalition@gmail.com.

Posted on

Iowa Hunger Coalition Statement on Gov. Reynolds’ SNAP Restriction Waiver Request

5/23/25 Update: USDA approved Iowa’s SNAP waiver request on May 22, 2025. The state’s final approved waiver does not ban the purchase of garden seeds or food producing plants from purchase with SNAP benefits. Information in this post indicating the opposite has been stricken.

A recent report from Iowa Public Radio found Gov. Kim Reynolds submitted a waiver request to the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) on March 12, 2025, to restrict certain foods and beverages from purchase with SNAP benefits. Though this type of state waiver had previously never been granted by the federal government, Secretary of Agriculture Brooke Rollins recently encouraged states to submit “innovative” waiver requests for federal nutrition programs, and Iowa joins a number of states in doing so.

“These restrictions will do nothing to lower the cost of healthy food for Iowans facing hunger and food insecurity,” said Luke Elzinga, board chair of the Iowa Hunger Coalition and policy and advocacy manager at the DMARC Food Pantry Network. “We are disappointed but not surprised by Gov. Kim Reynolds’ waiver request.”

If approved, the waiver would go into effect on January 1, 2026. Based on the document Iowa submitted to USDA in March, the state is seeking to restrict any food or beverage that qualifies for the state sales tax from purchase with SNAP. This list includes:

  • garden seeds and food producing plants
  • candy, gum, and candy-coated items
  • soft drinks, lemonade, and fruit punch
  • fruit leather, certain granola bars, and caramel corn

“Iowans should be trusted to make the best food choices for their families,” said Sheila Hansen, IHC board member and senior policy advocate/government relations manager at Common Good Iowa. “Let’s make sure all Iowans have greater access to nutritious food, not punish our low-income neighbors and deny kids a candy bar when they want a treat.”

“Banning garden seeds and food-producing plants from SNAP is counterintuitive,” said John Boller, IHC secretary and executive director of Coralville Community Food Pantry. “If Gov. Reynolds’ idea is to teach a man to fish, so to speak, this waiver request would essentially take away people’s bait and tackle.”

The news comes shortly after the state of Iowa announced a new USDA summer demonstration pilot program, Healthy Kids Iowa, as an alternative to Summer EBT. While many questions remain about how Healthy Kids Iowa will be administered, the program aims to assist 65,000 children in Iowa this summer, far fewer than the 245,000 kids who could have benefited from Summer EBT.

“If Gov. Reynolds’ opposition to participating in Summer EBT was the lack of nutritional focus,” said Elzinga, “why didn’t she elect to submit a similar restriction waiver for Summer EBT and participate in the program?”

“The research is clear, we won’t Make America Healthy Again by banning products from SNAP,” said Paige Chickering, IHC board member and Iowa state manager for Save the Children Action Network. “We need sustained investments in programs we know are effective at improving nutrition, like Double Up Food Bucks, to ensure low income families can afford healthy foods.”

Iowa’s March 12 letter to USDA was sent a week before the first SNAP restriction bill (HSB 216) was even introduced in the Iowa legislature this year, and six weeks prior to the Iowa House passing legislation. That legislation (HF 970) did include a $1 million appropriation for Double Up Food Bucks, but only if Iowa were granted a SNAP restriction waiver by USDA.

HF 970 passed the House despite bipartisan opposition, but died in the Senate. Now, with the 2025 Iowa legislative session drawing to a close, there are no state funds being appropriated toward the Double Up Food Bucks Program.

“Instead of investing in evidence-based solutions to improve healthy eating, the state of Iowa is choosing to experiment on low-income Iowans’ grocery carts,” said Nicole McAlexander, IHC vice chair and executive director of Southeast Linn Community Center. “The only thing we know this will do is increase stigma for SNAP participants and perpetuate misconceptions about hard-working, hungry Iowans.”

As a waiver request, Iowa is required to conduct an evaluation to study its impact. According to the March 12 document submitted to USDA, Iowa aims to study the effectiveness of a SNAP restriction ban by comparing the healthy eating behaviors between SNAP participants who receive nutrition education and those who do not. This evaluation seems to propose measuring the effectiveness of nutrition education paired with a SNAP food restriction, and not the effectiveness of the restriction on its own. Along with WIC nutrition education, Iowa plans to use participation in SNAP-Ed to conduct this research, a program which is currently being proposed for elimination in the U.S. House reconciliation budget.

Posted on

U.S. House Committee on Agriculture Set to Vote on Massive Cuts to SNAP this Week

The Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP), which helps 260,000 Iowans put food on the table, is under attack right now in Washington DC.

Last night, Chairman Glenn “G.T.” Thompson of the U.S. House Committee on Agriculture released budget reconciliation language that outlines over $290 billion in cuts to the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP), and already scheduled a mark-up vote for today (starting at 6:30pm Central) and tomorrow.

Chairman Thompson’s proposal would:

  • shift at least 5% of the costs of benefits to states, and a greater share of administrative costs, leaving states on the hook for millions of dollars and incredibly hard decisions, leading to future cuts to SNAP and other vital basic needs programs

  • expand work reporting requirements to older adults ages 55-64 and parents and caregivers of school-age children ages 7 and up, likely leading to tens of thousands of Iowans losing access to SNAP

  • kick refugees and asylum seekers off SNAP, taking food away from thousands of vulnerable individuals and families—in FY 2023 there were 494,000 refugees and asylum seekers enrolled in SNAP, including 4,000 in the state of Iowa

  • eliminate the SNAP Nutrition Education Program (SNAP-Ed), which supports a variety of nutrition education efforts in the state of Iowa

  • freeze future re-evaluations of the Thrifty Food Plan, cutting increases to SNAP benefits and allocations for The Emergency Food Assistance Program (TEFAP)

Each one of these proposals would be harmful on its own. Together, they would be absolutely devastating.

This is a crucial time for us to send a strong message to our lawmakers to protect funding for SNAP and reject proposals to cost share with states. Please contact Iowa’s Representatives who serve on the U.S. House Committee on Agriculture as soon as possible, and urge them to reject these harmful cuts to SNAP!

Now more than ever, support for basic needs programs is essential. SNAP is the best tool we have at our disposal to fight food insecurity. Too many Iowans are struggling to put food on the table.

For more details on the specific proposals included in Chairman Thompson’s budget proposal and their impact on Iowa, keep reading.

Shifting the Cost of Benefits Would be Devastating to States

Perhaps the most concerning proposal put forth to achieve this massive budget cut is cost sharing SNAP benefits with states. This would be a drastic restructuring of the program, leaving Iowa to come up with upwards of $27 million dollars annually starting in FY 2028 when the proposal would go into effect.

It would also increase the cost-share for states on administrative costs from 50% to 75%, leaving Iowa on the hook for an additional $15 million starting in FY 2026. This set of policies would place enormous strain on state budgets and force Iowa to make some extremely tough decisions.

The proposal would tie a state’s cost-share percentage to the state’s payment error rate (PER) for SNAP, with a minimum cost-share of 5%. The payment error rate measures how accurately state agencies determine SNAP eligibility and benefit amounts for those who participate in SNAP. Payment errors include both overpayments and underpayments of benefits. They do not represent program fraud.

Under the proposed text, states with payment error rates between 6-8% would face a cost-share on benefits of 15%; states with PERs between 8-10% would face a cost-share of 20%’ and states with PERs 10% and greater would face a cost-share of 25%.

It’s clear: this cost-shift would just shift the blame to states for massive, unpopular cuts to SNAP and other basic need programs.

This policy would lead to massive financial penalties to states with higher-than-average payment error rates, while offering no additional incentives for states to lower their PER beyond 5%. We’ve seen firsthand in Iowa that it takes more resources, not less, to turn the payment error rate around.

Iowa’s Payment Error Rate Case Study

Iowa is a perfect example of the current process to bring down payment error rates working effectively. The state received a $1.8 million fine from USDA in FY 2018 for having an excessive payment error rate, and Iowa was allowed to dedicate half the amount of the fine toward system improvements.

Since then, thanks to sustained work from the Iowa Department of Health and Human Services and investments from our legislature, Iowa's payment error rate (PER) is back on track, and we now have the 6th lowest PER in the nation. The way Iowa continues to bring its payment error rate down is through intentional investments: IT infrastructure upgrades, staff training, and team specializations.

Penalizing states with high payment error rates with greater cost burdens will not solve underlying issues with program administration, it will only make them worse.

Though a one-time $1.8 million fine (half of which went to IT infrastructure upgrades) may have been an effective "stick" for the state of Iowa, shifting $40+ million annually to the state would be a wrecking ball.

As the state of Iowa has shifted greater focus on reducing their PER while application processing timeliness (APT) suffers. Tying a cost-shift to the payment error rate could lead to people waiting for extended periods of time to receive the benefits they desperately need while their applications are painstakingly scrutinized.

If these cost-share proposals weren't concerning enough, they're paired with a policy that would put even greater risk on state budgets and lead to unintended consequences to people who rely on SNAP to feed themselves.

Another proposal included in the House Agriculture Budget would move the tolerance levels for payment errors to $0. This means that even a single dollar of under or overpayment of benefits could negatively contribute to a state's payment error rate, and therefore their share of SNAP benefit costs. This could lead to states directing all of their SNAP staffing resources (which will also be under threat by the increased administrative cost-share) to ensuring benefit accuracy at the expense of application processing timeliness and customer service. Pairing a state cost-shift on SNAP benefits with zero-tolerance for payment errors is a recipe for disaster.

It bears repeating, but the payment error rate does not represent fraud. Which means this cost-shift proposal is not about addressing waste, fraud, and abuse. It's about finding billions of dollars of cuts to SNAP to pay for tax breaks that largely benefit the wealthy and corporations, and doing so at the expense of state budgets and ultimately, people experiencing hunger and food insecurity.

Expanding Work Reporting Requirements Would Lead to Tens of Thousands of Iowans Losing Access to Food Assistance

Another proposal included in the House Agriculture Committee budget would expanding the three-month time limit for SNAP, also known as work reporting requirements, to older adults ages 55-64 and parents and caregivers of children 7 and up.

Able-Bodied Adults Without Dependents (ABAWDs) ages 18-54 are currently required to work at least 20 hours per week or face a three-month time limit for SNAP. That means that people who are subject to the work reporting requirement and unable to meet it can only access SNAP for three months every three years.

The research on work reporting requirements is clear: they don't improve employment or earnings, they just remove people from programs and leave them worse off than before.

The Research on Work Requirements


According to analysis by the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, the recent proposal to expand work reporting requirements would put 6 million Americans at risk of losing SNAP benefits, and would negatively impact 11 million total people on SNAP—1 in 4 program participants.

In Iowa, 10% of everyone on SNAP would be at risk of losing their benefits, and 1 in 4 households could see their benefits negatively impacted due to the new requirements.

This proposal won't lead more Iowans to finding employment. It will simply remove people from SNAP who struggle to comply with the new requirements and leave them worse off than before. Food insecurity will rise, and so will the number of people turning to food banks and food pantries across our state.

Eliminating SNAP-Ed Will Not Make America Healthy

The budget reconciliation text also proposes the elimination of the SNAP Nutrition Education Program (SNAP-Ed), calling it "ineffective and duplicative." States use SNAP-Ed funding in a number of ways to support nutrition education efforts for low-income residents. In Iowa, SNAP-Ed helps to support a variety of efforts, including:

  • Pick a Better Snack, a program to increase fruit and vegetable intake with young children

  • Fresh Conversations, a program to support healthy aging and independent living in older adults ages 60+

  • Buy. Eat. Live Healthy, a series of classes to support individuals and households in making healthy grocery choices on a tight budget

If the goal of this administration is to "Make America Healthy Again," these types of programs would seem like natural opportunities for increased investment, not wholesale elimination. But again, this is about cutting for cutting's sake, not actually improving the program.

Freezing Updates to the Thrifty Food Plan Would Cut Future Benefits

One proposal in the House Agriculture budget that has long been discussed is freezing future re-evaluations to the Thrifty Food Plan. This would still allow for annual increases to SNAP benefits based on inflation, but would prevent re-evaluations from occurring every five years to adjust for other changes that impact household food purchasing trends.

This would cut future benefit increases to SNAP and allocations for The Emergency Food Assistance Plan (TEFAP), both of which use the Thrifty Food Plan in their funding formulas.

Based on Congressional Budget Office (CBO) estimates, freezing TFP updates outside of inflation adjustments would lead to $201 million in cuts to SNAP benefits for Iowans over fiscal years 2027-2034.

Iowans need a Thrifty Food Plan that continues to stay up to date with the times, not cuts to future benefit amounts.

Do you have questions about any of these budget proposals? Reach out to us at iowahungercoalition@gmail.com.

Posted on

IHC Statement on Healthy Kids Iowa Pilot Program

The Iowa Hunger Coalition has issued the following statement in response to today’s announcement of the Healthy Kids Iowa Pilot Program.

“We appreciate additional resources being directed to help address food insecurity for children over the summer in Iowa. However, many questions remain as to the details of how the pilot program will function. We are concerned about the barriers families may face in accessing this new program and the additional strain it could place on feeding organizations who are already experiencing record-breaking levels of need.

One of the reasons the Summer EBT program has been so successful nationwide is it delivers benefits directly to families and ensures they can use additional summer food dollars in their communities. This has been especially important for rural communities who often struggle to easily access summer feeding sites and food pantries that can be geographically distant or only operate during typical working hours for parents.

We continue to believe that the best way to serve Iowa’s low-income kids during the summer is through evidence-based USDA summer meal programs: summer meal sites, grab ‘n go sites, and Summer EBT, or SUN Bucks.

As further details are released about the Healthy Kids Iowa Pilot Program we hope these concerns are addressed to ensure that each and every child who qualifies is served and has their individual nutritional needs met by the program.”