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.”

Posted on

Cost-Shifting SNAP Benefits to States Would Have Huge Implications for Iowa’s Food-Secure Future

Congress is gearing up for votes in the Senate and House in the coming weeks as negotiations on the budget reconciliation process continue. As we’ve written about previously, the House budget resolution includes $230 billion in proposed cuts to SNAP.

According to the USDA Food and Nutrition Service (FNS), the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) assisted about 260,000 Iowans every month in federal FY 2024. Over that time period, Iowans on SNAP received a collective $529 million in benefits that were paid for in full by the federal government.

Like every other state, Iowa has a 50% share on administrative costs with the federal government to operate the program through the Iowa Department of Health and Human Services. From the latest available data (state fiscal year 2022), Iowa paid $21.8 million in administrative costs to bring in $880 million in benefits to low-income Iowans. Not a bad return on investment, especially when you take into account SNAP’s economic multiplier effect of 1.54.

Since the creation of the modern SNAP program, it has operated in this fashion, with the federal government fully covering the cost of benefits, and sharing administrative costs with the states. Now, this long-standing policy is under threat in Congress.

The U.S. House budget resolution calls for $230 billion in cuts to SNAP. Congress has three options to come up with such massive cuts: slashing benefits, kicking people off the program, or shifting some of the cost of benefits (and the blame for unpopular cuts) to state legislatures. It is looking increasingly likely that Congress will take this third option.

If Iowa were required to cover even 10% of SNAP benefit amounts, it would have cost the state $53 million in FY 2024, and would cost Iowa an estimated $502 million from 2026-2034. This amount could go even higher. President Trump’s 2018 budget proposed imposing a 10% cost-share with states for SNAP benefits and shifting to 25% over time (which would have cost $131 million to the state of Iowa in FY 2024). And if we were to see an economic downturn drive higher program enrollment, that would only add to the state’s costs and pressure on the state budget.

So how would the state of Iowa come up with an extra $53-130 million every year to cover these added costs? There are fears that for the first time, Congress could authorize states to directly reduce SNAP benefits amounts, which are already largely inadequate. If this were to happen, it would severely threaten Iowans’ food security.

Even without the authority to reduce benefit amounts, states may explore policy options to remove people from SNAP in an effort to bring down program costs. It certainly wouldn’t be anything new for the Iowa legislature, where we have seen many bills introduced over the past few years that attempt to restrict eligibility and make it more difficult to access SNAP (and that’s with the federal government fully covering benefit amounts). Added pressure on the state budget could also lead to cuts to other critical social service programs.

Why is Congress even discussing such massive cuts to SNAP, Medicaid, and school meals? Mainly to pay for tax cuts for the wealthy. In fact, the total amount of cuts to SNAP and Medicaid in the House budget resolution ($1.1 trillion) is the exact same amount as the tax cuts included for the top 1% of income earners.

As budget negotiations continue to heat up in Congress, it’s important our elected officials hear from Iowans loud and clear: no cuts to SNAP, and that includes no shifting benefit costs to states. A cut is a cut is a cut. A cost-shift just shifts the blame.

Iowa food banks, food pantries, and other anti-hunger organizations continue to assist record-breaking numbers of Iowans. We should be doing more to support Iowans facing food insecurity, not slashing funding to SNAP. If you haven’t already, please contact your Senators and U.S. Representative today and urge them to protect SNAP!

Posted on

Friday State Legislative Recap

The short version: where do things stand now in the Iowa legislature?

  • Medicaid work reporting requirements (SF 615) passed the Senate on Tuesday and House on Wednesday, and now heads to the Governor’s desk for signature. IHC opposes this legislation.

  • SNAP food and beverage restrictions (HF 970) passed the House on Wednesday evening despite bipartisan opposition, and now heads to the Senate for consideration. This would still require a vote in subcommittee and committee before being eligible for floor debate in the Senate. IHC opposes this legislation, and instead supports a stand-alone Double Up Food Bucks appropriation, SF 232.

  • The grocer reinvestment fund and produce processing grant bill (HF 550) passed out of an Appropriations subcommittee in the House on Wednesday with bipartisan support. The bill now awaits a full committee vote in the House Appropriations Committee. IHC supports this legislation.

  • The Senate has not yet voted on SF 525, companion legislation to HF 851 (which passed the House last Wednesday, March 19). This bill seeks to waive federal nutrition requirements for school meals and instead have Iowa develop our own school meal standards to prioritize “animal-based protein, dairy, vegetables, and fruit” in that order, and completely cut out whole grain requirements. IHC opposes this legislation.

  • Food donation liability protections for commercial truckers (SF 590) passed the Senate on Monday with unanimous support, was introduced in the House, referred to the Commerce Committee, and has been assigned a subcommittee of Rep. John Wills, Rep. Sean Bagniewski, and Rep. Shannon Lundgren. IHC is registered as “undecided” on this bill, as we believe it to be unnecessary and redundant with existing state and federal code.

  • Recent announcements from USDA on the cancellation of funding for local food purchasing programs and food for food banks and pantries makes it all the more critical for Iowa to increase investment in the Choose Iowa Food Purchasing Pilot Program and make it a standing appropriation. This does not have a bill number, but advocates continue to push for this funding to be included in the state budget.

Advocacy actions you can take

Contact your Senator and urge them to:

  • Vote NO on SF 525 (changing school nutrition standards)

  • Support SF 232 (clean Double Up Food Bucks Appropriation), not HF 970 (SNAP food restrictions)

  • Support increased investment in the Choose Iowa Food Purchasing Pilot Program and make it a standing appropriation

  • Support the grocer reinvestment fund and produce processing grant (the Senate version of HF 550 is SSB 1054)

Contact your Representative and urge them to:

  • Support increased investment in the Choose Iowa Food Purchasing Pilot Program and make it a standing appropriation

  • Vote YES on HF 550 (grocer reinvestment fund and produce processing grant)

More details on legislative action this week

There was a lot of action this week in the Iowa legislature, and unfortunately most of it was bad news for anti-hunger advocates.

On Tuesday, the Iowa Senate passed SF 615 (formerly SF 599 and SF 363) on a party-line vote, which would enact strict work reporting requirements for Medicaid and align work requirements across public assistance programs, including SNAP. The bill then passed the Iowa House on Wednesday, with Republican Rep. Matthew Rinker, Rep. Brian Lohse, and Rep. Michael Bergan joining the Democrats in voting no.

Rep. Carter Nordman speaking on HF 970.

Directly following that vote on Wednesday evening, the Iowa House proceed to vote on HF 970 (formerly HF 796 and HSB 216), which would impose sweeping restrictions on which food items people could purchase with SNAP benefits.

Rep. Rob Johnson offered an amendment to strike the language of the bill and replace it with the language of HF 920, a clean Double-Up Food Bucks appropriation that was co-sponsored by 33 House Republicans. A vote on the amendment failed.

Rep. Rob Johnson speaks on his amendment to HF 970.

Rep. Chad Ingels introduced an amendment that would strike Section 3 of the bill, eliminating the language that would make the Double Up Food Bucks appropriation included in Section 1 of the bill contingent upon Iowa receiving a waiver from USDA to restrict certain foods from SNAP. When it came up on the floor, Rep. Ingels withdrew his amendment, and it did not receive a vote.

The bill did receive an amendment with some minor changes to the bill language before coming up for a vote. All House Democrats were joined by eight House Republicans in voting no against HF 970: Rep. Jason Gearhart, Rep. Chad Ingels, Rep. Tom Jeneary, Rep. Shannon Latham, Rep. Brian Lohse, Rep. Mike Sexton, Rep. Devon Wood, and Rep. David Young.

Please send a note of thanks to all the Senators and Representatives who voted NO on SF 615, and all the Representatives who voted NO on HF 970.

Posted on

Protect SNAP Choice Day of Action

The Iowa Hunger Coalition is hosting a day of action to protect SNAP choice on Monday, March 24, from 11:00am-4:00pm at the Iowa State Capitol. We welcome you to join us for as long as you can whenever works best for you!

If you can’t travel to Des Moines on such short notice, you can email us your comments you’d like us to share with legislators at iowahungercoalition@gmail.com. We also encourage you to contact your House Representative as soon as possible and urge them to VOTE NO on HF 970!

RSVP for Monday


Advocates will gather on the ground floor near the information desk before going up to speak with legislators and urging them to reject HF 970, which would impose sweeping restrictions on which foods people could purchase with SNAP benefits.

Section 2 of the bill states (emphasis added):

The department of health and human services shall request from the food and nutrition service of the United States department of agriculture to provide, for purposes of state administration of the supplement food and nutrition program, a modification to the eligible foods as defined in 7 C.F.R. §271.2 to only include healthy food based on necessary nutrition for good health, including but not limited to healthy grains, dairy, meat, eggs, peanut butter and nuts, pasta, rice, legumes, and fruits and vegetables.

If the state legislature didn’t want to play food police, it appears they are instead deputizing the Iowa Department of Health and Human Services. Either way – it’s wrong…and also very unclear? But we do know this: Iowans should be trusted to make the best food choices for their families.

HF 970 Would Increase Stigma


Research consistently shows (including a recent study by Iowa HHS), that people on SNAP want to eat more healthy food, but struggle affording it and having the time to prepare meals from scratch. That’s why we should be investing in programs like Double Up Food Bucks, which helps bring down the cost of fresh fruits and vegetables for SNAP participants and supports local farmers to boot.

And sure, Section 1 of HF 970 includes a $1 million appropriation for Double Up Food Bucks, but those funds are currently contingent upon USDA granting Iowa its SNAP food ban. Why would our legislature hold these funds hostage like this, especially when we have a separate bill with a clean $1 million appropriation for Double Up Food Bucks, HF 920 (which is literally sponsored by half the House Republican caucus)?

Trust us, we love Double Up Food Bucks. It’s been at the top of our legislative agenda for years. But $1 million to support the program will only go so far, and the food restrictions would negatively impact all 260,000 Iowans on SNAP going forward. That’s not a trade-off we’re willing to make.

Aside from the fact that this bill is just plain wrong, it would be bad for Iowa’s economy. One in three SNAP participants in Iowa lives in a county that borders another state. While we know that transportation barriers continues to exist for some folks on SNAP, others would certainly choose to do their shopping across state lines to avoid the government policing what’s in their grocery cart.

HF 970 is Bad for Iowa’s Economy


HF 970 is likely to come up for debate in the House very soon. That’s why we’re asking you to show up and speak out against this harmful bill on Monday.

Feel free to reach out with any questions at iowahungercoalition@gmail.com.

Posted on

IHC Statement on USDA Cancellation of Funds for The Emergency Food Assistance Program

The Iowa Hunger Coalition condemns the recent decision by the U.S. Department of Agriculture to cancel $500 million in funding for The Emergency Food Assistance Program (TEFAP). The Iowa Hunger Coalition and our members call on USDA to immediately restore these food orders, and call on Iowa’s elected officials to advocate with USDA to reverse this disastrous decision.

RELATED: IHC Statement on USDA Cancelling Local Food Purchasing Programs

“Food banks, food pantries, and other anti-hunger groups continue to see record-breaking numbers of Iowans turning to them for food assistance,” said Luke Elzinga, board chair of IHC. “Food insecurity rates continue to climb, and this will only make matters worse. Every single Iowan should be outraged at this decision by USDA.”

The $500 million in cuts come from eliminating additional TEFAP funding authorized through the Commodity Credit Corporation (CCC) at USDA. In Iowa, this will eliminate an estimated $3.8 million worth of food for food banks, food pantries, and the people they serve. Dozens of truckloads of meat, milk, cheese, and vegetables have been cancelled.

“TEFAP is our food pantry’s primary source of protein and dairy items,” said Nicole McAlexander, Executive Director of the Southeast Linn Community Center. “With this funding cut it will be extremely difficult for us to continue to provide nutritious, well-balanced choices to our neighbors.”

“This is yet another debilitating blow to food pantries, food banks, farmers, and, most importantly, families struggling to afford food,” said John Boller, Executive Director of the Coralville Community Food Pantry. “Like most pantries, we rely heavily on commodity food to keep our shelves and coolers stocked with nutrient-dense choices for our neighbors. In 2024, TEFAP provided a quarter of the food we distributed. Take away TEFAP and there’s no Coralville Community Food Pantry.”

“TEFAP is a critical resource for those of us fighting food insecurity,” said Matt Unger, CEO of the DMARC Food Pantry Network. “The nonprofit sector continues to be asked to do more and more as food insecurity rises and critical government resources face cuts.”

“At a time when food banks across our state are serving record breaking numbers of Iowans every month and struggling to keep their shelves stocked, further federal funding cuts are devastating,” said Paige Chickering with Save the Children Action Network. “Food insecurity is on the rise in Iowa. We need to dedicate more resources to this growing problem, not take away already sparse financial support.”

Posted on

IHC Statement on USDA Cancelling Local Food Purchasing Programs

The Iowa Hunger Coalition strongly objects to the decision by the U.S. Department of Agriculture to cancel the Local Food Purchasing Assistance Cooperative Agreement Program (LFPA) and Local Foods for Schools and Child Care Cooperative Agreement Program (LFSCC) for 2025 and beyond. These programs would have provided $11.3 million in local food purchasing support for food banks and emergency feeding programs ($3 million), schools ($6.1 million), and early child care programs ($2.2 million) over the next three years.

LFPA and LFS have been incredibly successful in Iowa, not only in providing fresh, nutritious food to Iowa’s schools and anti-hunger organizations, but also in building markets for Iowa’s local food farmers. Our friends at the Iowa Farmers Union, Iowa Food System Coalition, Iowa Food Bank Association, Iowa Valley RC&D, Iowa Farm to School and Early Care Network, Iowa Food Hub Managers Working Group, Meskwaki Nation, and many other coalition partners and individual food farmers have shown tireless dedication to feeding Iowans and improving our local food systems through LFPA and LFS—building on decades of local food systems work. Many food farmers have already made substantial investments and scaled up production in anticipation of these programs. Their work should be commended, not condemned.

Iowa’s food banks, food pantries, and other anti-hunger organizations continue to assist record-breaking numbers of our neighbors experiencing food insecurity. At the same time, federal and state support for nutrition programs are increasingly under threat. Nonprofits are being asked to do more with less. Without the support of LFPA and LFSCC, food banks, emergency feeding organizations, and schools are left with fewer resources to feed children, seniors, and Iowans of all ages.

We appreciate the support for local food purchasing programs from the Iowa Department of Agriculture and Land Stewardship (IDALS), and believe the state has an opportunity to respond to this moment by stepping up investment in the Choose Iowa Food Purchasing Pilot Program. We are calling on the Iowa state legislature to direct $3 million in funding to support this program in state fiscal year 2025-2026. Please contact your state Senator and Representative today and urge them to increase state funding for the Choose Iowa Food Purchasing Pilot Program.

Furthermore, we are encouraging all IHC members and supporters to make conscious and intentional efforts to support local food farmers with your purchases. Visit a farmers market. Sign up for a Community Supported Agriculture (CSA) program. Buy directly from a local farmer, food hub, or meat locker. We’re all in this together, and we can all make a difference.

Posted on

U.S. House Budget Resolution Would Increase Food Insecurity for Tens of Thousands of Iowans

Two weeks ago, the U.S. House of Representatives passed a budget resolution directing top-level spending cuts and teeing up negotiations with the Senate. All four of Iowa’s Representatives voted in favor of the resolution.

Related Reading: 40+ groups tell Iowa’s Congressional delegation: Don’t cut Medicaid and SNAP

The budget resolution directs at least $880 billion in cuts to Medicaid, at least $230 billion in cuts to SNAP, and $12 billion in cuts to school nutrition programs. These cuts would be devastating to hundreds of thousands of Iowans who rely on these critical programs, and would further exacerbate food insecurity in the state.

While we still don’t know what specific cuts will be made, we do have some indications based on earlier proposals that have been discussed. So what exactly would be the impact in Iowa from these possible policy changes? Keep reading to find out.

Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP)

The budget resolution calls for $230 billion in cuts to SNAP over ten years, or 20% of all program funding. There is not a way to make such substantial cuts without slashing benefits, changing eligibility, or requiring states to cost-share on benefits. Any one of these options would do immeasurable harm to SNAP and the Iowans assisted by the program.

Undoing the Thrifty Food Plan Modernization of 2021

Undoing the modernization of the Thrifty Food Plan that occurred in 2021 would decrease SNAP benefits by an estimated 27% in the state of Iowa. This would slash the average monthly SNAP benefit for households by $71, from $351 to $280. This would cut the average individual daily benefit by $1.17, from $5.72 to $4.55. It would lead to almost $10 million less in benefits going out to Iowans every single month, for a monthly loss of almost $15 million in economic activity.

Expanding the 3-Month Time Limit (Work Reporting Requirements)

Able-Bodied Adults Without Dependents (ABAWDs) ages 18-54 currently are required to work at least 20 hours per week or face a time limit of being enrolled in SNAP for only three months every three years. There are a variety of proposals that have been floated, including expanding these time limit to adults ages 55-56, expanding the time limit to adults up to age 65, and expanding the time limit to caretakers of children ages 6 and up. There have also been proposals to eliminate the exemption for veterans, people experiencing homelessness, and young adults aging out of foster care.

Without knowing the exact proposal, it’s difficult to estimate how many additional Iowans would be subject to the time limit/work reporting requirements. But we do know that these work reporting requirements don’t meaningfully improve employment - they just reinforce false narratives and kick people off the program who struggle to meet the requirements, including people who are working.

Ending Broad-Based Categorical Eligibility

Ending broad-based categorical eligibility (BBCE) would kick 24,300 Iowans off SNAP, over half of whom are children (11,300) and seniors (2,500), by reducing income eligibility for SNAP in Iowa from 160% of the federal poverty level (FPL) to 130% FPL. It would also impose a strict asset test for SNAP, which would deter additional Iowans from being able to access SNAP.

Requiring States to Cost-Share on SNAP Benefits

Another possible proposal would require states to cost-share on SNAP benefits with the federal government. Currently, the federal government pays for 100% of SNAP benefits, with states having a 50/50 cost-share on the administrative costs.

In federal fiscal year 2024, SNAP benefits to Iowans totaled $528.9 million. If the state of Iowa were required to cover even 10% of this, it would cost the state $52.9 million - more than twice what we currently pay to administer the program.

This would no doubt be a cause for concern, given our Governor's reluctance to provide funding for nutrition programs, and impending budget shortfalls. It would leave Iowa in a tight spot, and could lead decision-makers to roll back eligibility for SNAP or create additional administrative hurdles to further drive down program participation in order to save money.

Child Nutrition Programs

Making Changes to the Community Eligibility Provision (CEP)

The Community Eligibility Provision (CEP) allows schools to serve free breakfast and lunch to all students if they have a high enough percentage of their student population who qualifies for free or reduced price meals. Research has shown this type of policy can greatly reduce childhood food insecurity, especially for children from households with incomes between 185-250% who would otherwise not qualify for free or reduced price meals, but still struggle to make ends meet.

Changing the qualifier for schools and school districts to be eligible for the Community Eligibility Provision from 25% of the identified student percentage (ISP) receiving free or reduced price school meals to 60% ISP would eliminate access to free school meals to nearly 28,000 children in Iowa, including 12,000 elementary students, 7,000 middle school students, and 9,000 high school students.

Loss of Direct Certification for Free School Meals and Adjunctive Eligibility for WIC

If Iowans lose access to SNAP or Medicaid, that can also jeopardize their ability to remain eligible for free school meals and the Special Supplemental Nutrition Program for Women, Infants, and Children (WIC). This could create a ripple effect for families, losing access to multiple benefits at a time and further increasing food insecurity.

Contact Your Members of Congress Today!

It's important that Iowa's Senators and U.S. Representatives hear from their constituents about these concerning proposals. Please contact Iowa's federal delegation and tell them to protect SNAP, school meals, and Medicaid from harmful cuts!

We encourage you to use data and talking points from above, but most importantly, make it personal! Explain why you object to these cuts as an Iowan and a voter.

Thank you for your ongoing advocacy!