U.S. Rep. Derrick Van Orden tours Gilbertson's Dairy in Dunn County. (Henry Redman | Wisconsin Examiner)

When he was campaigning for Congress in western Wisconsin, Republican U.S. Rep. Derrick Van Orden talked about growing up “in abject rural poverty,” raised by a single mom who relied on food stamps. As a result, he has said, he would never go along with cuts to food assistance. 

“He sat down in my office when he first got elected and promised me he wouldn’t ever vote against SNAP because he grew up on it, supposedly,” Democratic U.S. Rep. Mark Pocan said in a phone interview as he was on his way home to Wisconsin from Washington this week.

But as Henry Redman reported, Van Orden voted for the Republican budget blueprint, which proposes more than $200 billion in cuts to the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) in order to make room for tax cuts for the very wealthy.

Still, after that vote, Van Orden issued a public statement warning against reckless cuts to SNAP that place “disproportionate burdens on rural states, where food insecurity is often more widespread,” and saying it is unfair to build a budget “on the backs of some of our most vulnerable populations, including hungry children. Period.”

Van Orden sits on the House Agriculture Committee, which was tasked with drawing up a specific plan to cut $230 billion from food assistance to pay for tax cuts. Van Orden reportedly balked at a cost-sharing plan that shifted 25% of the cost of the program to states, saying it was unfair to Wisconsin.

But then, on Wednesday night, Van Orden voted yes as the committee passed an unprecedented cut in federal funding for SNAP on a 29-25 vote.

Van Orden took credit for the plan, which ties cuts to state error rates in determining eligibility and benefit amounts for food assistance. According to WisPolitics, he declared at a House Ag Committee markup that “states are going to have to accept the fact that if they are not administering this program efficiently, that they’re going to have to pay a portion of the program that is equitable, and it makes sense and it is scaled.” 

But states, including Wisconsin, don’t have money to make up the gap as the federal government, for the first time ever, withdraws hundreds of millions of dollars for nutrition assistance. Instead, they will reduce coverage, kick people off the program and hunger will increase. The ripple effects include a loss of about $30 billion for farmers who supply food for the program, Democrats on the Ag Committee report, and damage to the broader economy, since every $1 in SNAP benefits generates about $1.50 in economic activity. Grocery stores, food manufacturers rural communities will be hit particularly hard. 

Wisconsin will start out with a bill for 5% of the costs of the program in Fiscal Year 2028, according to a bill explanation from the Agriculture Committee. But as error rates vary, that number shifts sharply upward — to 15% when the error rate goes from the current 5% to 6%, to 20% if we exceed an 8% error rate, and so on.  

And there are other cuts in the bill, Sen. Amy Klobuchar (D-Minnesota) points out, including stricter eligibility limits, work requirements that cannot be waived in times of economic hardship and high unemployment, and reductions in benefits that come from eliminating deductions for utility costs. 

More than 900,000 children, adults, and seniors count on Wisconsin’s SNAP program, known as FoodShare, according to an analysis of state health department data by Kids Forward. The same analysis found that covering the costs of just 10% of SNAP benefits would cost Wisconsin $136 million. 

Alaska and Texas have higher error rates than Wisconsin, and so they — and their hungry kids — are stuck with the biggest cuts. Even if you accept that that is somehow just, the people who are going to pay for this bill in all the states, including ours, are, as Van Orden himself put it, “the most vulnerable populations, including hungry children. Period.”

“He says one thing and does another,” Pocan says of Van Orden’s flip-flopping on SNAP. “He’s gone totally Washington.”

That’s too bad for the people left behind in rural Wisconsin, who will take the brunt of these unnecessary cuts. 

GET THE MORNING HEADLINES.

SUBSCRIBE

Boxes of sugary cereal, including those from General Mills, fill a store's shelves on April 16, 2025, in Miami, Florida. (Photo by Joe Raedle/Getty Images)

The U.S. House Agriculture Committee’s portion of Republicans’ massive taxes and spending bill would partially shift to states the costs of the country’s largest food assistance program, which some experts and Democrats predicted will lead to major cuts in the program — and possibly even an end to it in some states.

The measure will be taken up by the panel Tuesday night and is expected to be voted on late Tuesday or early Wednesday, after which it will be folded into a larger reconciliation package with 10 other bills passed out of committees and sent to the floor. The entire House is set to vote on the legislation before Memorial Day.

The federal government currently pays for all Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, or SNAP, benefits. A provision in the Agriculture Committee’s piece of Republicans’ “big, beautiful bill” to enact President Donald Trump’s agenda would transfer between 5% and 25% of that cost to states, depending on each state’s payment error rate, starting in 2028.

The program provided about $100 billion in food assistance to nearly 42 million Americans last year, according to data from the U.S. Department of Agriculture. Eligibility currently depends on tests related to income, assets, work requirements and more.

But the change in cost structure could lead states to opt out entirely, said Ty Jones Cox, vice president for food assistance at the left-leaning economic think tank Center for Budget and Policy Priorities, leading some needy families unable to pay for groceries.

“The language is unclear, but it could end SNAP entirely in some parts of the country if states decide the new state funding requirements are impossible for them to meet,” Cox said in a statement late Monday after the bill’s release. “The bill’s massive cuts disguised as ‘cost shifts’ pass the buck to states – but ultimately would leave families holding an empty grocery bag when states aren’t willing or able to backfill for lost federal funds.” 

Republicans plan to use the reconciliation package to permanently extend the 2017 tax law, increase spending on border security and defense by hundreds of billions of dollars, overhaul American energy production, restructure higher education aid and cut spending.

“Our budget reconciliation text restores SNAP to its original intent—promoting work, not welfare—while saving taxpayer dollars and investing in American agriculture,” House Committee on Agriculture Republicans said on X on Monday night.

Funding tied to error rate

Under the bill, states’ responsibility would rise with the broadly defined error rate of payments, which includes fraud as well as paperwork mistakes by a beneficiary or caseworker.

States with an error rate of 6% or less would be responsible for paying 5% of benefits, and those with an error rate higher than 10% would shoulder one-quarter of the cost of benefits.

Two other intermediate categories would exist for states with error rates between 6% and 10%.

Based on current data, more than half of states would fall into the highest category of error rates. The national average is 11.7% and more than two dozen states and territories have rates higher than 10%.

The states are: Alaska, Arizona, California, Delaware, Florida, Georgia, Hawaii, Indiana, Kansas, Maine, Maryland, Michigan, Mississippi, Missouri, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, Oklahoma, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, South Carolina, Tennessee and West Virginia. The District of Columbia also has an error rate over 10%, as do Guam and the Virgin Islands.

Alaska’s nation-leading 60% error rate would be nearly impossible to bring under 10% by the time the provision goes into effect, Jones Cox said in a Tuesday interview.

Only seven states — Idaho, Iowa, South Dakota, Utah, Vermont, Wisconsin and Wyoming — would qualify for the lowest state cost-share.

$290 billion in cuts overall

The measure would incentivize states to control the $13 billion per year in erroneous payments, a House Agriculture Committee summary of the legislation said. The bill as a whole would cut $290 billion in federal spending over a 10-year budget window, according to the summary.

While congressional Republicans can claim they are not cutting benefits with the bill, the program would shrink with a lower federal cost-share, Jones Cox said.

“They can say it’s not a cut, because they’re going to say it’s just shifting those costs to the states,” she said. “But it is a cut because states, if they cannot fill the gap… that brings down the program, period.”

The changes would force state budget officers to choose from among a host of unattractive options: cutting SNAP, offsetting costs with corresponding cuts to other programs or raising revenues through taxes or other measures.

States “have a few options,” Jones Cox said. “None look good.”

Republicans are using the complex reconciliation process to move the package through Congress with simple majority votes in each chamber, avoiding the Senate’s 60-vote legislative filibuster, which would otherwise require bipartisanship. 

Reconciliation measures must address federal revenue, spending, or the debt limit in a way not deemed “merely incidental” by the Senate parliamentarian. That means the GOP proposals must carry some sort of price tag and cannot focus simply on changing federal policy.

Democrats slam bill

On a press call Tuesday, Democratic officials and an anti-hunger nonprofit blasted the proposal.

Sen. Peter Welch, a Vermont Democrat, expressed skepticism that U.S. DOGE Service head Elon Musk could find a more efficient use of the $2 per meal SNAP provides during the call with other Democratic senators, Oregon Gov. Tina Kotek and the nonprofit, Hunger Free Vermont.

“This is not a waste, fraud and abuse deal,” Welch said. “This is really about taking away basic nutritional security that is so absolutely essential to the well-being of our families and our kids in Vermont and in every single state across the nation.”

Kotek, who started her political career as a policy advocate for the Oregon Food Bank, said she saw firsthand the effect of food insecurity. More than 700,000 Oregonians receive benefits from SNAP, and every dollar spent on SNAP generates another $1.50 to $1.80 in economic activity at grocery stores, farmers’ markets and other local businesses, Kotek said.

“When you cut SNAP, you’re not cutting bureaucracy,” she said. “You’re cutting a child’s dinner. You’re cutting their breakfast. You’re cutting their family’s dignity.”

One in four New Mexicans rely on SNAP, said Sen. Ben Ray Luján, D-N.M. The farmers and ranchers he represents also plan their farming season based on what grocery stores and food banks will need, and farmers already planted seeds with the idea that those vegetables will be used for school lunches and other food programs.

“The way to look at this is it’s not fiscally responsible,” Luján said. “It’s taking away from the hungry across America to make billionaires and millionaires even wealthier, and it’s going to even explode the deficit.”

Farm Foundation’s Meet Your Farmer podcast featured A.G. Kawamura in season 1, episode 4.

A.G. is a third-generation farmer in Southern California and operates Orange County Produce with his brother. He served as California Secretary of Agriculture from 2003 to 2010. He is founding chair of Solutions for Urban Agriculture, which grows produce for area food banks. He is involved in many other organizations, including as founding co-chair of Solutions from the Land, and with Farm Foundation as a Roundtable Fellow since 2011, and currently serving on the Farm Foundation Board of Directors. He also serves on the board of Western Growers.

In this episode, A.G. discusses what it means to be a landless farmer, his work to solve food insecurity, and some of the dynamics of the fresh produce industry that are not widely known.

Listen to the episode.

Music: “Country Roads” by Sergii Pavkin from Pixabay

Reach us at communication@farmfoundation.org.

The post Farm Foundation’s Meet Your Farmer Podcast with A.G. Kawamura appeared first on Farm Foundation.

The Farm Foundation Book Club is open to Farm Foundation Round Table Fellows and meets virtually once-per-quarter to discuss works related to agriculture, industry, and our world. This blog post was submitted by Round Table Fellow Jonah Kolb, president of Moore & Warner Ag Group, LLC. Round Table Fellow John Power, president of LSC International Inc., introduced the author and guest. Round Table Fellow Bonnie Brayton, venture associate at Fulcrum Global Capital, moderated a lively and engaging discussion.

---

The Farm Foundation Book Club held its third-quarter event on October 3^rd to discuss The New Breadline by Jean-Martin Bauer, which centers on hunger and food security. The wide-ranging conversation between the author and Roundtable Fellows centered around three themes: the weaponization of hunger and geopolitics of food, food insecurity, and the production and distribution system of the future.

Theme 1: The weaponization of hunger and geopolitics of food

The main cause of acute hunger is war and civil conflict.  Currently about 300 million people worldwide are experiencing conflict-driven hunger.

The international community was slow to develop laws formally forbidding the use of famine and starvation as a weapon.  While these laws now exist, a successful first prosecution is still likely years away.  The potential exists for these laws to be applied both in wars between states and in internal conflicts within states.

The price spike that occurred in 2022 when Russia invaded Ukraine had major impact on wheat markets especially, but a deeper crisis was averted by multilateral negotiations allowing exports to continue from Ukrainian ports.  While this resolution was an example of success in problem-solving amid conflict, it highlights the challenge to the international community when dealing with crisis:  each crisis is unique and requires an individual response.

Theme 2: Food insecurity

An estimated 1 billion people globally are food insecure, including about 40 million in the U.S.   The lack of food and nutrition is a long-term problem for each community and a wide range of strategies are being used across the world. 

Bauer was the United Nations World Food Program (WFP) director in Haiti when WFP warehouses were attacked and looted.  Social media was a major driver of this event, and in response Bauer increased transparency and communication through social media channels to better communicate the activities of WFP in Haiti. 

In addition to the war and civil conflict driving food insecurity, climate change, lack of support for local farmers, and rapid population growth contribute to hunger in many countries. Much of the projected global population growth through 2050 will take place in Africa, and Niger is a case study in the challenges of climate and growing population.  When Bauer worked in Niger 20 years ago, the population of 11 million could largely be fed by local food production which took advantage of the 90-day rain season.  Today, a population of 24 million—on its way to a projected 50 million by 2050—is experiencing more irregular rain patterns which negatively impacts that local food production.  There is likely to be a significant movement of population to regions where food is available since there is no other viable option. 

Theme 3: Production and distribution system of the future

Bauer’s family and professional background in Haiti was interwoven through much of The New Breadline and the author highlighted the challenges of opening the Haitian market for rice imports.  Haiti went from a country that provided 80% of its rice consumption domestically to a country importing 80% of its rice.

This interplay between free markets, government subsidies, and food aid and local production is a significant focus of Bauer’s writing.  Local production and distribution are keys to addressing hunger. Food aid and trade policy displacing these local systems can have long-term negative impacts on hunger.

In his book and in the Farm Foundation book club, Bauer covered the use of direct cash provided to food-insecure individuals in lieu of food distribution.  A pre-requisite of such aid is the ability of local production and distribution systems to meet food demand. In such cases, $1 of direct aid has been shown to have a 1.3 to 1.4 multiplier effect in the local economy, without contributing to inflationary food prices.

World Central Kitchen, which has been active both in the domestic U.S. and countries around the world, sources much of its ingredients to produce prepared meals from local producers, which reinforces local food production capabilities, all the more important in times of duress.

Conflict, undercapitalized small farmers, and climate change will continue to contribute to global hunger. Bauer encourages a push-back against “selective empathy,” the idea that there are good disaster and bad disasters.  There are, more simply, just humans in need.  Fully addressing hunger requires more elastic thinking on building resilient independent food systems on a global scale, operated at a local level. 

The post Farm Foundation Book Club Discusses “The New Breadline” appeared first on Farm Foundation.