Young children may go hungry as summer begins
Thirteen states, all led by Republican governors, opted out of the federal SUN Bucks program this summer, which launched in 2024 and provides $120 in grocery benefits for eligible school-aged children during the months when school is out. Those states include Indiana, where last year, 669,000 children received SUN Bucks benefits, and Tennessee, which would have received $70 million in federal funds for the program.
Instead of spending $6 million in state funds to administer the federal program, Tennessee Gov. Bill Lee proposed a $3 million state-funded summer food program. That program will feed about 4 percent of the 700,000 children who were served by SUN Bucks last year. In Montana, legislators turned down nearly $20 million in federal funds, claiming the program is duplicative of other existing programs.
"I think something people don't always recognize is that summer is the hungriest time of year for families," said Rachel Sabella, director of the nonprofit No Kid Hungry New York. SUN Bucks in particular gives families more flexibility during the summer to access food, she added.
Cities and school districts have also announced cuts or limits to summer meals. Clarissa Doutherd, a parent and family advocate in Oakland, was stunned when she heard the news this spring that her town's summer food program would be canceled. In Oakland, California, where the cost of living far exceeds the national average and about 33,000 children rely on free or reduced-price meals during the school year, she knew thousands of children would go without meals.
"The idea that in the city of Oakland, children could possibly go hungry, that our most vulnerable families would be at risk of hunger, is unimaginable," said Doutherd, who is executive director of Parent Voices Oakland, a grassroots organization.
In Maryland, Anne Arundel County Public Schools, where more than 40 percent of students receive free or reduced-price lunch during the year, will be offering fewer summer meal locations than last year. A summer meal program in Santa Barbara, California, was canceled this year due to budget cuts. And in Dayton, Ohio, summer meal programs are already at capacity, far earlier than in previous years.
Nationwide, 1 in 5 children don't have enough food each day. Elementary-age children account for the largest group of students who are eligible for free or reduced-price meals, and they are especially vulnerable when out of school. Food insecurity can have long-term consequences, especially for children who experience ongoing hunger early in life. Ongoing hunger has been linked to cognitive and health declines in children, and research shows children who experience food insecurity during the earliest years of school have lower test scores, are more likely to repeat a grade and have more social challenges.
Summer meal programs can ease hunger and food insecurity, but already struggle to reach all children who may need food. Research shows only 15 children out of every 100 that qualify for free or reduced-price lunch during the school year access summer food programs, even before the recent shifts in policy.
In Oakland, cutting summer meals is short-sighted, Doutherd said, especially at a time when Congress is debating cuts to other federal food benefits. Earlier this year, President Donald Trump canceled a program that brings local food to schools. Food banks are experiencing shortages after some federal funds were cut. And at least 2 million children could experience cuts to their food benefits under Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) cuts proposed by Congress. (Changes to SNAP could also affect summer meal eligibility.) Trump's proposed 2026 budget cuts the amount of money low-income children receive monthly for fruits and vegetables from $26 to $10.
In New York, Sabella said she has seen community organizations and school districts step up to help fill food gaps this summer. "We are at least seeing communities recognize that families are struggling with economic costs going on, with hunger on the rise," Sabella said. But these programs are anticipating ongoing challenges as Congress considers more cuts. "If these federal proposals were to go through, we would see hunger rise in every ZIP code across the country," Sabella said.
Private donors recently stepped in to help reinstate Oakland's summer food program. Still, summer meals never should have been considered as a possible cut, Doutherd said. "Families and children deserve better. Whatever savings our city might accomplish, … we will pay for in the future."
Contact staff writer Jackie Mader at 212-678-3562 or mader@hechingerreport.org.
This story about summer food programs was produced by The Hechinger Report, a nonprofit, independent news organization focused on inequality and innovation in education. Sign up for the Hechinger newsletter.
The post Young children may go hungry as summer begins appeared first on The Hechinger Report.
Hashtags

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles


Axios
18 minutes ago
- Axios
Trump team hurls accusations at Obama over 2016 election interference
Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard Wednesday continued to accuse former President Obama's administration of a "manipulation of intelligence" around Russia's interference in the 2016 election. The big picture: Nearly a decade after he won, President Trump remains fixated on disproving the thoroughly investigated and widely held conclusion that Russia interfered to aid his campaign. Back in 2020, the Republican-led Senate Intelligence Committee — including now-Secretary of State Marco Rubio — concluded that Russia interfered in the 2016 election to help Trump win but did not hack election infrastructure to manipulate cast ballots. State of play: Gabbard released a document Wednesday that she alleges undermines previous findings from the Obama-era intelligence community that Russia favored a Trump win in 2016. She wrote that the Obama administration was "promoting the LIE that Vladimir Putin and the Russian government helped President Trump win the 2016 election." Gabbard released another memo last week, with which she accused the Obama administration of a "treasonous conspiracy" to sabotage Trump's presidency in 2016. Driving the news: During a White House press briefing Wednesday, Gabbard again accused Obama and his national security team of directing "the creation of an intelligence community assessment that they knew was false." She alleged, "They knew it would promote this contrived narrative that Russia interfered in the 2016 election to help President Trump when selling it to the American people as though it were true." White House Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt doubled down on the claims, saying, "The truth is that Trump never had anything to do with Russia" and alleging that "the worst part of this is Obama knew that truth." Zoom out: Asked for comment Wednesday, Obama spokesperson Patrick Rodenbush referred Axios to his Tuesday statement where he called the allegations "outrageous" and "bizarre." He said in that statement, "Nothing in the document issued last week undercuts the widely accepted conclusion that Russia worked to influence the 2016 presidential election but did not successfully manipulate any votes." In response that statement, Gabbard said Wednesday that Obama's office is "trying to deflect away from their culpability in what is a historic scandal." Asked if the Supreme Court decision on presidential immunity protects Obama from any possible prosecution, Leavitt said Trump "wants to see all those who perpetuated this fraud against our country, who betrayed our country and the Constitution to be thoroughly investigated and held accountable."


Time Magazine
20 minutes ago
- Time Magazine
To Bounce Back, Democrats Need a New John F. Kennedy Moment
Democrats are still reeling from their second defeat at the hands of President Donald Trump in eight years. They are fighting back against his policies while trying to assess where the party went wrong and how to rejuvenate its hopes. Thankfully for them, the Democratic Party's almost 200 year history offers cause for hope. Democrats have bounced back many times before, including seminal victories in 1912, 1932, 1960, 1992, and 2008. This history reveals that Democrats win when they present their own, clear vision for the country and a concrete platform articulating just what they will do if victorious—one that connects with the public's interests, desires, and needs. No case better illustrates this paradigm than John F. Kennedy's win in 1960. Democrats had controlled the White House from 1933 until 1952, when Republican Dwight Eisenhower, a World War II leader who promised to end the Korean War and to uproot corruption in Washington, beat their lackluster presidential candidate, Illinois Governor Adlai Stevenson. That led to a period in which Democrats struggled to figure out what the party stood for. But the creation of the Democratic Advisory Council (DAC) in 1957 helped to develop a new, forward-thinking agenda. And Kennedy provided a youthful, charismatic spokesperson. This combination catapulted Democrats back to the White House and led to major domestic policy achievements over the next eight years. Early in 1953, economist and Democratic strategist John K. Galbraith issued a call to action. He observed that his party understood that opposing Eisenhower and his agenda wasn't sufficient to rebound. Yet, 'it would be hard at this moment to say what the Democratic Party is for.' Galbraith acknowledged that his party had broad principles. Democrats favored 'tidying up the unfinished business of the New Deal' and wanted to expand the economy. But virtually no one could explain what that might involve in 'any great detail.' Read More: Remember JFK Not for His Assassination, But for His Civil Rights Advocacy Initially, party leaders ignored Galbraith's plea. In 1956, Eisenhower beat Stevenson by an even bigger margin than he had in 1952, despite Democrats adopting a slightly more progressive platform shaped by Galbraith and his reform-minded colleagues. The second consecutive loss suggested that only more dramatic changes could produce a Democratic comeback. In 1957, Democratic National Committee Chair Paul Butler established the DAC to stake out issues that would support a positive platform in 1960. The Council identified five policy stances that should anchor the party's agenda: federal aid to education, a national health insurance program (the forerunner of Medicare), housing for the elderly, urban renewal, and a firm stance on civil rights. It selected some of these positions because of concerns percolating up from the grassroots. For example, the public wanted a stronger educational system. As the DAC recognized, however, many states 'cannot do all that must be done and financial assistance from the Federal government has become imperative.' Similarly, the DAC's 'Policy Statement' noted that the growth in families in the 1960s was projected to require 'doubling the annual rate of house production to a level of about 2,000,000 per year.' The country also confronted 'the necessity to proceed rapidly with slum clearance and urban renewal.' On other issues, the DAC was simply reemphasizing longstanding Democratic priorities. Presidents Franklin Roosevelt and Harry Truman had proposed national health insurance, only to see opposition from the American Medical Association and indifference by Republican leaders kill it. Many of the DAC's positions found their way into the 1960 Democratic platform. But a better agenda alone wasn't sufficient. Democrats needed a fresh messenger, and Kennedy fit the bill. The Massachusetts senator had youth and charisma and he was vigorous and dashing. He also came across well on the new medium of the day—television. Kennedy projected an energetic America; he promised "to get this country moving again," and he used the word "future" often in campaign speeches. Kennedy and the Democrats captured the public spirit of the times: a desire for change and a sense of America's potential. There was a growing public restlessness. The Soviet Union's 1957 launch of Sputnik, the first earth satellite, had jarred Americans into realizing that they were falling behind in science and education. The widespread, though incorrect, perception that the Soviets had more intercontinental ballistic missiles than the U.S.—the so-called missile gap—also fueled a sense that the U.S. was slipping. This prodded Americans away from the complacency of the post-war era and toward a more progressive and assertive attitude on everything from Civil Rights to scientific research. Even Eisenhower knew that the public was losing faith in the status quo. In 1960, he empaneled a 'Commission on National Goals.' Its report, Goals for Americans, called for investment in education and the arts, while recommending progressive economic policies to keep the economy expanding and unemployment low. The report also called for 'equality of justice and opportunity, better government, better education, better medical care, more productive economy.' But Americans were alienated for reasons that ran even deeper. As part of a series in Life magazine and The New York Times on 'the national purpose,' historian Clinton Rossiter explained that the nation had lost the 'youthful sense of mission' that had propelled it to greatness. We were once a people 'on the make' but now Americans were more like a people who 'has it made,' content to tolerate mediocrity and unwilling to energetically confront new challenges. Other writers sounded the same theme: it was time to get America out of its mood of complacency and moving into the future. Democrats capitalized on these sentiments. In his opening speech to the Democratic Convention in Los Angeles, Butler set the tone. 'In the day when our republic was young, national ideals overwhelmed all else,' he said. 'Today, almost everything else seems to overwhelm national ideals. If there is any meaning to the American purpose, it has become obscured in eight years of purposelessness.' Kennedy's acceptance speech built on that theme: America needed to do better—and could with the right leadership. The candidate promised an exciting future but one that would require meeting challenges: '[T]he American people expect more from us than cries of indignation and attack. The times are too grave, the challenge too urgent, and the stakes too high‚to permit the customary passions of political debate…. Today our concern must be with [the] future.' Read More: What These 3 Longstanding JFK Myths Reveal About America The nation needed to deal with the threat of Soviet communism abroad. At home, 'an urban population explosion has overcrowded our schools, cluttered up our suburbs, and increased the squalor of our slums.' Further, the 'peaceful revolution' for civil rights demanding an end to racial discrimination 'has strained at the leashes imposed by timid executive leadership.' Like the essayists in Life and The New York Times, the candidate recognized that the country needed more than policy prescriptions. 'Too many Americans have lost their way, their will and their sense of historic purpose. It is a time, in short, for a new generation of leadership—new men to cope with new problems and new opportunities.' Kennedy called for the nation to advance a 'New Frontier,' a term that 'sums up not what I intend to offer the American people, but what I intend to ask of them.' Meanwhile, Kennedy's opponent, Vice President Richard Nixon, seemed to embody what voters were tiring of—the stale complacency and status quo of the 1950s. Kennedy put it this way in one of his final campaign rallies, on Nov. 1: 'Mr. Nixon and the Republicans stand for the past. We stand for the future.' Some may say it was an oversimplification, but it connected with the public. Arthur Schlesinger Jr., who served as a Kennedy advisor, explained that he won by stressing 'peril, uncertainty, sacrifice, and purpose." These new ideas resonated with voters. Kennedy narrowly defeated Nixon, ushering in eight years of Democratic control and seminal achievements: the Civil Rights Act, the Voting Rights Act, enactment of Medicare and Medicaid, and more. Today, Democrats are once again in the doldrums. But they can rebound by following the prescription that elevated John F. Kennedy to the White House. They need to provide fresh answers that address the problems plaguing the U.S. Once they have an agenda, the party will also need a youthful, charismatic candidate to communicate this agenda. That combination will convince voters that the Democrats are the party of the future, while Republicans are the party of the status quo. Bruce W. Dearstyne is a historian in Albany, New York. His most recent book is Progressive New York: Change and Reform in the Empire State, 1900-1920 -- A Reader (2024). His next book, Revolutionary New York: 250 Years of Social Change, will be published early in 2026. Made by History takes readers beyond the headlines with articles written and edited by professional historians. Learn more about Made by History at TIME here. Opinions expressed do not necessarily reflect the views of TIME editors.

Politico
20 minutes ago
- Politico
House Dems launch multi-committee Epstein attack on Republicans on last day before recess
Locked out of power, House Democrats are using every opportunity to further divide Republicans over the Jeffrey Epstein saga. In committee markups, hearings and in procedural motions on the House floor, Democrats have sought to force votes that would force Republicans to take positions on whether to release the Epstein files — slowing down legislative business and, in some cases, grinding it to a halt. It's part of a formal, concerted strategy being backed by House Democratic leadership, according to a person granted anonymity to share private party deliberations. And it's already forcing House Republicans to respond. Speaker Mike Johnson already announced the House would leave for August recess a day earlier than scheduled after a clash in the Rules Committee over an Epstein-related amendment prevented some legislation from being considered on the House floor. Republican leaders aren't planning to allow any votes on legislation that would compel, or express support for, the release of the Epstein files after the August recess after the Trump administration moved to release grand jury information related to the case. But hours before the House was scheduled to take its last floor votes for the week before breaking for recess, Democrats were pursuing workarounds to that blockade. The GOP-led House Education and Workforce Committee pulled an entire bill — a measure related to enhancing detection of human trafficking — from consideration during a markup because Democrats were rolling out amendments tying the bill to Epstein. One amendment, from Rep. Yassamin Ansari (D-Ariz.), would have required the Department of Labor to include case studies about Epstein's affairs as part of training efforts, while another filed by Rep. Suzanne Bonamici (D-Ore.) would have mandated the agency to release all unclassified documents about Epstein and co-conspirator Ghislaine Maxwell. Bonamici said in an interview former Labor Secretary Alex Acosta was pressured to resign from his post as U.S. Attorney in Florida due to an outcry over his handling of the Epstein case: 'We think people should know what information they have, and if [Republicans] support transparency, they should vote for this amendment to release that information.' During a House Energy and Commerce markup on student athlete legislation, Democrats forced Republicans to take another vote to release materials related to the case against the disgraced financier and convicted sex offender who died in his jail cell by suicide in 2019. Rep. Marc Veasey (D-Texas) introduced an amendment during that meeting that would require Trump to publicize Epstein documents related to Larry Nassar, the former Michigan State University and U.S. gymnastics doctor who was charged with sexually assaulting hundreds of girls and women. News reports in 2023 indicated that Epstein had attempted to contact Nassar while the two were both incarcerated for sex crimes. Veasey's amendment also would have tied the purpose of the underlying bill being debated in committee — to codify the public rights of student athletes and provide legal protections to college sports officials — would not go into effect until those materials were released. Republicans voted to table, or kill, the amendment after House Energy and Commerce Chair Brett Guthrie (R-Ky.) ruled that it was not germane — a common tactic to swat away proposals from the minority party. Nick Niedzwiadek and Hailey Fuchs contributed to this report.