‘It's not realistic': New England food banks struggle to keep up with demand after federal government cuts $1 billion in funding
:
Advertisement
The uncertainty comes at a time of increasing food insecurity in New England, with many hunger relief organizations struggling to meet soaring demand. In Massachusetts, about
Vince Hall, the chief government relations officer at Feeding America, said USDA officials told the organization that $500 million provided last year to support The Emergency Food Assistance Program was terminated. That's in addition to the
About $3.3 million worth of food provided through the emergency food program scheduled to be delivered to Massachusetts food banks was canceled, the Greater Boston Food Bank told the Globe Thursday. Nearly $2.3 million worth, or about 105,000 cases, was slated for the Greater Boston Food Bank, the region's largest hunger-relief organization.
Democratic Whip Katherine Clark condemned the cuts in a statement Thursday.
'Amid skyrocketing grocery prices, Republicans just stole more than $3 million in emergency food assistance from families across the Commonwealth — including 90,000 cartons of eggs. Nationally, they've robbed hungry families of more than $500 million in groceries," she said.
Heather Paquette, the president of Good Shepherd Food Bank in Maine, said the organization was notified earlier this month that it would be losing out on $1.2 million in funding it expected to get over the next three years to help it purchase food from local farmers. Fifty percent of emergency food assistance deliveries the charity was scheduled to receive in the next several months have also been canceled, Paquette said.
Advertisement
'We are already really running to meet the increasing need in the state of Maine with the stable sources of funding that we have been able to depend on for decades,' she said. 'An adjustment of that sort to the [food] we're moving through the state of Maine has significant negative impact on our ability to do our work.'
Though some charities are hoping to recoup costs via private donors or state funding, the unexpected changes are likely to cause shortages in distribution, especially in the next few months.
'Because this is so sudden, we were really not planning for this, so we have to accommodate in the short term,' said Elsy Cipriani, executive director of the New Hampshire Food Bank.
The organization learned two weeks ago that the close to $1 million it was set to receive over the next three years through the emergency food assistance program was canceled and is trying to minimize the impact of the cut on partner agencies.
'But again, maybe we have to make some internal adjustments in terms of the number of staff members that are working in that program,' Cipriani said, referring to the
Jason Jakubowski, the president and CEO of Connecticut Foodshare, said a delivery of 34 trucks was canceled and cost the organization about $1.75 million to replace, he said. Connecticut Foodshare also learned that it would lose $1 million in funds from the LFPA earlier this month.
Advertisement
'This has been a real gut punch for a number of different constituencies over the last couple of weeks. We're nervous, and so are our local pantries,' he said.
Andrew Schiff, the CEO of Rhode Island Community Food Bank, said the organization ordered 24 truckloads of food with the money provided to the state through the increased TEFAP funding. As of Thursday, they had received 10 truckloads. Fourteen truckloads, amounting to about 500,000 pounds of food, are in limbo.c
'Now, at least the stories we're hearing, we're expecting it to be canceled,' Schiff said.
Without federal assistance, food banks are unlikely to be able to keep up their current scale of operations.
'It's unrealistic to think that there is a way that we'll be able to accomplish the goals that every food bank in the nation has without the ability to rely on USDA funding,' Paquette said. The Good Shepherd Food Bank serves about
Jakubowski said the $2.75 million that was cut from Connecticut Foodshare would amount to close to five and a half million meals. The organization is hoping the state government will help it recover some of the cost, but Jakubowski is worried the recent cuts are just the 'tip of the iceberg.'
'My biggest fear is that we're entering an era in which more people are hungry, but we have less food to provide them,' he said. 'That's the nightmare scenario for us and for our local pantries.'
Advertisement
Paquette said that for Good Shepherd, the 50 percent reduction in funding is 'unrealistic' to recover.
'We will do everything we can to close that gap,' said. 'But it's not realistic. We could have used an additional 10 percent versus the reduction of 50 percent, given the increased need we have in our state.'
Emily Spatz can be reached at
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
USA Today
28 minutes ago
- USA Today
Republicans, Democrats are held captive by extremes. Americans need a new party.
Does America need a viable third political party? Republicans and Democrats alike sound off – and actually agreed on something – in our latest Opinion Forum. In June – which yes, feels like a lifetime ago – billionaire and former first buddy Elon Musk began floating the idea of an "America Party" on the social media platform he's colonized. Originally a response to President Donald Trump's One Big Beautiful Bill Act, which Musk viewed as an "insane spending bill," this new third party would "actually represent the 80% in the middle" and give voters back their "freedom." It's an interesting idea – and not necessarily new. America, as we're reminded every general election, does have more than two political parties, but those splintered factions rarely result in anything of consequence. Instead, our politics are an endless ping-pong match between Republicans and Democrats – which many Americans increasingly view as two sides of the same coin. So is a true multiparty system the way forward? And is Musk, as divisive as he is, the one to lead it? Those were some of the questions we asked USA TODAY readers for our latest Forum. We heard people from each political party and found some surprising consensus. Read their responses below. A third party isn't enough. America needs an entirely new system. America doesn't just need a third party – it needs a full-spectrum awakening. The system we're living in isn't just outdated ‒ it's misaligned with the reality of who we are today. Tradition has its place, but clinging to it out of habit keeps us locked into patterns that no longer serve us. The problems we face now are wildly different from those of the past, so why are we still trying to solve them with yesterday's blueprints? We need more than another political faction; we need a radical reimagining of how representation works. For too long, our politics have been stuck in black-and-white thinking: left or right, red or blue, us versus them. The idea that one person – usually male, usually from a singular political perspective – can fully represent an entire nation is outdated. Lived experience matters. And no matter how well-intentioned he may be, a man cannot truly fight for women the way a woman can. The same goes in reverse. Each brings something vital to the table, and that's why America needs more than just a third party – it needs a shared leadership model. Your Turn: President Trump, I supported you. Release the Epstein list – or resign. | Opinion Forum Imagine a presidency not defined by solo power but co-led by two individuals with contrasting yet complementary identities ‒ say, a woman and a man from different ideological spaces. Together, they could challenge groupthink, broaden empathy and offer layered approaches to complex issues. Conflict wouldn't be avoided ‒ it'd be used as a strength to build deeper solutions. Our most marginalized voices wouldn't be tokens ‒ they'd have champions on both sides. Sure, this idea may cause some readers to flip their lids. But history has shown us that progress doesn't come wrapped in comfort. It comes when someone says 'What if?' and dares to sketch it out loud. As for Elon Musk? He didn't build with a brain ‒ he built with money. He footed bills and took credit. He couldn't hold a thought together or support his own child for being themselves. That's not genius. That's cowardice. Power without empathy is a threat, not a solution. We don't need leaders who smile for the cameras while people suffer. We need firewalls, not figureheads. If you can't fight for people without cash behind them, you don't get to represent any of us. The Republican Party is consumed by extremism and fear tactics. The Democratic Party is fractured and too often indecisive. Both chase headlines while families struggle, health care costs explode and trust erodes. Neither party centers everyday people, and that's the core failure. — Kayleisha Miller, Coal Township, Pennsylvania Our political parties have been lost to oligarchs. We need a shake-up. We need a viable third party to shake up the status quo. Both the Republican and Democratic parties are being held hostage by the extreme right and left of their parties. We need a party that is not beholden to American oligarchs. It needs to govern with common sense and realize that compromise is not a four-letter word. As a nation, we used to value these traits. Now it's a take-no-hostage era. Do you want to take part in our next Forum? Join the conversation by emailing forum@ You can also follow us on X, formerly Twitter, @usatodayopinion and sign up for our Opinion newsletter to stay updated on future Forum posts. Musk is one of the oligarchs of the United States. He is a businessman whose sole raison d'être is to make a profit. One cannot run a nation like one runs a company. Both parties are being held captive by the extreme right and left wings of their parties. The Democrats have lost their focus on the issues that mean the most to the people. They have forgotten who the working people are in this nation. They need to realize people don't want a cradle-to-grave nanny state. The Republicans have come under the spell of authoritarian governance. As much as they profess to care about the working people, they care more about the American oligarchs. — Paul Tonello, Sparks, Nevada If we had better people in power, two parties would be enough. But we don't. If there were representatives who would vote to represent the people who elected them on different issues, rather than always being in lockstep, a two-party system works very well. A multiparty system that requires different coalitions on different issues would work better than what is happening in Congress. I believe that fiscal responsibility, compassion for those in need, smaller government and stewardship of national assets would win the greatest coalition's vote. Musk's resources are important, but getting moderates from each party to be involved would be more important. Also, getting more people who are not currently involved in politics could make it very powerful. Neither party is doing anything to make the future better for our children and grandchildren. I wish we had good people instead of people who thrive on power and ego. — LaMar Stephenson, Spanish Fork, Utah It's a matter of when, not if, a third party will emerge in America The existing two-party system limits the people's choices. They coexist in a symbiotic relationship. Much like defense and plaintiff attorneys. They need each other to exist. Loyalty among the members is first to their respective party, not the Constitution. In my sphere of connections across all of America, I have yet to meet a person who does not believe a third party is a necessity. It is my belief that the time of a two-party system has passed. A new political system is a necessity. If we have a third option, more fiscally conservative and socially moderate, this country will be better served. When, not if, this happens, the legacy parties might wake up and realize they have lost touch with the American system. It is incumbent on the news media, which has also polarized, to begin an honest reporting of this movement. A third party should be fiscally conservative and socially moderate, protecting the future of America and not buying votes by borrowing from the future. The youth of America will wake up and align with a new model. Musk has the resources to overcome the start-up challenges of a viable third party. He has clearly shown his commitment to improving government and its misdirected leadership. But he is not the person to lead the party. We need a charismatic younger leader who comes from the heartland, has been in the actual world and served his country. Service in the military is important. It's too easy to place young Americans in harm's way when they have not also made that choice. Look at how few elected officials have served or have children in service. Service can take many forms that reflect their passion for serving the United States. The two parties exist to support each other. Loyalty by their members is to the party, not the country. Congress demands this loyalty. Leadership punishes those with loyalty to country above party. — Bob Jones, Dadeville, Alabama We need a political party that isn't beholden to the rich The present political parties are beholden to the rich. We need a party that also hears the people. A better party would focus on middle-class needs, education, helping college kids with their future, present and past college bills. It would focus on the environment and upholding and advancing the ideals of the Declaration of Independence: life, liberty the pursuit of happiness and equality for all. We need a party that has a little nuance on issues and looks for ways to solve problems with compromise. Our young people need affordable housing. Medical care should not be tied to employment. And we need to restore the sense of community that we have lost in some places ‒ a sense that there is something greater than me. Musk is not the person to lead a third party. He has done too much damage by reelecting President Donald Trump and with DOGE, the Department of Government Efficiency. I suppose his money could be useful. The Republican Party is firmly under the control of Trump. He is corrupt, cruel and embraces chaos. The GOP should be renamed the CCCP. Most of the Democratic leaders do not know how to resist Trump. There needs to be a moral rebirth in our nation. Many are morally blind to Trump and his actions. Who are we? What does it mean to be an American? What is right and wrong? Many are under the influence of conspiracy theories and do not realize that they are being played for money. — Rick Jones, Mount Gilead, Ohio You can read diverse opinions from our USA TODAY columnists and other writers on the Opinion front page, on X, formerly Twitter, @usatodayopinion and in our Opinion newsletter.
USA Today
28 minutes ago
- USA Today
Trump isn't gutting Medicaid and food stamps. He's fixing our broken welfare system.
President Donald Trump has preserved the core of the safety net for the truly vulnerable. He and his fellow Republicans are helping millions of able-bodied adults leave welfare and find work. It's a simple question with an obvious answer: Should Americans work as a condition of receiving welfare? More than two-thirds of Americans respond with a resounding yes. But while the principle of the matter and popular opinion are clear, our country's welfare system has been a muddled mess for decades. The biggest welfare program − Medicaid − has been disconnected from helping its 84.6 million recipients find work. And while the food stamps program technically has work requirements, they're inconsistently enforced for the 42 million people who benefit from the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program. The result: Tens of millions of people, especially able-bodied adults, have been trapped in government dependency. But they deserve the chance to become self-sufficient. They deserve to fully share in our country's progress. And they deserve to shape that progress while pursuing their own American dream. Trump is fixing broken welfare system That is why President Donald Trump's One Big Beautiful Bill Act is so important. The president and Republicans in Congress have started to fundamentally fix America's broken welfare system. They're finally connecting welfare to work. Your Turn: Medicaid handouts only create dependency. Able-bodied adults should work. | Opinion Forum Unfortunately, many Americans haven't heard this side of the story. They've been told − by virtually every politician on the left as well as a few loud voices on the right − that Trump and his fellow Republicans are gutting the safety net that vulnerable Americans need. Nothing could be further from the truth. In reality, the president has preserved the core of the safety net for the truly vulnerable. He and his fellow Republicans are helping millions of able-bodied adults leave welfare and find work. That's the point of the safety net: to support people who've fallen on hard times, then help them move on to better times. It was never meant to be a hammock. Yet that's what it has become, trapping millions of people in generational dependency. Trump's welfare reforms are righting this wrong. To start, Medicaid now has its first federal work requirement in history. Able-bodied adults without children as well as those without young kids will now be required to work at least part time to keep receiving Medicaid. Will Trump's big bill kill people? Here's the truth about Medicaid cuts. | Opinion That is common sense. Medicaid was created to help the neediest people in society get health care. It wasn't intended to cover healthy adults who are capable of working but choose not to. It's good for them, and all of America, if they find jobs and raise their incomes. The same is true for food stamps. The president and Congress are closing loopholes that have allowed able-bodied adults to avoid work requirements. They've also put states on the financial hook for giving food stamps to those who aren't eligible. These reforms will help millions of people find work and boost their incomes. That's good for them and the rest of society. Work requirements will help people living in poverty Those who criticize these commonsense reforms aren't just missing the point. They're missing something profoundly American. We should want our fellow citizens to find good jobs, earn more income and put themselves on the path to everything from buying a car to buying a home. That's the ticket to a life of fulfillment − to the American dream. But we shouldn't want people to stay on welfare with no strings attached, especially able-bodied adults. We should want them to lead better lives. And we should believe in their incredible potential and innate ability to improve their lives. Opinion alerts: Get columns from your favorite columnists + expert analysis on top issues, delivered straight to your device through the USA TODAY app. Don't have the app? Download it for free from your app store. Trump's welfare reforms are grounded in this deeply American principle. They will move millions of people from welfare to work, transforming lives in powerful ways. Virtually everyone intuitively understands that this is a good thing for everyone, including those on welfare and those of us who pay for it. The real question is why some politicians and pundits think it's bad to empower people on welfare to rise through work. Hayden Dublois is data and analytics director at the Foundation for Government Accountability. You can read diverse opinions from our USA TODAY columnists and other writers on the Opinion front page, on X, formerly Twitter, @usatodayopinion and in our Opinion newsletter.
NBC News
30 minutes ago
- NBC News
Democratic governors search for a balance between fighting and working with Trump
COLORADO SPRINGS, Colo. — Linda McMahon and Robert F. Kennedy Jr. have largely been skewered by Democrats for the way they have run President Donald Trump's Education and Health departments. But over the weekend at a bipartisan summit of governors in Colorado Springs, they received a distinctly warm welcome — including from the Democrats on hand. Instead of pressing McMahon on her plans to eliminate the Education Department, a move that will substantially affect state budgets, Democrats who attended the National Governors Association meeting in the mountain foothills of Colorado offered praise to McMahon during a Friday session over the Trump administration's decision to release billions in education funding it had withheld. And they peppered her with questions about students' mental health, early childhood education and artificial intelligence — areas where they might be able to find common ground. On Saturday, Kennedy, whose stances on vaccines have drawn fierce criticism, held court with a group of Democratic governors, assuring them that he did not want to see budget cuts at the Department of Health and Human Services. These conciliatory moments, which occurred throughout the NGA's summer meeting, underscored the bind Democrats have found themselves in during Trump's second term: weighing when to fight back against the administration, as the base is pushing for, and when to work with it to benefit their constituents. It's a balancing act that's particularly acute at the state level. While Democrats are out of power in Washington, the party's governors have much more authority. And governors in particular have prided themselves on searching for common ground, even in a heated political environment — a core purpose of the NGA. Still, a growing number of Democrats argue that calls for bipartisanship do not meet the current moment. Govs. Tim Walz of Minnesota and Laura Kelly of Kansas were among several Democrats who did not attend the summit. All told, seven Democratic governors and 11 Republican governors came for at least part of the weekend, the NGA said, while three governors attended virtually. Walz and Kelly, as The Atlantic first reported, declined to renew their NGA membership dues for the upcoming fiscal year, due to broader frustrations with how the group has approached the Trump administration. A source familiar with the governors' thinking said that Walz's and Kelly's feelings were 'a view held by more than just these two governors' and were a product of 'frustration' that the NGA 'had tied its own hands' by not taking a more active role in advocating for states and governors amid Trump's attacks. 'If we can't agree on standing up for states' rights, we're passively endorsing what the president is doing,' the source said. During his second term, Trump has defied or threatened many Democratic-led states. Trump deployed National Guard troops and Marines to Los Angeles amid unrest over his immigration policies, despite objections from California Gov. Gavin Newsom. Trump also froze federal funds for a child nutrition program in Maine after he clashed with Gov. Janet Mills over an issue related to transgender athletes. (The Trump administration later halted the freeze.) Newsom and Mills also did not attend the summit. 'We can't just walk away' Several Democratic governors who attended the weekend meeting expressed sympathy for Walz's and Kelly's decision. They also highlighted the importance of finding common ground with their political adversaries, suggesting that it remained a better option to try to win influence with them instead of not showing up. 'The promise that I made to the people of Maryland when the Trump administration came on board was that I will work with anyone, but I will bow down to no one,' Maryland's Democratic Gov. Wes Moore said during a session with reporters at the summit in response to a question from NBC News. 'But there's a clear understanding and a clear desire to be able to work with anybody to make sure that the people of my state and the people for all of our states are getting the support that they need. And I think one of the benefits of this weekend was, you know, we got a chance to sit down with Secretary Kennedy, that we got a chance to actually sit down with Secretary McMahon,' added Moore, who was elected vice char of the NGA over the weekend. He noted that previously he had not had the chance to do so in the first seven months of Trump's second term. 'I actually think it was a real benefit,' Moore said. Moore is no stranger to fighting with the administration: Most recently, he has accused Trump of denying his state federal disaster assistance for flooding in Maryland in May. Moore said he'd spoken with Walz and Kelly, calling their frustrations 'justified.' But he added that the NGA 'is never going to be either the cheerleader nor the heckler of a federal administration.' Hawaii's Democratic Gov. Josh Green, a physician who has blamed Kennedy for measles outbreaks, said he had a 'valuable' private meeting with the health secretary that lasted an hour. 'I have some deep ideological differences with Secretary Kennedy,' Green said in an interview with NBC News. But he added that creating a collaborative environment with Kennedy and McMahon helped him explain to them why he felt 'things have to happen to protect vulnerable people.' Green said that he and Kennedy discussed how governors could most effectively access the $50 billion rural hospital fund that was included in the massive tax cut and spending bill Trump recently signed into law. 'We can't just walk away, in my opinion,' Green said. 'Even though I'll keep pushing back on any changes to the vaccine schedule … I will also be able to take some advantage of the relationships.' Green also said he had 'deep disagreements' with McMahon, but that he felt it remained important to maintain a dialogue. 'Do I have concerns about working with the secretary of education?' Green said. 'Of course I do, but I would have deeper concerns if there was no one that could speak up for what I feel is about half of the country.' Colorado Gov. Jared Polis, a Democrat whose term as NGA chair ended this weekend, said he invited Kennedy and McMahon in particular because governors had expressed to him that health care and education were two of the top issues they wanted to address during the event. 'I think these times call for the kind of bipartisan work of the NGA more than ever before. The American people want progress,' Polis said. 'And that only comes when the politicians stop fighting over their party labels and work together to achieve real outcomes that actually matter in people's lives.' Disagreements remain Democratic governors still made their disagreements with Republicans clear at the summit. New Jersey Gov. Phil Murphy was among several Democratic governors to lambast the 'big, beautiful bill' and its cuts to Medicaid and food assistance. And a cadre of Democratic governors slammed Texas Republicans' plans to redraw its congressional maps ahead of schedule in an effort to help the GOP protect its narrow House majority in next year's midterm elections. In an emailed statement in response to questions from NBC News, NGA spokesperson Eric Wohlschlegel said that 'the record participation and support of NGA isn't because governors avoid tough topics; it's because NGA is one of the few places where they can cut through the noise and collectively focus on what works.' 'It's critical in a political climate where so many issues become zero-sum fights, NGA provides something increasingly rare: a forum for real, results-driven, bipartisan problem-solving. That's why governors keep showing up,' Wohlschlegel added. Green, Hawaii's governor, said that approach paid off — even though 'sometimes it gives me heartburn.'
