Growing up in a small town, everyone felt familiar. My parents knew my teachers, and the local pizza place recognized our family’s order. However, that sense of community made me realize something important: while I knew many people, I didn’t know their struggles. My school district spanned 62 square miles, with families facing different circumstances. Many of my classmates likely faced challenges I couldn’t see—like trying to put food on the table or pay for medication.
Surprisingly, I learned that 9% of families in my town rely on the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP). SNAP is a crucial program that supports families with low incomes, helping them afford food. The amount each household receives depends on their income, family size, and other factors. It’s vital for many, especially families with children who can’t rely solely on school meals.
In July 2025, significant cuts to SNAP funding began when the “One Big Beautiful Bill Act” was signed into law, reducing federal support by $186 billion. This affected more than 53,000 families in Connecticut, each losing at least $25 a month. For families on tight budgets, that $25 can mean the difference between having food or going hungry.
Recent events have shown how fragile SNAP can be. During a federal government shutdown, there were attempts to delay SNAP payments, putting millions at risk. Fortunately, a federal judge ruled that SNAP benefits must continue, but this only addressed temporary disruptions, not the long-term cuts from the new law.
Connecticut government, under Governor Ned Lamont, has taken steps to support affected families. They’ve proposed funding for food pantries and nutrition assistance, acknowledging that local resources can’t fill the gap left by lost federal benefits. This shows a troubling trend: when federal support disappears, families already living on the edge face even more uncertainty.
The history of SNAP illustrates how society addresses poverty. Scholar Mariana Chilton has pointed out that food assistance programs are often seen as privileges that need constant justification. This perspective makes SNAP vulnerable to political decisions. When benefits are cut, it impacts real lives—leading to empty pantries and stressed families. Chilton emphasizes that food insecurity is about power dynamics and who gets support.
As federal leaders receive steady salaries during government shutdowns, families dependent on SNAP wonder how they’ll feed their children. This disparity is unacceptable. When SNAP is unstable, it reinforces conditions where poverty is treated as a failure rather than a systemic issue. Unfortunately, children bear the brunt of these failures.
Connecticut is working to assist its residents, but more action is needed. Leaders must commit to ensuring SNAP benefits remain reliable, so no child goes hungry due to political decisions. Access to food is essential for kids to thrive, learn, and grow. Cutting SNAP benefits now could harm the future of our communities and our nation.
In summary, we need both state and federal support to protect SNAP. Other states, like New York and California, have established state-funded SNAP supplements during federal funding cuts. Connecticut can build on these models to safeguard its residents and make sure no family struggles to put food on the table.
Maya Uszenski is a second-year Health Science student at Sacred Heart University, aspiring to become a Physician Assistant.
Source link
Sacred Heart Student Voice
