Food stamps, now known as the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, provide income support for 42 million Americans to meet their nutritional needs and reduce hunger and food insecurity, demonstrating the importance of counteracting the politicization of federal food assistance.

A recent study looks at how the rollout of food stamps in the 1960s and 1970s affected political polarization and voting behavior, finding that White adults at the time of the program’s implementation were more likely to be registered Republican in 2020 than Black or Hispanic adults, who were more likely to be registered Democrat or Independent.

The study shows that nutrition assistance and other social insurance programs offer essential support, not just to those who receive it directly but also to their local economies, which reap the benefits of cash flowing through stores, farmers markets, and other small businesses.

Overview of the Politicization of Federal Food Assistance

On January 31, 1964, President Lyndon B. Johnson requested that Congress pass federal legislation to make the Food Stamp Program permanent. Up to that point, the program had operated as a pilot in select counties and states, serving about 380,000 participants.1 The Food Stamp Program expanded dramatically in the ensuing decades, driven largely by a recognition of domestic hunger. It has also undergone many changes—notably 2008 legislation that changed the name to the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, or SNAP, in part to fight the politicized stigma of receiving food assistance.

Today, the program is without a doubt one of the most effective food assistance programs in reducing food insecurity and poverty across the United States. The U.S. Census Bureau reports that supplemental nutrition assistance lifted nearly 3.6 million people out of poverty in 2024, the most recent year for which full data are available.2

What’s more, every dollar in SNAP benefits generates about $1.50 in economic activity, as recipients spend their benefits at grocery stores, farmers’ markets, and small businesses.3 This ripple effect strengthens communities, keeping businesses open and workers employed.

Looking solely at the data, it would seem the anti-hunger program would be viewed by the vast majority of U.S. voters as a practical solution that helps families put food on the table while also supporting local economies. After all, the vast majority of SNAP recipients are children, seniors, and people with disabilities, not the able-bodied adults who are often misrepresented as the main beneficiaries in political debates. And many rural communities, which tend to vote conservatively, rely heavily on this nutrition assistance, with some of the highest SNAP participation rates found in states that lean Republican.4

Read the full article about the politicization of federal food assistance by Carlos Fernando Avenancio-Leon at Equitable Growth.