Skip to main content

By Teon Hayes

New brief from CLASP argues that allowing SNAP participants to buy rotisserie chicken is a helpful but a far too limited reform. SNAP’s ban on most hot or prepared foods does not reflect the realities of many families, workers, older adults, disabled people, or people without reliable kitchens. Congress should remove the hot foods ban more broadly and modernize SNAP around dignity, choice, and access.

Food flexibility will mean little if paired with benefit cuts, work requirements, or added barriers. Real reform should expand access, protect eligibility, and trust people to choose the food that meets their needs.

>> Read the full brief

By Suzanne King

[EXCERPT]

Unfortunately, said Teon Hayes, a senior policy analyst with the Center for Law and Social Poverty, that narrative has gained new life just as people who rely on SNAP face increasing affordability challenges.

…

“We are experiencing an affordability crisis,” Hayes said, “and, unfortunately, people who are relying on public benefits are hit even harder. We’re no longer talking about just the price of eggs and milk. We’re talking about families struggling to afford basic living expenses.”

…

“We’re going to feel this for generations to come, and that’s what really, really scares me,” Hayes said. “Right now, we’re still good. States haven’t really experienced the cost shift yet. But in 2027, 2028 when it is in full effect, I think we’re going to be having a different conversation.”

Read the full article in The Beacon.

By Kaelin Rapport and Isha Weerasinghe

U.S. intervention in foreign countries can have long-lasting and irrevocable consequences, both here and abroad. Since the Trump Administration launched military strikes in Iran on February 28, the human and economic toll has been high. Hundreds of lives have been lost and scores of families in Iran have been displaced from their homes. And in the U.S., many people are struggling with a higher cost of living that could push individuals and families into economic insecurity. 

War has not yet been officially declared on Iran; likewise, Congress has not formally approved the war. Yet according to a hearing on April 29 where Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth and other Pentagon officials briefed the House Armed Services Committee, the cost of these U.S.-initiated military strikes has been close to $25 billion. Others believe this estimate to be low, considering the Pentagon asked for $200 billion for the conflict. These estimates do not include the potential costs of lifetime disability benefits for the 55,000 troops deployed in the region who have been exposed to toxins and environmental hazards, or the costs to U.S residents. 

Oil and Food Costs

The U.S. blockade of the Strait of Hormuz has delayed and, in some cases, completely stopped cargo ships from reaching their destinations around the world. Overall transit through the Strait has been down by up to 95 percent. While oil shortages and rising prices have received widespread media attention, the delivery of other commodities integral to daily life for most Americans has also been halted. 

On April 27, U.N. Secretary-General António Guterres warned his colleagues of the looming food crisis spurred by the war. In addition to oil, the Strait of Hormuz is a significant global pathway in the distribution of liquified natural gas and fertilizers. Natural gas is a key component of nitrogen-based fertilizer production. Large amounts of sulfur, used in phosphatic fertilizer, is also produced in the region. Approximately 20 percent of the world’s oil supply and 33 percent of all seaborne fertilizer passes through the Strait. 

The Climate Solutions Lab estimates that U.S. households have spent approximately $245 more on gasoline and diesel since the beginning of the war. Higher fuel prices mean higher fertilizer production and supply chain costs. As a result, people will have to pay more to grow and package consumable products across the board. Oil is a key building block in petrochemicals, which are present in more than 95 percent of the plastic and synthetic materials used around the world. 

While grocery prices are already high, the U.S. Department of Agriculture’s Consumer Price Index predicts that prices for all foods will increase by 2.9 percent this year. The longer the conflict continues, the higher prices will rise, especially if the Strait remains closed through the spring and summer planting seasons. Farmers will soon have to make decisions about their crops for 2027, and constrained access to quality fertilizers will negatively impact global food security for months to come. 

With no end to the blockade in sight, we are faced with a clear picture of the future: everyday items will be more expensive.

Debt and Mental Health

The total cost of the war could be as high as $1 trillion, or $5,000 per American household. Many people were already using their credit cards to cover basic needs like groceries prior to the war. Higher gas and food prices, as well as increased utility costs and steadily rising inflation rates will force them to rely on their credit cards even more. More people are carrying various forms of debt, including larger amounts of credit card debt, which can not only impact individual credit scores but also increases predatory lending and debt collection. This could result in higher car insurance premiums and higher deposits for utilities, and could also create barriers to housing and/or employment, as increased debt tends to erode a person’s economic mobility and security. 

All of these increased costs to food, gas, utilities, and housing affect individual and family mental health. According to the American Psychiatric Association, financial stability is a core social determinant of mental health. Equally concerning are the impacts of the ongoing military conflict on the well-being of soldiers abroad; their families and communities; the immigrant diaspora; and the general public. 

While Americans pay for war with their tax dollars, causing humanitarian and economic turmoil, our existing safety net has been decimated by H.R. 1, which will cut over $1.1 trillion in funding from health care and at least $186 billion from food assistance programs over the next decade. These cuts to state-level funding will have far-reaching consequences. One likely outcome is that states will divert funds away from education to fill the gaps in health care and food assistance coverage, which will drive young people with low incomes into the armed forces as other opportunities for upward economic mobility dry up. 

Past wars have had negative economic repercussions for U.S. residents. Most conflicts since World War II have been marked by increased debt, taxation and inflation, and decreased spending and investing during or after U.S. involvement. That trend continues with the War in Iran.  Increased energy and food costs will ensure that more families will go hungry, take on more debt, and further entrench populations with low incomes in poverty. The cycle of war continues: where policymakers approach each new conflict with amnesia about the lasting consequences, domestically and internationally, of the past ones. 

By Parker Gilkesson Davis

The Farm Bill is one of the most important pieces of legislation Congress considers in terms of agriculture and food. It determines funding for programs such as the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP), which helps millions of families afford groceries each month. 

If you’re less familiar with what the Farm Bill does and why it matters, we break it down in this 2023 Farm Bill video. 

The Farm Bill was originally set to be reauthorized in 2023, but Congress was unable to reach agreement and instead extended the existing bill. Now, after months of delay and ongoing negotiations, Congress is preparing to make a decision that will directly impact whether millions of families can afford to eat.

As written, the current Farm Bill proposal would codify harmful SNAP cuts, enacted through H.R. 1, that have already made it more difficult for families across the country to buy food. Since those changes took effect last September, over 2.5 million people have lost SNAP benefits; in states like Arizona, participation has dropped by 47 percent. 

This proposal bakes in the harm caused by H.R. 1. As written, it would further codify those SNAP changes, including expanded work requirements that are already putting veterans, foster youth aging out of care, older adults, and others at risk of losing their benefits entirely. Critically, the bill also fails to address or even slow the cost shift to states, which will place significant financial and administrative strain on state agencies and further destabilize access to benefits. At a minimum, Congress should use the Farm Bill to halt or delay these cost shifts and begin reversing the damage that’s already been done.

SNAP is the nation’s most effective anti-hunger program, reducing poverty, improving physical and mental health outcomes, and supporting local economies. At a time when families are already struggling with high food costs, Congress should be strengthening this program, not deepening cuts and widening inequities in food access.

Members of Congress have a choice. They can vote “yes” and continue down a path that takes food away from families. Or they can vote “no” and take meaningful steps to reverse the  harmful changes from H.R. 1 and, at a minimum, slow or halt cost shifts that will only destabilize families further. Congress must vote no on this Farm Bill and proactively move forward with solutions that actually put food back on the table.

People are not less hungry, and there is not less of a need for assistance. Rather, people are being pushed out of the program. This is what it looks like when policy fails to meet people’s needs. The Farm Bill doesn’t have to be simply a piece of legislation. It can be a commitment to ensuring food is restored to tables.

By Christina Hasaan

For decades, the federal Supplemental Security Income (SSI) program has enforced a monthly asset limitof $2,000 for individuals and $3,000 for married couples. These outdated limits, which have not changed since 1989, may have initially been intended to ensure strict eligibility. But now they act as a savings penalty, trapping individuals living with disabilities into cycles of poverty, instability, and financial fear.

SSI is a needs-based program for individuals with disabilities who have limited income and assets, and should not be confused with Social Security Disability Insurance (SSDI), which provides benefits to individuals with disabilities who have worked and paid into the Social Security system. Although SSDI does not include the same asset limits as SSI, recipients face income and work restrictions that can similarly limit financial security.

Two companion bills introduced in the 119th Congress—H.R. 25403 and S. 1234,the SSI Savings Penalty Elimination Act—would raise these asset limits to $10,000 for individuals and $20,000 for married couples. If passed, these bills would finally modernize a policy that shapes the lives of more than 7 million recipients nationwide and over 300,000 residents in my home state, Pennsylvania.

This report centers the lived experiences of people whose stories illustrate the system’s failures and the urgent need for reform. Their perspectives provide insight into the unique challenges with navigating disability, stigma, financial insecurity, and restrictive policy requirements.

>>Read the brief here.

On Wednesday, April 15th, Ashley Burnside presents on proposed changes to the TANF program in Washington D.C. to the Court Services & Offender Supervision Agency (CSOSA) Community Justice Network members.

By Ashley Burnside

Families throughout the nation are facing a worsening affordability crisis. Tax credits, like the Child Tax Credit (CTC), can provide a temporary cash influx during tax season to help families pay off high-interest debt, afford bigger expenses like a car repair, or bolster their savings for an emergency. But because the CTC has an earnings requirement, it won’t reach 19 million children because their families don’t earn enough. It will also exclude 2.6 million children with parents who don’t have Social Security numbers. The CTC lifted approximately 2.4 million children above the poverty line in 2024, reducing child poverty by about 20 percent. In comparison, an expanded CTC would lower the child poverty rate by nearly half. Lawmakers should expand the CTC to reduce child poverty and to invest in families.

Raising a child has always been expensive, but parents across the country are facing steeper costs each month, while wages are not keeping up. Rent and housing costs are increasing, as are the costs for groceries, child care, utility bills, and more. The war in Iran has also skyrocketed gas prices, which will hit families who rely on driving to commute to work especially hard. The CTC alone will not solve this affordability crisis, but it is one tool that can help parents pay their bills and provide more enrichment opportunities for their children during tax time.

The CTC is a tax credit available to families with children under the age of seventeen who meet income and eligibility criteria. H.R. 1 (also called the One Big Beautiful Bill Act), which became law last summer, increased the maximum CTC from $2,000 to $2,200 per child and indexed the credit to inflation. But the law did not increase the CTC for the families who need it most.

An estimated 19 million children, or thirty percent of all kids, won’t get the full CTC due to their families not earning enough in 2026. This is because families must have a certain amount of earnings to be eligible for the full credit due to the way it is structured. As a result of many systemic factors, including employment and wage discrimination, generational racism, and segregated housing opportunities, the children not receiving the full CTC due to their families not earning enough are likelier to be Black, Latino, or Native American compared to white and Asian children. [Note: This statistic includes Asian communities as an aggregate, and therefore may mask specific outcomes for Asian American, Native Hawaiian, and Pacific Islander subgroups.] About half of Black children won’t get the full CTC in 2026; neither will 42 percent of Latino children or over half of Native American children, compared to about one in five white and Asian children. Meanwhile, a family making up to $400,000 per year will be eligible for the full CTC under current law.

The H.R.1 law also newly made certain immigrant families ineligible for the CTC. Individuals who are not eligible for Social Security numbers can use an Individual Taxpayer Identification Number (ITIN) to file their taxes. Up until the passage of H.R.1 last summer, if the child in the household had a Social Security number, their parents could claim the CTC on their behalf if they have ITINs. Now, at least one parent must have a Social Security number to claim the CTC for the child.

CLASP estimates that 2.6 million children who are U.S. citizens will be newly ineligible for the CTC this year due to this discriminatory policy change. They won’t be the only children left out; because of a policy enacted under the 2017 Trump tax bill, children must have Social Security numbers to be eligible for the CTC. This policy means that about 1 million additional children without Social Security numbers have been excluded from receiving the CTC for the last eight years. These policies will have profound impacts on many immigrant populations and increase the number of people living in poverty.

The small increase to the CTC passed under H.R.1 pales in comparison to the tax breaks that were passed for the very wealthy and for corporations. For example, the law cuts the estate tax, allowing more higher income families to inherit generational wealth without facing the estate tax. It also reduced the top marginal tax rate from 39.6 percent to 37 percent, benefitting those with incomes over $640,000 ($768,000 for married couples). The rich will get richer under this bill, while families will only get a maximum of $200 more per child under the CTC. And this law leaves millions of children out from benefitting from that credit altogether.

Lawmakers should permanently expand the CTC, make it fully available to the thirty percent of children who will be left out of getting it this year, and remove the discriminatory eligibility restrictions for families with ITINs. The American Family Act (H.R 2763/S.1393) is one bill that would make these changes. Lawmakers should also expand the Earned Income Tax Credit to help it reach more young workers and workers without dependent kids. Finally, lawmakers should also reinstate the Direct File tool that helps tax filers claim their taxes for free.

The tax code is an important tool for investing in families and workers. Lawmakers have advanced tax policies that don’t reach people living in poverty and that exclude immigrant families, while allowing the wealth gap to widen by implementing changes allowing the rich to get richer.

This statement can be attributed to Wendy Chun-Hoon, president and executive director of the Center for Law and Social Policy (CLASP). 

Washington, D.C., April 6, 2026–The Trump Administration’s budget proposal predictably cuts support for children, families, and workers, at a time when families are already struggling to make ends meet. It’s the same tired story from this administration, asserting that within the proposed $8 trillion budget, our country must cut funding for the programs that help families get by so they can increase defense funding and underwrite their immigration enforcement that rips families and communities apart. 

CLASP documented the many ways the Trump Administration went out of its way to hurt families and communities in 2025, and this budget is another step in that direction. It would increase the number of people in poverty even further, on top of all of the other policies the administration has signed into law, like denying millions of people their health coverage and food assistance through H.R.1.  

The Trump Administration has proposed even more drastic cuts to vital programs that workers rely on for workforce development and access to jobs that pay living wages. On top of that, rising inflation and increased strain on state budgets from H.R. 1 mean that cuts and level funding to programs like Head Start, SNAP, and public health programs, which support mental and maternal and child health, along with grants that support child care and housing would further reduce access to essential services. All of this contributes to the administration’s attacks on affordability and the social safety net.

We know what we need to invest in to support families – health care, food assistance, housing, child care, worker development programs, education. But instead, this budget slashes funding to programs that support families while continuing to inflate the budget of immigration enforcement agents who are separating families and traumatizing communities. 

The President’s budget is unacceptable. Congress should reject it and work to pass a budget that actually reflects the needs of our communities. 

By Jesse Fairbanks 

The Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) has proposed a rule that would expand work requirements and term limits in federal rental assistance programs. The rule permits providers to discontinue rental assistance after a family has lived in their home for only  two years and/or require recipients to report how many hours they work. Neither of these policy options will increase assisted households’ income enough to afford basic needs without help. HUD’s plan ignores the cruel housing and labor markets that plague people with low incomes. Millions of families are at risk of eviction and homelessness should this rule become finalized. 

There is little research regarding work requirements and time limits in rental assistance programs. Only 1 percent of public housing authorities (roughly 30 out of 3,000) have implemented either policy, and even fewer have had their programs evaluated. However, extensive evidence from public benefits programs like SNAP, Medicaid, and TANF shows that these policies do not help people get jobs that pay a living wage. In fact, most research suggests that work requirements and time limits don’t increase employment rates at all. They instead punish people when they are facing challenges, such as getting laid off, at great cost to providers.

Under the proposed rule, public housing authorities and certain landlords could:

Of the roughly five million households that receive federal rental assistance, a little under half may be considered “work-eligible” and therefore subject to the requirement. People with disabilities; who have some caregiving responsibilities; who are pregnant; or who are enrolled in college are excluded from the rule. However, these exemptions don’t include people caring for a child in elementary school or a loved one who lives outside of the home, though providers can choose to exclude additional groups of people. Data suggests that carving out exemptions for special populations does not prevent them from losing assistance, as people still have to go through complicated processes to prove their exemption.

While the rule is discretionary, meaning a provider of federal rental assistance is not mandated to adopt either policy, state policymakers could pressure providers to implement work requirements or time limits. Trigger laws exist in Arkansas and Wisconsin that would force public housing authorities to adopt a work reporting requirement. It’s likely that providers in states with conservative governors or legislatures will not have the freedom to decide if they want to implement either expensive policy option. 

The proposed rule requires providers who adopt either policy to offer supportive services. However, what qualifies as a “supportive service” is broad, ranging from referrals to workforce development centers to transportation support, and the federal government will not release additional funds to provide these services. Therefore, a provider could give a household a pamphlet referring them to the local organizations with a job training program and claim that it has met this requirement. 

Implementing expensive reporting requirements or term limits will leave providers with fewer resources to invest in supportive services that actually help people find quality jobs. Over 700 providers have made progress toward improving employment outcomes through a successful voluntary program called the Family Self-Sufficiency (FSS) Program. Families participating in FSS are offered meaningful supportive services that help them increase their earned income. When a family’s income increases, they must pay more for rent. Providers help participating families create savings despite the rent increase by depositing a matching amount into an interest-bearing FSS account that families can access upon completing the program. Families who participate in FSS leave the program with an average of $10,800 in savings. Thirty-five to forty percent of families who completed FSS exited rental assistance within one year, and 15 percent became homeowners. Over time, sinking government money into enforcing work reporting requirements and time limits could undermine funding for effective mobility programs like FSS. 

If the Trump Administration cared about the 16 million households who need help affording rent, they would invest in federal rental assistance so that families don’t remain waitlists for upward of two years. Rents are too expensive. Fewer than half of all full-time workers earn wages high enough to afford rent for a one-bedroom home. Fully funding the housing choice voucher program would cost the federal government about $100 billion. Establishing a federal renter’s tax credit would cost $78 billion. Compare those figures to ICE’s current $85 billion budget, or the $12 billion the U.S. government has spent on the war on Iran so far. The federal government succeeds at increasing self-sufficiency when it invests in recipients, not when it penalizes them for struggling to find work that pays enough to make rent. 

Advocates can express opposition to this rule by submitting a comment on regulations.gov no later than May 1, 2026. This template co-created with the National Housing Law Project provides an example comment, with prompts for individuals to customize it. CLASP and our partners have created a fact sheet and potential impact for every state to support commenting efforts. 

Updated March 23, 2026, by Priya Pandey; Spanish version added September 2025 (see link below)

Originally published in 2019 by Rebecca Ullrich, updated in February 2022 by Alejandra Londono Gomez, and updated further in January 2025 and March 2026 by Priya Pandey.

Early childhood programs play an important role in the lives of young children and their families. But in our current political climate, families across the country are questioning whether it’s safe to attend or enroll.

In January 2025, the Trump Administration rescinded the Biden Administration’s guidelines for Immigration and Customs Enforcement and Customs and Border Protection enforcement actions in certain “protected areas.” Immigration enforcement actions had previously been restricted at or near these locations, which include early childhood programs such as licensed child care, preschool, pre-kindergarten, and Head Start programs.

In response to the administration’s actions in January 2025 and since, we have updated “A Guide to Creating ‘Safe Space’ Policies for Early Childhood Programs,” which gives practitioners, advocates, and policymakers information and resources to design and implement “safe space” policies that safeguard early childhood programs against immigration enforcement, as well as protect families’ safety and privacy. The guide also includes sample policy text that early childhood providers can adapt for their programs.

Download in English here

Disponible en español aqui