This Saturday, benefits from the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) — also recognized as food stamps — are slated to deplete for over 40 million citizens of the United States. These millions of Americans represent collateral damage resulting from what has unfolded as the second-longest governmental closure in US history thus far.
However, even as the impending deadline has accentuated the tangible repercussions of the impasse in Washington, DC, it has concurrently ignited the latest resurgence of America’s ongoing conflict concerning welfare provisions. Across social media platforms, content creators are accumulating views through the deployment of rage-inducing content that portrays individuals receiving food assistance as leading extravagant lifestyles at the government’s expense. These recordings have amassed substantial viewership and numerous irate reactions.
Krissy Clark is a journalist who has documented the social safety net on The Uncertain Hour podcast. Clark states that these recordings contribute to a longstanding pattern of Americans perpetuating stereotypes about SNAP beneficiaries as indolent and privileged.
Clark engaged in conversation with Today, Explained host Noel King to explore how the “welfare queen” stereotype has maintained a prolonged presence in American politics and continues to influence policy-making today. Presented below is an excerpt from their dialogue, refined for conciseness and clarity. Extensive details are available in the complete podcast; access Today, Explained on various podcast platforms, including Apple Podcasts, Pandora, and Spotify.
What thoughts arise when you view videos like these?
We lack knowledge regarding the identity of these individuals or whether they genuinely receive food stamps. I examined one such video, and it notably belongs to a parody account explicitly designated for satire and comedic sketches. Consequently, a crucial consideration is whether these individuals are authentic beneficiaries of food stamp programs themselves.
“Two-thirds of participants are children or adults over age 60 or people with disabilities.”
Furthermore, the sentiments expressed in the comments sections reveal individuals labeling these supposed beneficiaries as entitled, parasitic, opportunistic, and reliant on food stamps, perpetuating cyclical dependency. The primary response is that this portrayal inaccurately reflects the majority of individuals receiving food assistance. It echoes a dated collection of tropes and stereotypes; however, empirical data demonstrates a departure from this portrayal among most food stamp recipients.
Notably, two-thirds of participants consist of minors, adults exceeding the age of 60, or individuals living with disabilities. Upon excluding these demographics and examining the predominantly employable SNAP participants, a significant proportion engages in work during any given month, and the majority have been employed either in the preceding 12 months or anticipate employment in the forthcoming 12 months.
The median allotment for the typical food stamp beneficiary approximates $6 daily. Consequently, the widespread notion that the typical SNAP beneficiary exploits governmental resources while eschewing employment and exhibiting laziness fails to align with the empirical evidence.
How about the response — “entitled,” “parasites,” “looters,” “intergenerational dependency”? Does that surprise you?
Regrettably, it does not, given its historical prevalence within our nation and even prior. A pervasive apprehension exists collectively among individuals in the US, notably amplified by political figures — a profound unease regarding whether our collective assistance is directed towards the appropriate recipients. A fundamental division persists among numerous Americans, permeating American history, distinguishing between the deserving impoverished, who warrant our assistance, and the undeserving impoverished.
How do our assumptions and even our suspicions get turned into policy?
We are likely familiar with Reagan’s narratives surrounding “welfare queens.” Those narratives correlated with his efforts to substantially curtail eligibility for food stamps and reduce food stamp allocations during the 1980s.
Subsequently, in 1996, Congress enacted the most extensive welfare reforms in history. The New Republic magazine featured a cover illustration in August 1996 bearing the bold headline, “Day of Reckoning, Sign the Bill Now,” urging [President Bill] Clinton to approve the welfare reform measures that would fundamentally dismantle welfare as we recognized it. The magazine’s cover depicted a Black woman smoking a cigarette while cradling a young infant drinking from a bottle.
I remember the 1990s. I was a kid, but I know that the “welfare queen” trope was kind of in the water. It does make me think about what’s going on in the present day, where a single tweet that claims to be a video of a woman saying, “I have nine kids and I’m never gonna get a job because I get food stamps” can suddenly reach millions of people.
When you see these videos on social media, is there something different now because of just how viral they can go?
The impression I receive is not, “We are entering a new era.” Rather, it is, “Here we are again.” The tactics and anxieties remain consistent. While dissemination might be accelerated, I was also a child during the 1990s, and these stereotypes and suspicions were ingrained without the necessity of social media. I contend that this messaging and these apprehensions will invariably circulate through alternate channels.
There is one big difference in 2025 from the past, and we’ve talked about it on the show: Safety net programs are typically seen as Democratic terrain. Democrats vote for them; Democrats need them.
But then the situation changed after the 2024 election, because a lot of poor and working -lass people voted for Donald Trump. So recently you saw Josh Hawley, the Republican senator from Missouri, write an op-ed in the New York Times saying we need to fund SNAP.
Do you see Republicans changing their tune on welfare, because increasingly the people who need benefits are voting Republican?
I would dispute it slightly. My interpretation leads me to believe that [Hawley] endeavors to emphasize the “deserving impoverished” in this context.
Furthermore, examination of his voting history reveals his support this summer for expansive revisions to food stamp eligibility and other forms of public assistance eligibility embedded within the so-called One Big, Beautiful Bill. These modifications may yield more enduring and substantial consequences in restricting accessibility to food stamps and other governmental assistance modalities.
Saturday is when the benefits run out. You’ve been reporting on this, Krissy, for a very long time. When people lose their benefits and when they lose them in such great numbers, where do they turn for help? Where do they go to find food?
A network of food banks and food pantries exists. The nonprofit sector endeavors to bridge the void; however, consensus among those involved suggests an inability to replicate the support provided by food stamps and extended collectively as a nation through our government.
Several years prior, I visited Dayton, Ohio, and observed a Walmart at midnight, recognizing the onset of monthly benefits at 12:01 AM. The multitude of individuals entering Walmart at that hour to procure food underscored the urgency of their needs, precluding even a day’s delay.
I encountered a woman accompanied by her 8-year-old son. Her food stamp benefits had expired the preceding month. Despite her efforts to budget, compounded by her employment at a Dollar General, she encountered insurmountable financial constraints. Contemplate the ramifications come November 1st.
Source: vox.com
