# REPORT: 4.7 million Americans without food aid — the true face of the Big Beautiful Bill

> In Phoenix, Arizona, lines at food banks have doubled since last summer. The Society of St. Vincent de Paul and St. Mary's Food Bank are now handling volumes that exceed what they managed at the height of the COVID-19 pandemic. Volunteers are distributing rice and potatoes in cardboard boxes. Families with children are showing up for the first time — shaken, embarrassed, never

- Author: Maxime Marquette
- Publisher: MadMax (https://mad-max.co)
- Section: Reportage
- Published: 2026-06-27
- Canonical URL: https://mad-max.co/en/article/reportage-4-7-millions-d-americains-sans-aide-alimentaire-le-vrai-visage-du-big

## Introduction: when a law creates hunger

### Arizona, first state to lose half of its SNAP recipients

In **Phoenix, Arizona**, lines at food banks have doubled since last summer. The **Society of St. Vincent de Paul** and **St. Mary's Food Bank** are now handling volumes that exceed what they managed at the height of the **COVID-19** pandemic. Volunteers are distributing rice and potatoes in cardboard boxes. Families with children are showing up for the first time — shaken, embarrassed, never having needed food assistance before. Many of them simply lost their **SNAP** (Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program) benefits overnight, without really understanding why.

The answer lies in a **940-page** piece of legislation: the **One Big Beautiful Bill Act (OBBBA)**, signed by President **Donald Trump** on **July 4, 2025**. One year after it took effect, its human toll is now documented with precision. According to data compiled by the **Center on Budget and Policy Priorities (CBPP)**, a nonpartisan research organization, **more than 4.7 million Americans** have lost their SNAP benefits since July 2025. That is the fastest decline in nearly **30 years**.

### A program that fed 42 million people

To grasp the scale of what is happening, one must first understand what SNAP is. This federal program, formerly known as "food stamps," is the primary food assistance program for low-income households in the United States. In **2025**, it fed approximately **42 million Americans** — roughly **one in eight**. The average benefit is **$588 per month** for a family of three. For low-income families, that is often the difference between eating three meals a day or skipping one — or two.

*It is called a social assistance program. I call it survival infrastructure. When it is dismantled in the name of "work incentives" while handing tax cuts to the wealthy in the same legislation, you are not reducing the deficit. You are redistributing misery.*

## The mechanisms of dismantlement: how the law engineers exclusion

### The new work requirements: a net set to trip people up

The most impactful provision of the **Big Beautiful Bill** on SNAP is the radical extension of **mandatory work requirements**. Before the legislation, work requirements applied to able-bodied adults without dependents aged **18 to 54**: they had to work, train, or actively search for employment for **20 hours per week** to receive benefits beyond three months in any three-year period. The new law **extends these requirements through age 64**, now includes parents of children aged **14 and older**, and eliminates exemptions that had previously protected veterans, people experiencing homelessness, and former foster-care youth.

The problem documented by researchers is that these requirements do not make people work more — they simply push them out of the program. A study published in the **New England Journal of Medicine** on the effects of SNAP work requirements in several states concluded that they produced no significant increase in employment, but massively reduced enrollment. People who lose their benefits are often either already employed or in a medical or personal situation that prevents them from working — but monthly verification of their circumstances has become so administratively complex that they give up.

### Cost-shifting to states: the administrative squeeze

The second destructive mechanism of the **OBBBA** is the **progressive transfer of administrative costs to states**. Until 2025, the federal government funded **100% of SNAP benefits** and shared administrative costs **50/50** with the states. The new law introduces penalties for states whose **payment error rate** exceeds **6%** — a rate measuring not fraud, but the minor over- or under-payments inherent in a complex program. These penalties can cost states between **5% and 15% of total benefit costs**. Starting in **2027**, states will also be required to finance a portion of the benefits themselves.

*This legislative architecture is a masterpiece of bureaucratic cynicism. Benefits are not cut directly — that would be too visible. Instead, states are penalized for administrative errors, forcing them to close cases en masse to lower their error rate. The outcome is identical: millions of people removed from the program. But the responsibility is diffuse, invisible, impossible to assign clearly.*

## Arizona: extreme case, mirror of a national policy

### From 455,000 to fewer than 235,000 families in one year

**Arizona** is the most dramatic case in the country. In **July 2025**, the state had approximately **455,000 families** receiving SNAP. By **March 2026**, that number had fallen to **fewer than 235,000** — a drop of nearly **50%**, the steepest of any US state. In absolute numbers, according to **USDA** data and analyses by Congressmember **Adelita Grijalva**, **473,793 Arizonans** lost their SNAP benefits, including **205,223 children**.

This decline is not the result of a sudden improvement in economic conditions in Arizona. Food banks testify to the opposite. It stems from a combination of factors: stricter new eligibility rules, a **massive administrative backlog** — the state struggling to process renewals with insufficient staff —, **outdated IT systems** ill-suited to the new requirements, and the elimination of exemptions that had protected specific vulnerable populations. According to the **CBPP**, Arizona had also applied the new federal rules more aggressively than most other states.

### The crisis in Maricopa County

Testimony collected by **Axios** from Jessica Berg, director of programs at St. Vincent de Paul in Phoenix, is telling: "the combination of reduced aid and rising prices for almost all essential goods has led to a significant increase in despair and widespread food distress." Families are not only losing their SNAP benefits — they are also losing automatic access to **free school meals** and **summer meals** for their children, since those programs are conditional on SNAP enrollment. For affected children, it is a double blow.

*One out of every two children in Arizona who received food assistance a year ago no longer does. This is not reform. It is collective deprivation of children. And the president who signed this legislation had the audacity to publicly boast about his "cuts to food stamps." It takes a certain kind of boldness to celebrate children's hunger as a political victory.*

## The national toll: a geography of deprivation

### 4.3 million people cut off in eight months

At the national level, official **USDA** data show that by **February 2026**, **4.3 million fewer people** were receiving SNAP compared to **February 2025** — **37.8 million** recipients against roughly **42 million**. But **CBPP** analysts have since updated their estimates with more recent state-level data, bringing the total to more than **4.7 million** people who have lost their benefits since July 2025. This decline represents a **10% reduction in the national total** in less than one year — the fastest since at least the **1990s**.

The geographic distribution is uneven. **Arizona** leads with a **53%** decline based on the most recent CBPP data. **Louisiana** shows a **16–20%** drop. **Florida**, **Tennessee**, **Virginia**, **Oklahoma**, **Kansas**, **Massachusetts**, **Texas**, **Connecticut**, **Illinois**, and **Utah** all show declines exceeding **10%**. In absolute numbers, **Texas** is the state that lost the greatest number of child recipients: **253,000 children**, according to **ProPublica**'s analysis.

### Children: the first victims

**ProPublica**, in an investigation published on **June 17, 2026**, calculated that at least **776,134 children** had lost their SNAP benefits in the **12 states** for which age-disaggregated data were available. These children represent **46%** of all people who lost benefits in those states. The **CBPP** had separately estimated that **808,000 children** had been cut off in the **13 states** it was tracking. Since these figures cover only a subset of states, analysts estimate the national total of children who have lost benefits could reach **1.5 million**.

*While Trump boasts about "cutting food stamps," 1.5 million children risk going hungry. Children who cannot vote, who have no lawyer, who have no lobbyist in Washington. These are the most vulnerable people in American society that this law has sacrificed on the altar of anti-welfare rhetoric.*

## The impact on families: testimonies from a silent crisis

### Single mothers at an impasse

**Single-parent families** — in the vast majority of cases, mothers raising children alone — are among those hardest hit by the new rules. The law now requires **20 hours of work per week** to maintain benefits. For a single mother with a 14-year-old, managing work, school, activities, and care entirely alone — and whose wages do not cover childcare if the child is younger — this requirement may simply be impossible to meet, even in perfect good faith. The result: she loses her benefits, not because she does not want to work, but because the conditions for doing so are not in place.

Testimonies gathered by food banks in Arizona document similar situations: people who reapplied multiple times, received no response from the agency for weeks or months, and eventually gave up for lack of resources to continue. The **Arizona Department of Economic Security** itself acknowledges a massive processing backlog tied to staffing and IT system problems — problems compounded by the new federal requirements.

### Veterans, people experiencing homelessness, former foster youth

Three specific populations deserve particular attention. **Veterans** who benefited from exemptions to work requirements now find those exemptions eliminated. **People experiencing homelessness** — whose circumstances make it particularly difficult to document an address, work hours, or even maintain contact with social services — are now subject to the same requirements as everyone else. **Former foster-care youth**, often among the most vulnerable people in society, no longer receive automatic exemptions. These were populations that had been protected for good reasons — and they now find themselves without a safety net.

*Veterans who risked their lives for this country, people already in survival mode on the streets, children who survived the foster care system — these are the people the Big Beautiful Bill targeted with its new rules. If this is what "making America great again" looks like, I would take a smaller but more humane America.*

## The economics of the cuts: the numbers behind the politics

### $187 billion in savings at the expense of the poorest

The **Congressional Budget Office (CBO)** estimated that the **OBBBA** would reduce federal SNAP spending by **$186.7 to $187 billion** over the **2025–2034** decade — the **largest reduction in the program's history**. These savings are presented by the Trump administration and Congressional Republicans as a contribution to reducing the federal deficit. But the CBO also estimated that the same bill's tax provisions would increase federal deficits by **$3.8 trillion** over the same period — primarily through tax cuts for corporations and the wealthy.

The arithmetic is stark: **$187 billion** in food assistance to the poorest is cut, while **$3,800 billion** in taxes is reduced — with the benefits going overwhelmingly to upper-income households and corporations. The "deficit reduction" rhetoric masks a reverse redistribution of wealth: upward, at the expense of the most vulnerable.

### Hidden costs: food banks, emergency rooms, housing

The economic equation of the Big Beautiful Bill is even more unfavorable when **hidden costs** of food deprivation are counted. Food banks — most of which are nonprofits — must now fund from their own resources what the federal program previously covered. **St. Mary's Food Bank** in Arizona had to find **$12 million in additional funding** to meet the demand. These costs are borne by private donors, foundations, religious communities — in place of the federal safety net.

*When you eliminate a government food assistance program, the food does not magically disappear. Someone else pays for it — food banks, churches, neighbors, family members. This cost does not appear in the budgetary savings of the Big Beautiful Bill. But it is real. And it is borne by those who are least able to bear it.*

## The political response: resistance in Congress, Trump takes a bow

### Amendments rejected, voices ignored

Congressmember **Adelita Grijalva**, a Democrat from Arizona, introduced two amendments to the FY2027 agriculture appropriations bill aimed at mitigating the impact of the payment-error-rate penalty mechanism. Her amendments were rejected by the Republican majority in the final committee vote. Senator **Edward Markey** denounced the consequences for Massachusetts, where **50,000 children** had lost their benefits. The **CBPP** is calling on Congress to delay by at least two years the cost-shifting mechanism to states to prevent an even worse deterioration. None of these requests has been granted.

For his part, **Donald Trump** publicly celebrated the SNAP cuts. "It's a record," he declared, boasting about the number of people who had left the program — without mentioning that this exit was not the result of an improvement in their economic situation, but of an imposed administrative exclusion. It is cynical political communication, but effective with an electorate that perceives welfare benefits as a dependency to be eliminated.

### The research on work requirement effectiveness: the facts

The ideological justification of the Big Beautiful Bill is that work requirements incentivize recipients to find employment and break their dependence on public assistance. But **academic research** on this question is unambiguous. Studies conducted in several states that previously implemented SNAP work requirements consistently showed that these requirements **produce no measurable increase in employment**. What they do produce is a reduction in enrollment — not because people found jobs, but because the administrative burden became unmanageable. The researchers' conclusion is clear: SNAP work requirements take food from people. They do not give them a job.

*Public policy based on ideology rather than evidence is a form of institutional irresponsibility. When data has shown for decades that SNAP work requirements do not create jobs but do create hunger, and they are expanded anyway, it is not reform. It is symbolic punishment of the poor to satisfy an electorate that holds them in contempt.*

## The public health impact: a slow-burning crisis

### Rising food insecurity: the first data points

The **Federal Reserve Bank of New York** noted in a recent report "a remarkable increase in food insecurity" among low-income households, combined with rising prices for food, fuel, and essential goods. Food insecurity — defined as not having regular access to enough food for an active and healthy life — has documented consequences for physical and mental health, particularly in children: cognitive developmental delays, difficulty concentrating in school, a weakened immune system, and long-term effects on individuals' social trajectories.

Children who lose access to free school meals — a direct consequence of losing SNAP benefits — arrive at school without having eaten. Teachers see it in their classrooms. School principals report it. School health services observe the effects. These human and social costs appear in none of Washington's budget calculations.

### Refugees and legal immigrants: an additional exclusion

The **Big Beautiful Bill** also eliminated SNAP eligibility for many **legal residents** — asylum seekers, refugees with legal status but not yet a green card — and reduced access for certain categories of legal immigrants. This measure, beyond its direct humanitarian impact, has economic implications: legal immigrants who work, pay taxes, and contribute to the economy now find themselves excluded from programs to which their contributions indirectly flow.

*The exclusion of legal immigrants has a particularly sordid dimension: these people often fled poverty or persecution in their home countries. They followed legal procedures to be here. And the first thing they receive in return is exclusion from the bare minimum. This is a national disgrace.*

## Frontline testimonies

### Food bank workers facing the surge

Food bank workers in Arizona and other affected states are on the front lines of documenting this crisis. Testimonies gathered by outlets such as **NTV Global** in June 2026 reveal heartbreaking situations: families that lost their benefits, reapplied, waited months without a response, and now face choices between food and rent. People in their early sixties who worked part-time and now find themselves subject to impossible monthly documentation requirements. Former service members with no resources who do not understand why their exemption was eliminated.

A manager at the Southern Arizona food bank, cited by the **CBPP**, testifies: "we are seeing people reapplying over and over and they cannot even get answers to their questions. Some have been reinstated at a much lower amount. Others never heard back and do not know what to do."

### The reality through grocery store data

The reality of SNAP cuts is also visible in grocery and supermarket economic data. In poor neighborhoods of Arizona and other hardest-hit states, food sales have dropped. Some neighborhood grocery stores that depended on SNAP purchases for the bulk of their revenue have scaled back or closed. It is a cascading effect: eliminating benefits does not just affect recipient households — it damages the local economies of low-income neighborhoods.

*There is an economic irony in all of this that the authors of the Big Beautiful Bill seem to have overlooked: SNAP is one of the most economically efficient social programs. Every dollar spent on SNAP benefits generates approximately $1.50 to $1.80 in local economic activity. Cutting those benefits also kills small neighborhood businesses, reduces local consumption, and weakens already fragile local economies.*

## What is coming: what will get worse

### Cost-shifting to states in 2027

The worst may still be ahead. In **October 2026**, states will begin absorbing **75% of SNAP administrative costs**, up from **50%** currently — a massive increase that will force many states to further reduce their administration, close more cases, and impose shorter renewal deadlines. Starting in **2027**, states whose payment error rates exceed certain thresholds will also begin co-financing benefits themselves — a mechanism the **CBO** projects could lead to the elimination of **300,000 additional recipients** between **2028 and 2034**. Some states may even choose to exit the program entirely.

The **3.2 million people per month** the CBO had projected would be excluded under the new work rules are just the beginning. The current figure of **4.7 million** does not yet include the effects of state cost-sharing, which is only beginning. CBPP experts estimate that the total number of people excluded will continue to grow in the months ahead.

### The next crisis: school meals at risk

Children who lose SNAP also lose automatic eligibility for **free school meals**. The **CBO** estimated that **96,000 children per month** will lose access to school meal programs due to SNAP benefit losses. During the summer of **2026**, **Summer EBT** programs — which allowed children to eat properly during school vacations — were also affected. The nutritional consequences for children from the poorest families are documented and predictable.

*I note, not without bitterness, that while American children are being deprived of school meals, the same Big Beautiful Bill included massive corporate tax cuts. There is a hierarchy of priorities embedded in this country's legislation that says something quite fundamental about the vision of society behind it.*

## Alternative reforms: what could have been done

### Reducing fraud rather than recipients

Supporters of the **OBBBA** invoke the need to combat SNAP fraud and abuse. But the data are clear: the **SNAP fraud rate is historically low**, around **1%**. The payment error rate — which the law penalizes — measures over- or under-payments caused by the complexity of eligibility rules, not fraud. Investment in modernizing states' IT systems, training social workers, and simplifying procedures would have reduced errors without stripping millions of eligible people of their rights.

Savings could also have been sought elsewhere. **Agricultural reform** — the Farm Bill that includes SNAP also contains massive subsidies for large industrial farms — could have generated savings without touching the most vulnerable recipients. These alternatives were not chosen. The political choice was clear: cut food assistance to the poorest.

### What this law says about Trump's America

The **Big Beautiful Bill** reveals, beyond its practical effects, a coherent political project: shrink the social safety net, transfer costs to states and individuals, eliminate protections for the most vulnerable — while reducing taxes for the wealthy. This is not a deficit-reduction policy. It is a reverse redistribution of wealth, disguised as administrative efficiency reform. And its victims — the hungry children of Arizona, the destitute veterans, the single mothers at a dead end — are paying the price of this ideology.

*The America I know and have always admired — the one of generosity, compassion, and the capacity to care for the most vulnerable — is not in this piece of legislation. It is in the lines at Phoenix food banks, in the volunteers distributing rice at odd hours, in the teachers bringing sandwiches for students who have not eaten. The America I admire does not need a Big Beautiful Bill. It needs a Big Beautiful Heart.*

## The mental health consequences: a silent crisis within the crisis

### Food anxiety and its lasting psychological effects

Beyond the nutritional dimension, the loss of **SNAP** benefits is triggering a documented mental health crisis in affected communities. Chronic food insecurity — not knowing whether one will be able to eat tomorrow — generates levels of anxiety and stress with measurable effects on the psychological health of adults and the cognitive development of children. Studies published in specialized medical journals have established strong correlations between food insecurity and the prevalence of depressive, anxiety, and post-traumatic disorders in low-income populations.

Mental health workers in Arizona and other affected states report an increase in consultations related to economic stress since the **Big Beautiful Bill** took effect. Community mental health centers, already understaffed, are facing growing demand without additional resources. The loss of **SNAP** benefits is not only a question of food — it is an aggravating factor in a broader mental health crisis that official data have not yet fully captured.

### School-age children: between hunger and learning

Neuroscience has established for decades that malnutrition in the early years of life — and particularly during the school years — durably affects cognitive development. Children who arrive at school without having eaten struggle to concentrate, perform below their potential academically, and face a heightened risk of dropping out. The **Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC)** has documented the long-term health effects of food insecurity, including cardiovascular, metabolic, and behavioral risks that persist into adulthood.

*We talk about billions in budgetary savings. But nobody calculates the long-term cost to healthcare, economic productivity, the criminal justice system, and social services of a generation of children whose cognitive development was compromised by hunger between the ages of 5 and 15. Short-term savings always generate long-term spending. It is an accounting truth that the ideologues of this reform refuse to hear.*

## The international comparison: food safety nets in the developed world

### European models of food assistance

To contextualize what is happening with **SNAP** in the United States, it is instructive to look at how other developed nations organize food security. In **France**, **social grocery stores** and the **Restos du Cœur** form a complementary safety net within a universal social protection system. In **Germany**, the social assistance system (**Bürgergeld**) covers food needs as part of a comprehensive allowance. In the **United Kingdom**, food banks have exploded since the austerity policies of the previous decade — a warning the American example should take seriously. None of these countries subjects food assistance to work requirements as strict as those of the **Big Beautiful Bill**.

The fundamental difference is philosophical: in Europe, access to food is generally considered a social right, not a conditional reward tied to labor market behavior. In the United States, the dominant political rhetoric frames food assistance as a favor granted by the state to individuals who must "earn" that help by working. This philosophy produces policies that exclude precisely the most vulnerable people — those who cannot work for medical, family, or structural reasons.

### The Canadian case: same continent, different choices

**Canada**, America's immediate neighbor and a comparable economy in many respects, offers an instructive contrast. Prime Minister **Mark Carney** had announced in **2026** additional investments in Canadian food assistance programs, with particular emphasis on Indigenous populations and low-income families. Canadian policy does not impose work requirements on access to food assistance in most provinces. The result: Canada has a significantly lower food insecurity rate than the United States, despite a similar economy in terms of per-capita GDP.

*Two countries, same continent, same standard of living. One chooses to invest in the food security of its citizens. The other chooses to reduce it. In twenty years, economists will compare the public health, productivity, and social cost curves of these two choices. I know which one I am betting on.*

## The voices of resistance: organizations, advocates, journalists

### The civil resistance coalition

In the face of the **SNAP** dismantlement, a diverse coalition of civic actors has mobilized to document, challenge, and resist the policies of the **Big Beautiful Bill**. Organizations such as the **Center on Budget and Policy Priorities**, the **Food Research and Action Center**, and hundreds of local food banks are producing data, publishing reports, and lobbying lawmakers. Investigative journalists from **ProPublica**, the **New York Times**, and local media are documenting the individual stories that put a human face on the statistics. Lawyers are filing legal challenges contesting the legality of certain implementation measures.

This civic resistance has already produced partial results. In several states, court challenges have temporarily suspended the implementation of certain new rules. Local elected officials have found alternative funding — state funds, private donations, foundations — to partially offset the federal cuts. These efforts are valuable but insufficient given the scale of federal disengagement. The **CBPP** has calculated the total gap created by the **OBBBA** in food assistance at hundreds of millions of dollars annually — a sum that private philanthropy cannot absorb.

### The role of the media and public opinion

American public opinion is divided on **SNAP**. Polls show that a majority of Americans support food assistance for families in need — including a majority of Republicans. But the anti-welfare political rhetoric has enough traction to allow the Republican Congressional majority to vote these cuts without losing major electoral support. The key to shifting public opinion may lie in reframing: presenting **SNAP** recipients not as "freeloaders" but as low-wage workers, veterans, children — which is exactly what the data confirm them to be.

*Political change sometimes begins with a change in narrative. For decades, the American right has succeeded in convincing a large part of the public that food assistance recipients were fraudsters and idlers. The numbers show the opposite. Perhaps the next victory against these policies will be won first in the stories — in the accounts we tell about who goes hungry in America, and why.*

## Conclusion: when a law becomes a weapon against its own people

### The toll one year on: unsustainable and accelerating

One year after the signing of the **One Big Beautiful Bill Act**, the toll is clear and documented: **4.7 million Americans** have lost their SNAP benefits, including at least **800,000 children** in the states being tracked. **Arizona** has lost **50% of its recipients** — a national record. Food banks are overwhelmed. Hunger is setting in for families that had never needed help. And the worst is still to come with the cost-shifts to states.

### Policy as moral choice

Every public policy is a moral choice. The choice made with the **Big Beautiful Bill** is to reduce food assistance to the poorest in order to fund tax cuts for the wealthiest. This is a coherent choice within a certain vision of the state's role and individual responsibility. But it is also a choice that leaves millions of children without guaranteed meals, that strips veterans of the bare minimum, and that creates a silent food crisis within the wealthiest nation in human history. That moral judgment belongs to Americans. But the facts belong to no one. They exist, indifferent to political slogans.

*I close this report with one conviction unchanged: a society that lets its children go hungry to balance its books has lost something essential. Not just economically. Morally. And morality, in politics, has always found a way to reassert itself — one way or another.*

**By Maxime Marquette, columnist**

## Columnist's transparency note

### Editorial stance

I am not a journalist but a **columnist and analyst**. My expertise lies in observing and analysing the geopolitical, economic and strategic dynamics that shape our world. My work is to take political strategies apart, to understand global economic movements, to put the decisions of international actors in context and to offer analytical perspectives on the changes that are redefining our societies.

I do not claim the cold objectivity of traditional journalism, which stops at reporting facts. **I claim analytical clarity**, rigorous interpretation and a deep understanding of the complex issues that concern us all. My role is to give meaning to the facts, to place them in their historical and strategic context, and to offer a critical reading of events.

### Method and sources

This text keeps the basic distinction between **verified facts and interpretive analysis**. The rule never changes: a factual claim is published only when a verifiable source supports it, and the sources this article actually used are listed under **Sources**, never here.

**Primary source families** used by the publication, when the story has them: official statements from governments and international institutions, public statements by political leaders, reports from intergovernmental organisations, dispatches from recognised international news agencies.

**Secondary source families**: specialised publications, internationally recognised news media, analyses from established research institutions, reports from industry organisations.

When an article cites statistical, economic or geopolitical data, it comes from the institutions that produce it (intergovernmental organisations, central banks, national statistics offices), and the exact institution is named under **Sources**.

### Nature of the analysis

The analyses, interpretations and perspectives in the analytical sections of this article are a **critical, contextual synthesis** based on the information available, the trends observed and the expert comments cited in the sources consulted.

My role is to interpret these facts, to set them in the context of today's geopolitical and economic dynamics, and to give them a coherent meaning within the larger story of the changes shaping our time. These analyses reflect expertise built through continuous observation of international affairs and an understanding of the strategic mechanisms that drive global actors.

This article describes a documented state of affairs on its publication date, not a prediction: later developments may shift its outlook. No update is promised in advance; when an article is corrected or completed, the change is dated in the text.

## Sources

### Primary sources

- [Congressmember Grijalva — SNAP Arizona amendments, 473,793 Arizonans affected — June 5, 2026](https://grijalva.house.gov/media/press-releases/rep-grijalva-introduces-amendments-to-address-harmful-snap-state-cost-shift-driving-arizonans-off-food-assistance)

- [ProPublica — More than 770,000 children have lost SNAP benefits — June 17, 2026](https://www.propublica.org/article/snap-benefits-children-food-stamps)

- [NOTUS — The Republican reconciliation bill has left millions without SNAP benefits — June 23, 2026](https://www.notus.org/trump-white-house/republicans-reconciliation-bill-left-millions-without-snap-benefits)

- [US News — Millions lose food stamps under Trump cuts, Arizona hardest hit — June 24, 2026](https://www.usnews.com/news/politics/articles/2026-06-24/millions-lose-food-stamps-under-trump-cuts-arizona-is-hardest-hit)

- [CNBC — Millions lose SNAP benefits under the Big Beautiful Bill — May 30, 2026](https://www.cnbc.com/2026/05/30/snap-food-stamps-big-beautiful-bill.html)

### Secondary sources

- [Ms. Magazine — The steepest SNAP decline in 30 years — June 9, 2026](https://msmagazine.com/2026/06/09/snap-trump-one-big-beautiful-bill-act-food-stamps-hunger-congress-republicans/)

- [Axios Phoenix — Valley food banks facing record demand — June 3, 2026](https://www.axios.com/local/phoenix/2026/06/03/food-banks-strained-snap-cuts-inflation)

- [PBS NewsHour — Millions lose SNAP benefits as stricter requirements kick in — June 8, 2026](https://www.pbs.org/newshour/show/millions-lose-snap-benefits-as-one-big-beautiful-bills-stricter-requirements-kick-in)

- [El País — A US library hands out potatoes and rice as SNAP cuts leave families hungry — June 7, 2026](https://english.elpais.com/usa/2026-06-07/us-library-hands-out-potatoes-and-rice-as-snap-cuts-leave-families-hungry.html)

---

Source: Maxime Marquette, MadMax. When citing, name the author and link https://mad-max.co/en/article/reportage-4-7-millions-d-americains-sans-aide-alimentaire-le-vrai-visage-du-big