- USDA’s hunger survey politicized data to expand welfare despite fairly flat hunger rates
- Better, less biased data already exist from private and federal sources
- Government data collection risks civil liberties and fuels bureaucratic control
Anti-poverty advocates are throwing a fit over the Trump administration’s decision to halt the Household Food Security report, a survey that measures levels of hunger and food insecurity in the U.S.
The administration argues that the survey has led to excessive expansion of the federal Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) despite fairly stagnant levels of food insecurity found over the years in the survey. Opponents of the move argue that the survey is needed for researchers. Both sides have a point, but there are other aspects worth mentioning:
- Alternative sources of data into hunger and food insecurity already exist, which means that the government is spending money and time on redundant and highly politicized data collection.
- The government raises privacy and security concerns when it seeks private information on individuals.
Other sources of data into hunger and food insecurity
Since the mid-1990s, the Household Food Security reports have offered policymakers and researchers an annual snapshot of food insecurity in the U.S., defined as households being uncertain of having or unable to acquire enough food to meet the needs of their members. But after three decades, the trends are remarkably static. Between 2019 and 2023, this measure grew by only 3 percent.
During that same time, however, SNAP expenditures increased by 87 percent. How could so much additional SNAP spending not help alleviate the problem of hunger? Why has hunger gone up, not down? It is reasonable to think the answer is because more government expenditures in welfare are not the answer to food insecurity.
The survey’s metrics themselves invite skepticism. Food insecurity is defined broadly, often capturing households who are not going hungry but simply report anxiety about food budgets. As a result, the statistics risk inflating the problem and supplying advocates with ammunition for bigger federal programs, without clarifying whether these interventions actually improve household well-being. In this sense, the USDA was correct to characterize the survey as “politicized” and “extraneous.”
Importantly, the absence of USDA’s survey does not mean the absence of data. Nongovernmental actors are already filling the space with credible and more granular research. Gallup, for instance, has polled Americans on food insecurity and access to affordable groceries for over a decade. Feeding America, through its “Map the Meal Gap” initiative, compiles county-level food insecurity estimates using a combination of Census data, unemployment statistics, and local cost-of-living measures. This survey provides far more localized insights than the USDA’s national averages. Private foundations, universities, and nonprofits are fully capable of continuing and expanding this kind of work.
Government transfer programs are ill-suited to solving the structural causes of hunger.
Furthermore, the government already collects data that can give insights into food expenditures. The Census Bureau’s Current Population Survey, the Bureau of Labor Statistics’ Consumer Expenditure Survey, and USDA’s own food price and consumption data all provide clearer insights into the material conditions of households. If anything, the duplication of data streams suggests an inefficient use of resources. Those government data are more objective, less biased, and readily available to activists, advocates, and all concerned citizens.
The fairly static food insecurity rates despite ballooning SNAP spending underscores a larger truth: Government transfer programs are ill-suited to solving the structural causes of hunger. The real solutions lie in getting rid of barriers to affordable food as outlined in Locke’s Sowing Resilience study. That means tearing down tariffs that drive up grocery prices, ending farm subsidies that distort production, and allowing innovation in agriculture to flourish without regulatory micromanagement. It also means leaving more income in the hands of working families by reducing taxes, cutting red tape in housing, lowering transportation costs, and keeping energy costs down, all of which affect household food budgets.
Government data collection and civil rights
The federal government’s track record with data collection shows exactly why skepticism is warranted whenever Washington insists it needs more information to govern effectively. During the HIV/AIDS crisis, for example, homosexuals lived under the fear that medical data could be exposed to employers or insurers, leading to workplace stigma and loss of livelihoods.
A critical dimension of government‐data collection is that the more data the state holds, the greater the risk when security fails. In 2023 alone, the White House reported 11 major federal data breaches that exposed sensitive personal information across multiple agencies. For example, over 2.8 million individuals’ personally identifiable information (PII) linked to Medicare and Medicaid was exposed in a ransomware attack on a third-party system, including bank account data, addresses, and dates of birth. Other breaches included payroll systems, contractor systems, phishing attacks, and configuration errors.
These examples remind us that federal data collection is never truly neutral or safe. The facts show that it carries many risks such as coercion, stigmatization, and state overreach. Government collection of data always includes the temptation to abuse it for political gain or selective enforcement. For libertarians, this history is a cautionary tale: More federal data rarely translates to more freedom. In practice, it entrenches bureaucratic control and erodes the very liberties it purports to safeguard.
The same risks apply, albeit less dramatically, to something like the USDA’s Household Food Security reports. While advocates defend the survey as neutral data, its framing and use have been anything but neutral. The survey has consistently served as justification for expanding welfare programs without delivering measurable results.
Private charity, think tanks, and community organizations can adapt and respond more directly to local needs than federal bureaucracies. By crowding out these networks with a one-size-fits-all safety net, Washington makes communities more dependent and less resilient. It also furthers the never-ending growth of the federal leviathan and makes American families vulnerable to the surveillance state.
