47 million are food insecure in the US; Why doesn’t the country solve hunger?

Hunger, unfortunately, is as American as apple pie: a crisis we revisit every budget cycle but never solve.

With the record federal government shutdown finally over and access to the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (Snap) no longer on the brink of a Supreme Court fight, millions of Americans have once again been caught in the crossfire of the political game.

Also read: Judge forces Trump government to pay food aid program in full

The country’s food security network — already in tatters — has been severely abused.

Hunger, however, has no party affiliation.

As Republican Senator Josh Hawley points out in The New York Times, this is not a fringe problem. Hunger affects every corner of American life.

Nearly 90% of U.S. adults report that food prices are a source of household stress, and approximately one in seven Americans faces food insecurity every year (a figure likely to be vastly underreported).

That equates to 47 million Americans. And heading into the 2026 midterm elections, with the Domestic Food Security Report on indefinite pause, the real number will remain unknown. When a nation stops measuring a problem, it signals indifference — or an unwillingness to address it.

Solving hunger in the United States offers a rare opportunity for lawmakers to score a victory in a decades-long battle — one that is both morally right and economically sensible (not to mention gaining public support and impacting future elections).

Failure to act is not only a failure of public policy, but a betrayal of the founding pact to respect and govern the people of this nation.

Jefferson’s vision

Thomas Jefferson, who envisioned an agrarian democracy as the basis of American prosperity, wrote to George Washington: “Agriculture is our wisest pursuit, because in the end it will contribute most to true wealth, good values, and happiness.”

He saw prosperity, virtue and happiness as inseparable. Yet today, as the US has dominated agricultural production and become one of the world’s largest food exporters, we have failed to ensure that our own citizens share in this abundance.

In human terms, this is inconceivable. In economic terms, it is catastrophic.

Every year, hunger costs the American economy more than $160 billion in avoidable healthcare expenses, lost productivity, and wasted potential.

Undernourished children perform poorly in school, reducing their future income potential. Food insecure adults show higher rates of chronic illness, depression, and work absenteeism.

These failures accumulate across generations, economic classes and political parties. In any other context, an inefficiency of this magnitude would be treated as a national emergency. When it comes to hunger, we shrug our shoulders.

Meanwhile, the gap between wages and food prices continues to widen. Food inflation continues to outpace income growth, and the fragility of federal programs like Snap means that millions of Americans live just one budget cycle away from losing their most basic lifeline.

We can’t keep tinkering with a system that catches people when they fall, but rarely helps them get back up. The next evolution of the American safety net needs to be a springboard — something that propels people upward without making them dependent on Washington.

This is not theory — other countries have already done this. In 1976, Brazil launched the Workers’ Food Program, using tax incentives to encourage private sector participation.

The result was a healthier, more productive workforce, and reduced hunger — all without expanding the size of government.

France, similarly, tackled food waste by requiring supermarkets to give surplus food to charities rather than throwing it away.

Each example shows that the real limitation is not a lack of resources — but a lack of political will. Congress could follow suit by modernizing the tax code to align public and private interests.

Just as we invest in roads, schools, bridges, and broadband to strengthen our economy, we should invest in the one thing every citizen needs to function: food. Although critics argue that food is an individual responsibility, data shows that it is both public infrastructure and a basic necessity.

Every $1 invested in reducing food insecurity generates about $3 in economic activity through better health outcomes, higher school performance, and greater productivity at work. In any rational market, this is a positive return — something that, as a capitalist nation, we should support.

Our country, founded on the idea of ​​opportunity and earned abundance, is increasingly being defined by the daily indignities of scarcity.

The question is not whether we have the resources to end hunger in America (we do), but whether we will mobilize them. This requires clear vision, political courage and, above all, bipartisan support for a solution that lasts longer than a single budget cycle.

A systemic solution could restore our economic vitality while renewing the American dream — ensuring that every citizen enjoys national prosperity, rather than just observing it from a distance. And American policymakers can correct course in months, not years.

After all, Jefferson knew that food sustains more than bodies; sustains the republic itself. We should all remember this.