President Trump’s Agriculture Department made waves last week by scrapping the government’s long-running Household Food Security survey. Officials called it an overpoliticized report full of subjective terms that do little more than stir up fear. The move targets what they see as “liberal fodder” pushing for bigger welfare programs.
Liberal experts quickly pushed back, but surprisingly, a group tied to Democrats—think tank Third Way—backed the decision. In an August memo aimed at stopping Trump and his MAGA supporters, Third Way called out trendy terms like “food insecurity” and “housing insecurity.” They argue these words confuse and alienate everyday Americans, who view them as extreme and elitist. Instead, the group urges using simple phrases like “the hungry” or “the homeless” to better connect with people and fight poverty effectively.
The memo acts like a blacklist of “woke” language, including “microaggression” and “chest feeding,” which Third Way says have hurt Democrats in elections by turning off voters. On food insecurity—a key term in calls for more government aid—the report points out that it often just means worrying about running out of food, not actually going hungry. Progressives have pushed these broad labels for years to highlight wider problems and justify expanding benefits like food stamps.
Take the numbers: Federal data from 2023 showed 18 million U.S. households facing food insecurity. But for many, that didn’t mean skipping meals—it meant feeling uncertain about having enough. In fact, food stamp programs reached 22 million households that year, a big jump even after the pandemic. Researchers at the American Enterprise Institute note that over one in five “food insecure” households actually have middle- or upper-income levels, thanks in part to federal help.
Real hunger in America? It’s much rarer and tougher to measure. Back in the 1980s, a presidential task force found little evidence of widespread undernutrition, except maybe among the homeless. Today, the government tracks “very low” food security—where people cut back on intake due to money woes—and that hits just 1% of households with kids each year. Yet groups like Feeding America often blur the lines, claiming hunger affects all 13% of Americans dealing with food insecurity to rally support for aid.
The same pattern shows up with housing insecurity. One expert defines it broadly to include folks in subpar homes, not just the homeless. In Washington, D.C., for instance, over 82,000 people might qualify as housing insecure—16 times the roughly 5,000 who are actually homeless on any given night. Advocates for more housing aid naturally lean on the bigger number, even though most have a roof overhead.
Third Way’s report could extend this critique to other buzzwords like “health insecurity,” “energy insecurity,” or even “diaper insecurity.” These terms help expand welfare in every direction, but as the group notes, they make liberals seem out of touch. America does have real needs, and taxpayers already provide generous support to millions. Still, for some on the left, it’s never quite enough.
This push echoes Trump’s call for straightforward data over politicized stats. The original survey, started under Clinton, aimed to boost food stamp eligibility—and that’s shaped government numbers ever since.
Matt Weidinger is a senior fellow and Rowe Scholar in opportunity and mobility studies at the American Enterprise Institute.
Stay informed on all the latest news, real-time breaking news updates, and follow all the important headlines in world News on Latest NewsX. Follow us on social media Facebook, Twitter(X), Gettr and subscribe our Youtube Channel.
