Connect with us

Economy

Trump scraps the nation’s most comprehensive food insecurity report − making it harder to know how many Americans struggle to get enough food

Published

on

comprehensive food insecurity report
Nearly 1 in 7 Americans had trouble consistently getting enough to eat in 2023.
Patrick Strattner/fStop via Getty Images

Trump scraps the nation’s most comprehensive food insecurity report − making it harder to know how many Americans struggle to get enough food

Tracy Roof, University of Richmond

The Trump administration announced on Sept. 20, 2025, that it plans to stop releasing food insecurity data. The federal government has tracked and analyzed this data for the past three decades, but it plans to stop after publishing statistics pertaining to 2024 data. The Conversation U.S. asked Tracy Roof, a political scientist who has researched the history of government nutrition programs, to explain the significance of the U.S. Household Food Security Survey and what might happen if the government discontinues it.

What’s food insecurity?

The U.S. Department of Agriculture defines food security as “access by all people at all times to enough food for an active, healthy life.”

People who are food insecure are unsure they can get enough food or unable to get enough food to meet these basic needs because they can’t afford it.

How does the government measure it?

The USDA has collected data on food insecurity since the mid-1990s. It includes the share of the population that is food insecure and a subset of this group considered to have very low food security.

People who are food insecure may not significantly reduce how much they eat, but they are likely to eat less balanced meals or lower-quality food. People with very low food security report eating less altogether, such as by skipping meals or eating smaller meals.

These statistics are based on answers to questions the USDA adds to the Current Population Survey, which the Census Bureau administers every December. There are 10 questions in the survey. Households with children are asked four more.

The questions inquire about access to food, such as whether someone has worried in the past year that their food would run out before they had enough money to buy more, or how frequently they have skipped meals, could not afford balanced meals, or felt hunger.

The U.S. food insecurity rate stood at 13.5% in 2023, the most recent year for which data is currently available. The final annual food security report, expected in October, will be issued for 2024 – based on data collected during the Biden administration’s last year.

Why did the government start measuring it?

Calls for creating the food stamp program in the 1960s led to an intense debate in Washington about the extent of malnutrition in the U.S. Until then, the government did not consistently collect reliable or national statistics on the prevalence of malnutrition.

Advertisement
Get More From A Face Cleanser And Spa-like Massage

Those concerns reached critical mass when the Citizens’ Board of Inquiry into Hunger and Malnutrition, launched by a group of anti-hunger activists, issued a report in 1968, Hunger USA. It estimated that 10 million Americans were malnourished.

That report highlighted widespread incidence of anemia and protein deficiency in children. That same year, a CBS documentary, “Hunger in America,” shocked Americans with disturbing images of malnourished children. The attention to hunger resulted in a significant expansion of the food stamp program, but it did not lead to better government data collection.

The expansion of government food assistance all but eliminated the problem of malnutrition. In 1977, the Field Foundation sent teams of doctors into poverty stricken areas to assess the nutritional status of residents. Although there were still many people facing economic hardship, the doctors found there was little evidence of the nutritional deficiencies they had seen a decade earlier.

Policymakers struggled to reach a consensus on the definition of hunger. But the debate gradually shifted from how to measure malnutrition to how to estimate how many Americans lacked sufficient access to food.

Calls for what would later be known as food insecurity data grew after the Reagan administration scaled back the food stamps program in the early 1980s. Despite the unemployment rate soaring to nearly 11% in 1982 and a steep increase in the poverty rate, the number of people on food stamps had remained relatively flat.

Although the Reagan administration denied that there was a serious hunger problem, news reports were filled with stories of families struggling to afford food.

Many were families of unemployed breadwinners who had never needed the government’s help before. During this period, the number of food banks grew substantially, and they reported soaring demand for free food.

Because there was still no government data available to resolve the dispute, the Reagan administration responded to political pressure by creating a task force on hunger in 1983. It called for improved measures of the nutritional status of Americans.

The task force also pointed to the difference between “hunger as medically defined” and “hunger as commonly defined.” That is, someone can experience hunger – not getting enough to eat – without displaying the physical signs of malnutrition. In other words, it would make more sense to measure access to food as opposed to the effects of malnutrition.

In 1990 Congress passed the National Nutrition Monitoring and Related Research Act, which President George H.W. Bush signed into law. It required the secretaries of Agriculture and Health and Human Services to develop a 10-year plan to assess the dietary and nutritional status of Americans. This plan, in turn, recommended developing a standardized measurement of food insecurity.

Advertisement
Get More From A Face Cleanser And Spa-like Massage

The Food Security Survey, developed in consultation with a team of experts, was first administered in 1995. Rather than focusing on nutritional status, it was designed to pick up on behaviors that suggested people were not getting enough to eat.

Did tracking food insecurity help policymakers?

Tracking food insecurity allowed the USDA, Congress, researchers and anti-hunger groups to know how nutritional assistance programs were performing and what types of households continued to experience need. Researchers also used the data to look at the causes and consequences of food insecurity.

Food banks relied on the data to understand who was most likely to need their help.

The data also allowed policymakers to see the big jump in need during the Great Recession starting in 2008. It also showed a slight decline in food insecurity with the rise in government assistance early in the COVID-19 pandemic, followed by another big jump with steeply rising food prices in 2022.

The big budget bill Congress passed in July will cut spending on the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program by an estimated US$186 million through 2034, an almost 20% reduction.

Supporters of SNAP, the new name for the food stamp program adopted in 2008, worry the loss of the annual reports will hide the full impact of these cuts.

Why is the administration doing this?

In the brief press release the USDA issued on Sept. 20 announcing the termination of the annual food insecurity reports, the USDA indicated that the Trump administration considers the food security survey to be “redundant, costly, politicized, and extraneous,” and does “nothing more than fear monger.”

While I disagree with that characterization, it is true that anti-hunger advocates have pointed to increases in food insecurity to call for more government help.

Is comparable data available from other sources?

Although the USDA noted there are “more timely and accurate data sets” available, it was not clear which datasets it was referring to. Democrats have called on the Trump administration to identify the data.

Advertisement
Get More From A Face Cleanser And Spa-like Massage

Feeding America, the largest national network of food banks, releases an annual food insecurity report called the Map the Meal Gap. But like other nonprofits and academic researchers that track these trends, it relies on the government’s food insecurity data.

There is other government data on food purchases and nutritional status, and a host of other surveys that use USDA questions. However, there is no other survey that comprehensively measures the number of Americans who struggle to get enough to eat.

As in the 1980s, policymakers and the public may have to turn to food banks’ reports of increased demand to get a sense of whether the need for help is rising or falling. But those reports can’t replace the USDA’s Food Security Survey.

Tracy Roof, Associate Professor of Political Science, University of Richmond

This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.

STM Daily News is a vibrant news blog dedicated to sharing the brighter side of human experiences. Emphasizing positive, uplifting stories, the site focuses on delivering inspiring, informative, and well-researched content. With a commitment to accurate, fair, and responsible journalism, STM Daily News aims to foster a community of readers passionate about positive change and engaged in meaningful conversations. Join the movement and explore stories that celebrate the positive impacts shaping our world.

https://stmdailynews.com/

Continue Reading
Advertisement SodaStream USA, inc

News

FAA Certifies Boeing 737-7: What It Means for Airlines and the 737 MAX Program

The FAA has certified Boeing’s new 737-7, clearing the smallest 737 MAX variant for service as Boeing and Southwest prepare for first deliveries.

Published

on

737 7 max ID fb3c1b364a1c

The U.S. Federal Aviation Administration has certified Boeing’s new 737-7, granting the company an amended type certificate that clears the smallest member of the 737 MAX family for commercial service. The milestone closes a multi-year certification effort and puts the focus on execution: Boeing and launch customer Southwest Airlines say preparations are underway to support first deliveries.

For STM Daily News readers, the headline isn’t just “another plane gets approved.” It’s a signal that Boeing has now cleared a key MAX variant designed for long-range flexibility in a smaller footprint—an aircraft type airlines can use to open or defend routes where demand is strong, but not strong enough to justify a larger narrowbody.

What FAA certification means

An amended type certificate means the FAA has approved the 737-7’s design as compliant with commercial aviation regulations. In practical terms, certification allows airlines to place the aircraft into revenue service once deliveries begin and operator-specific steps—training, manuals, maintenance programs, and entry-into-service planning—are completed.

Boeing also said the FAA updated Boeing Production Certificate No. 700 (PC 700) to include the 737-7, supporting production and delivery activities.

Why the 737-7 matters in the MAX lineup

Boeing positions the 737-7 as the smallest and longest-range member of the 737 MAX family. The company says it typically seats 135 to 160 passengers in a two-class configuration and offers a range of up to 3,800 nautical miles (7,040 km). That combination matters because it gives airlines more options to fly longer “thin” routes—markets where frequency and reach matter more than packing in additional seats.

Boeing also highlights performance for operations out of high-altitude airports and in hot climates, where takeoff performance and payload-range tradeoffs can shape fleet decisions.

Efficiency claims: fuel, emissions, and noise

Boeing says the 737-7, like other 737 MAX jets, reduces fuel use and CO2 emissions by 20% and cuts the noise footprint by 50% compared to the airplanes it typically replaces. For airlines, those improvements typically show up in two ways:

  • Route economics: lower fuel burn can improve margins on longer sectors and reduce exposure to fuel-price swings.
  • Operational constraints: quieter aircraft can help with airport noise requirements and community pressure, while lower emissions support sustainability targets.

Inside the certification effort

Boeing said the certification program began in 2018 and included more than 1,000 hours of flight and ground testing, extensive system safety analysis, and human factors reviews. The company also noted an updated engine anti-ice system to address a potential condition discovered during flight testing.

Boeing Commercial Airplanes President and CEO Stephanie Pope called the certification “important” validation of the airplane’s design and the work of the MAX development team. Mike Sinnett, senior vice president of Product Strategy, Product Development and Development Programs, said Boeing held regular discussions with the FAA and that the process has sharpened the company’s understanding of current regulatory requirements—knowledge Boeing expects will accelerate future development with a renewed emphasis on human factors, safety, and quality.

What to watch next

With certification complete, the next phase is about delivery timing and real-world deployment.

  1. First deliveries to Southwest: Boeing and Southwest are preparing for delivery of the first airplane, including updates to final configuration.
  2. Production stability: certification removes a major hurdle, but supply chain health and production cadence will determine how quickly the 737-7 shows up in airline schedules.
  3. The 737-10 timeline: Boeing reiterated it is working to certify the 737-10 this year, keeping attention on how quickly the final MAX variant clears regulatory review.

The bigger MAX picture

Boeing said the 737 MAX family order book stands at more than 7,200 airplanes, with more than 2,300 delivered through the end of June 2026. The 737-7’s certification adds another deliverable product to that portfolio—one aimed at airlines that want long range without stepping up to a larger gauge.

Bottom line

FAA certification of the 737-7 is a meaningful milestone for Boeing and for airlines looking for a smaller narrowbody with long-range capability. The real test now is operational: turning certification into on-time deliveries and reliable entry into service—while the industry watches Boeing’s push to certify the 737-10.

Related Links

📰 Enjoying STM Daily News? Join the conversation!

Advertisement
Get More From A Face Cleanser And Spa-like Massage

💬 Leave a comment, share your thoughts, and subscribe to our newsletter for the latest stories, updates, and “News You Can Use This Moment!” delivered to your inbox.

Stay connected with STM Daily News!

Source:

Boeing (PRNewswire), Aug. 3, 2026 — “U.S. FAA certifies new Boeing 737-7 airplane.”

Continue Reading

Economy

Donor States vs. Recipient States: Where Does Your Federal Tax Dollar Go?

Some states send Washington more money than they receive, while others receive considerably more federal spending. Here’s what “donor state” really means—and why the numbers don’t necessarily measure government dependency.

Published

on

us capitol in washington dc
Donor States.
Photo by Ivan Dražić on Pexels.com

Every year, Americans send trillions of dollars to Washington through income taxes, payroll taxes, corporate taxes and other federal revenues. The federal government then sends trillions back across the country through Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, military spending, federal salaries, contracts, grants, infrastructure projects and dozens of other programs.

But the money doesn’t necessarily return to the states in the same proportions in which it was collected.

That’s where the terms “donor state” and “recipient state” come in.

What Is a Donor State?

Simply put, a donor state sends more money to the federal government than it receives back in federal spending.

Imagine taxpayers and businesses in a state contribute $100 billion to the federal government during a year. If federal spending within that state totals only $80 billion, the state has effectively contributed $20 billion more to the federal government than it received.

A recipient state experiences the opposite: federal expenditures within the state exceed the amount collected there in federal revenue.

These aren’t official federal government classifications, however. They’re terms commonly used by researchers analyzing the flow of money between individual states and Washington.

Only Three Donor States in 2023?

According to an August 2025 analysis from the Rockefeller Institute of Government using preliminary federal fiscal year 2023 data, only three states had negative balances—meaning they contributed more federal revenue than they received in federal expenditures.

Those states were:

New Jersey: approximately $18.9 billion more contributed than received.

Massachusetts: approximately $6.8 billion more contributed than received.

Advertisement
Get More From A Face Cleanser And Spa-like Massage

Washington: approximately $54 million more contributed than received.

At first glance, that might suggest nearly every other state depends financially on those three states.

The reality is considerably more complicated.

Some states send Washington more money than they receive, while others receive considerably more federal spending. Here’s what “donor state” really means—and why the numbers don't necessarily measure government dependency.

COVID Changed the Numbers

Historically, several wealthy states—including California and New York—have frequently appeared on the donor side of the equation.

The enormous federal response to the COVID-19 pandemic disrupted that pattern.

Trillions of dollars in extraordinary federal spending flowed into states through stimulus payments, business assistance, unemployment programs, healthcare funding, state and local government assistance and other programs.

Even after the emergency phase of the pandemic ended, some of those expenditures continued influencing federal balance-of-payments calculations.

That’s one reason examining a single year can produce a misleading picture.

California: Recipient Today, Historical Donor

California provides perhaps the best example.

In fiscal year 2023, California technically received slightly more federal spending than it contributed—approximately $342 more per person.

But look at the longer-term numbers and the picture changes.

Advertisement
Get More From A Face Cleanser And Spa-like Massage

Using a nine-year average that excludes COVID-related spending, Rockefeller Institute researchers calculated California’s average balance at approximately negative $29 billion.

In other words, over a more typical period, California has historically contributed substantially more to the federal government than it received.

Its enormous economy, high incomes and large number of taxpayers generate tremendous amounts of federal revenue.

New York Tells a Similar Story

New York has also historically ranked among America’s major donor states.

Yet in 2023, New York had a positive federal balance of approximately $13.3 billion, receiving roughly $1.04 in federal expenditures for every $1 it contributed.

Researchers attributed much of the change from New York’s historical pattern to lingering pandemic-era federal expenditures.

As those programs disappear from the calculations, New York could return to its traditional position as a donor state.

Arizona Is a Net Recipient

Arizona presents a different picture.

Over the Rockefeller Institute’s nine-year analysis, Arizona averaged a positive federal balance of approximately $44.5 billion.

Even after excluding COVID-related spending, Arizona’s average remained positive at roughly $35.3 billion.

Advertisement
Get More From A Face Cleanser And Spa-like Massage

That means federal expenditures flowing into Arizona have substantially exceeded federal revenue collected from the state.

But that doesn’t mean Arizona simply receives tens of billions of dollars in “welfare.”

Federal spending includes far more than public assistance.

Arizona hosts military installations, federal lands and agencies, defense and aerospace operations, veterans programs and a significant retiree population receiving Social Security and Medicare.

All of those expenditures count toward the state’s federal balance.

Texas Receives More Than It Sends

Texas also had a substantial positive balance in 2023.

Federal expenditures exceeded revenues collected from Texas by approximately $80 billion, making it one of the country’s largest net recipients in total dollars that year.

Again, the number needs context.

Texas is home to major military installations, NASA operations, defense contractors, federal infrastructure projects and millions of Social Security and Medicare recipients.

Those federal dollars all count as money flowing back into the state.

Advertisement
Get More From A Face Cleanser And Spa-like Massage

The Surprising Leader: Virginia

If recipient-state status simply meant dependency on federal welfare programs, Virginia would seem like an unlikely candidate to lead the country.

Yet Virginia recorded the nation’s largest positive federal balance in 2023 at approximately $145.4 billion.

Why?

Location.

Virginia sits next to Washington, D.C., and contains an enormous concentration of federal employees, military installations, government contractors and defense spending.

Neighboring Maryland ranked second with a positive balance of approximately $81.1 billion.

The numbers illustrate why federal balance-of-payments statistics should not automatically be interpreted as measurements of welfare dependency.

A recipient state isn’t necessarily a “welfare state.” Federal expenditures include Social Security, Medicare, military installations, defense contracts, federal salaries, research, infrastructure, grants and other programs.

Where Does the Federal Money Actually Go?

Federal expenditures flowing into a state can include:

  • Social Security
  • Medicare and Medicaid
  • Military bases and personnel
  • Defense contracts
  • Federal employee salaries
  • Highway and transit funding
  • Scientific and university research
  • Agricultural programs
  • Veterans benefits
  • Disaster assistance
  • Federal grants
  • Infrastructure projects
  • Federal agency operations

A state containing a large military installation, federal laboratory or government agency can therefore receive billions of federal dollars without that money having anything to do with traditional public assistance programs.

Why Wealthier States Often Become Donors

Federal income taxes are progressive.

People with higher incomes generally pay a larger percentage of their income in federal income taxes.

Advertisement
Get More From A Face Cleanser And Spa-like Massage

States containing large concentrations of high-income households and highly profitable companies can consequently generate enormous amounts of federal revenue.

That helps explain why states such as California, New York, New Jersey and Massachusetts have historically appeared frequently among net contributors.

The federal government doesn’t earmark the taxes collected in California exclusively for California.

The money enters the national treasury and helps finance programs throughout the United States.

In that sense, federal taxation intentionally redistributes resources geographically as well as economically.

So Are Donor States “Subsidizing” Recipient States?

In a broad accounting sense, yes.

Federal revenue collected disproportionately from some states helps finance federal expenditures occurring elsewhere.

But describing the relationship simply as one state “paying for” another leaves out important context.

Federal spending follows national priorities rather than state borders.

A Navy base in Virginia protects the entire country. NASA facilities in Texas conduct missions funded by taxpayers nationwide. Social Security benefits paid to a retiree in Arizona may reflect payroll taxes that person paid while working decades earlier in California, Illinois or New York.

Advertisement
Get More From A Face Cleanser And Spa-like Massage

Americans and businesses also move between states throughout their lives.

The federal system was never designed to ensure that every dollar collected within a state’s borders would eventually return to that same state.

The Bigger Picture

The donor-state debate is often used as political ammunition, particularly when politicians argue about which parts of the country are supporting others.

The numbers are real, but they require context.

A state can move from donor to recipient status because of a recession, natural disaster, military spending, demographic changes, infrastructure investments or extraordinary events such as the COVID-19 pandemic.

That’s why examining several years of data generally tells us more than looking at a single year.

Ultimately, the donor-versus-recipient calculation reveals something fundamental about the United States:

Federal taxes don’t remain where they’re collected.

They become part of a national pool used to fund programs, obligations and investments across all 50 states.

And depending on where you live, your state may be putting more into that pool—or taking more out—at any particular moment.

Advertisement
Get More From A Face Cleanser And Spa-like Massage

Related External Links

🍽️ Love discovering great food and drink? Join the conversation! Share your thoughts in the comments and subscribe to the STM Daily News newsletter for the latest recipes, restaurant news, food trends, and culinary stories delivered straight to your inbox.

Continue Reading

jobs help wanted

Ghost Jobs: The Hidden Hiring Trend Affecting Millions of Job Seekers

Ghost jobs are becoming a growing concern for job seekers. Learn what they are, why companies post them, and how they affect hiring, the economy, and your job search.

Published

on

Why You Keep Applying—But Never Hear Back

If you’ve ever spent hours tailoring your résumé for a position only to hear nothing in return, you may have encountered what’s known as a ghost job.

concentrated young black guy sitting at table and working remotely on netbook. Ghost Jobs.
Photo by Andres Ayrton on Pexels.com

A ghost job is a job posting that appears active but isn’t currently being filled. While not every old or inactive listing is intentionally misleading, many remain online long after hiring has paused—or even after the position has already been filled.

The result is growing frustration among job seekers and increasing questions about the accuracy of employment data.


What Exactly Is a Ghost Job?

A ghost job is an advertised position where an employer has little or no immediate intention of hiring someone.

This doesn’t necessarily mean the company is acting maliciously. There are several reasons these listings exist.

Companies may:

  • Build a database of future candidates
  • Test salary expectations and available talent
  • Comply with internal hiring policies
  • Maintain the appearance of growth
  • Delay removing listings after a hiring freeze or filled position

For applicants, however, the experience is often the same: applications disappear into a black hole.


Why Companies Post Ghost Jobs

Some employers say maintaining job listings helps them prepare for future growth.

Others keep positions open because budgets haven’t been finalized or executive approval hasn’t been granted.

Recruiters may also continue collecting résumés so they’re ready when a position eventually opens.

While these reasons may make business sense, they can create unrealistic expectations for applicants actively searching for work.


The Impact on Job Seekers

Ghost jobs can have real consequences.

Many applicants spend dozens of hours:

Advertisement
Get More From A Face Cleanser And Spa-like Massage
  • Researching companies
  • Customizing résumés
  • Writing cover letters
  • Completing assessments
  • Participating in interviews that never lead anywhere

The emotional toll can be significant.

Repeated silence often leaves qualified workers questioning their experience or abilities when the issue may simply be that the position was never actively available.


How Ghost Jobs Affect the Economy

The effects extend beyond individual applicants.

Employment Data Can Be Misleading

Job openings are often viewed as a sign of economic strength.

If a significant share of posted openings aren’t being actively filled, the labor market may appear stronger than it actually is.

That can influence:

  • Business confidence
  • Consumer confidence
  • Economic forecasts
  • Public policy discussions

Productivity Suffers

Job seekers spend valuable time applying for positions that may never result in interviews.

Recruiters also spend time managing applications for jobs that aren’t immediately available.

Those inefficiencies create costs for both workers and employers.


Hiring Becomes Less Efficient

When applicants lose trust in job boards, they’re less likely to apply broadly.

Companies with legitimate openings may receive fewer qualified applicants because candidates become skeptical of online listings.


Are Ghost Jobs Illegal?

Generally, no.

Advertisement
Get More From A Face Cleanser And Spa-like Massage

In most cases, employers are legally allowed to advertise positions even if they’re not hiring immediately.

However, critics argue that intentionally leaving inactive jobs online without updating their status reduces transparency and wastes applicants’ time.

Some employment experts have called for greater accountability and clearer labeling of inactive or future hiring opportunities.


How to Spot a Ghost Job

While there’s no foolproof method, these warning signs may indicate a listing isn’t actively being filled:

  • The same position has been reposted for months.
  • The posting never disappears.
  • Employees report hiring freezes.
  • The company rarely responds to applicants.
  • The job description is vague or unusually generic.

Tips for Job Seekers

Instead of applying blindly:

  • Focus on recently posted openings.
  • Connect with recruiters or current employees.
  • Research whether the company is actually expanding.
  • Use networking alongside online applications.
  • Follow up professionally when possible.

Quality applications often produce better results than sending hundreds of résumés.


Looking Ahead

Artificial intelligence has made it easier than ever for applicants to submit hundreds of applications—and for employers to post and manage thousands of job listings.

As hiring becomes increasingly automated, transparency may become one of the most valuable qualities in the recruiting process.

For both employers and job seekers, trust remains the foundation of a healthy labor market.

Related Links

📰 Enjoying STM Daily News? Join the conversation!

💬 Leave a comment, share your thoughts, and subscribe to our newsletter for the latest stories, updates, and “News You Can Use This Moment!” delivered to your inbox.

Stay connected with STM Daily News!

Advertisement
Get More From A Face Cleanser And Spa-like Massage

Continue Reading

Trending