Child hunger should never be a political ploy  

If any issue should bring together lawmakers across the aisle, it’s child hunger.  

That’s why it was a shock to learn that more than a dozen Republican governors refused to enroll in a bipartisan federal food program that would help parents who are low-income put food on the table during the summer. Apparently, even efforts to feed hungry children are not above political showmanship.  

The program is modeled on the Pandemic Electronic Benefits Transfer program, which Congress authorized when COVID-19 caused prolonged school closures. That meant children of families with low incomes lost access to free breakfast and lunch at schools, sometimes the only guaranteed meals they had for the day. The program proved so successful that both Democratic and Republican lawmakers voted in 2022 to establish a permanent Summer EBT program. For families whose income qualifies, it provides up to $40 per child, per month, for the three summer months to offset the cost of food at grocery stores and farmers markets.  

While the Summer EBT program is slated to benefit 21 million children in 2024, another 10 million eligible kids in states that turned down the funding will face the possibility of going to bed hungry. Significantly, seven of the states that declined to participate — Alabama, Florida, Georgia, Louisiana, Mississippi, South Carolina and Texas — are in the South, the region with the highest average food insecurity and poverty rates.  

Because of centuries of systemic racial violence and discriminatory policies, many of which continue today, Black children are more likely to experience food insecurity than children of other races. In 2022, one in three Black children went without reliable access to food. It is indefensible that when given the opportunity to help Black families get ahead, these governors — all of whom are white — shrugged and said, “No thanks.” 

It’s hard to understand their reasoning as anything but scoring political points against the Biden administration. Research on the temporary Pandemic EBT program found that the program decreased children’s food hardship by a third, and it lifted between 2.7 and 3.9 million children out of hunger. It also supported healthier diets for children, with upticks in the consumption of fruits, vegetables and whole grains. 

So, why reject millions in federal funds for a program proven to work for children and families?   

In Mississippi, where the Summer EBT program would have provided nearly $38 million in federal dollars to the state and supported more than 320,000 children, Gov. Tate Reeves declined to participate because the program “attempts to expand the welfare state.” 

Meanwhile, a spokesperson for Georgia’s Gov. Brian Kemp said the program “lacks basic nutritional requirements,” which seems to refer to the fact that the program preloads money directly on an EBT card for parents to spend on groceries as they choose. In contrast to the governor’s office, the program rightfully trusts parents to make informed decisions about the nutritional needs and health of their own children. 

Other states also cited administrative concerns for not enrolling. The program was previously paid for entirely by the federal government, but now states must cover 50 percent of administrative costs. For example, experts estimate that it would cost Alabama around $10 to $20 million. It may sound like a lot, but consider this: Alabama has already spent $1 billion over the last three years constructing one prison.  

Further, while states are asked to invest money up front, the benefits not only for families but for the economy are staggering. Had Florida enrolled in the Summer EBT program, it would have not only fed an estimated 2 million children, but also pumped more than $388,440,000 into the local economy. 

In their rationales for turning down the funding, many of these states point to their own well-established food assistance programs. But what they neglect to mention is that these programs are not reaching all families in need, and while important, they often require families to be onsite to eat prepared meals. This means families must travel to providers to receive meals when they may not have easy access to transportation or even a meal site nearby. With the Summer EBT program, parents can cook at home and keep with cultural and dietary needs. 

There is no excuse for children to be food insecure in our country, especially when we have successful programs like Summer EBT at the ready. Though the deadline for states to secure federal funding for this summer has passed, many states are negotiating their 2025 budgets right now. We urge lawmakers to follow Nebraska’s lead and change course to make the right choice for children. Kids should be able to enjoy their summer without fear of going hungry. 

Margaret Huang is the president and CEO of the Southern Poverty Law Center and its lobbying arm, the SPLC Action Fund.