The Trump dictatorship announced yet another effort to conceal information from the American public. Herr/Hair Trump’s USDA will terminate the annual measurement of the prevalence of food insecurity (hunger) in the United States. Vital research data that has been used for over 30 years to guide the actions of food activists, advocates, policy makers, and the general public will be “disappeared” by the Orange Man’s Gestapo. In the best tradition of dictators throughout history — Mao denied the death of millions by famine in the early 1960s; Hitler hid death camps from the eyes of so-called “good Germans;” Stalin banished discussion of the Soviet Ukraine famine that killed upwards of 10 million Ukrainians — American citizens who suffer from a lack of adequate nourishment will no longer be counted.

Why does this matter? First off, the survey found over 47 million Americans, or 13.5 percent of the country, were food insecure in 2023 with a subset of 5.1 million experiencing very low food security. This is reason enough to pay attention to and work for national policies, like the SNAP program to mitigate these conditions.

But at the local and state levels, this annual data is critical to both motivating and focusing the work of activists and policy makers. For instance, my food work in Hartford, Connecticut overlapped with a period in the late 1980s and early 1990s when researchers from the Food Research Action Center (FRAC), Cornell, and Yale were developing these measurement tools and survey methods. They were not just trying to give credence to anecdotal claims that hunger existed in America, they also wanted to know which demographic groups were at greatest risk and what conditions existed at a household level that contributed to food insecurity. Indeed, the term food insecurity, in use for many years in the international arena, was generally unused in America. Hence, the vague and somewhat misleading word “hunger” served to cover all manner of food and nutrition deficiencies—a lack of refinement and specificity that only served to undermine efforts by those who wanted to carefully target necessary resources.

Once the tools were assembled in the laboratories of talented social scientists, they were field-tested in real places of known poverty. Using the title “Community Child Hunger Identification Project” (CCHIP)—the model for the U.S. Household Food Security Module—the survey was piloted in New Haven, Connecticut and later in Hartford. The results in Hartford were staggering and seized the front page of the Hartford Courant the day after the report’s findings were released. Over 76 percent of the city’s lower income children were identified as food insecure according to the study’s measures. Hartford’s mayor immediately responded with shock and a resolve to do something about it. Among other things, the resulting Mayor’s Task Force on Hunger recommended the creation of the Hartford Advisory Commission on Food Policy, now the nation’s second continuously operating food policy council

The political impact of the annual food security report is often bi-embarrassing. Regardless of which party is in power, it has evoked both shame and pride based on the annual results. If the number of hungry people goes up one year, the party in power has some explaining to do and hopefully some action to take. If the number goes down, the sitting President and his Secretary of Agriculture will puff up their chests and strut their stuff.

But one of the most valuable and often disheartening features of the annual survey is the state rankings. Depending on where I was living and working at the time, I would immediately turn to the report’s  appendix where an alphabetical list of states included their respective food insecurity percentages as well as their percentage of “very low food security” people. Perhaps because the USDA staff who performed the analysis didn’t want to embarrass certain states, the list was not really a ranking—you had to “rank” yourself by picking your state and then tabulating who was higher and lower. Call me weird, but I can remember pouring through the data and lists with as much fervor as a baseball enthusiast parses major league standings.

While in Connecticut, food advocates were shocked in the 1990s by how high our food insecurity levels were—largely a result of high poverty rates in the state’s cities. A concerted effort by state government and non-profit groups, spurred in part by these humiliating numbers (ironically, Connecticut as a whole had the highest per capita income in the nation), significantly reduced the state’s prevalence of food insecurity as the 21st century dawned. Similarly, when I moved to New Mexico in 2004, the annual USDA presentations of the nation’s food insecurity rates revealed that we toggled back and forth with Mississippi for the dubious distinction of being the hungriest state in the nation (more than one wag suggested that the “Land of Enchantment” slogan on our license plate be changed to the “Land of Hunger”).

But everyone recognized that the abysmal state of New Mexico’s food security was no laughing matter, including then governor, Bill Richardson. Following the 2003 release of food security survey which listed New Mexico as the most food insecure state in the nation, Richardson appointed a task force to make recommendations and even implement solutions to reduce the level of food insecurity. Progress was slow, political leadership was anemic, and the task force’s members grew frustrated. But over time, and through several iterations of organizational engagement from both the private and public sectors, New Mexico made significant progress rising from the absolute bottom to somewhere in the middle nationwide.

The value of measurement is that it is part of a feedback loop that tells us what’s working and what’s not. It also tells us who’s hurting and motivates us to reduce that pain. One problem with Trump that infuses his politics is that he doesn’t care who’s hurting. “The still, sad music of humanity”, pain, suffering, ill health, and hunger do not fall within his domain of interest or concern. In the “hangry” tone of one who missed breakfast that morning, USDA’s ejaculatory announcement on September 20th said “These redundant, costly, politicized, and extraneous studies do nothing more than fear monger. For 30 years, this study [sic]—initially created by the Clinton administration as a means to support the increase of SNAP eligibility and benefit allotments—failed to present anything more than subjective, liberal fodder….” Dictatorships cleanse the media of any adverse news, scrub scientific research of any opposing data, and treat the reverent accumulation of human knowledge as nothing more than a waste can that needs to be emptied regularly. The goal is to leave the people blissfully ignorant; their minds becoming nothing more than a blank slate to be etched on by the tyrant.

I have known many of the people both in and out of government over the years who have developed, implemented, and refined the measurement of food insecurity in the U.S. They are gentle, highly intelligent souls whose only wishes are to uphold the highest standards of their profession and place their talents in service to the cause of reducing human suffering. Their impact with regard to the annual food security study, in collaboration with a myriad of local and state advocates, has been immense. My examples from Connecticut and New Mexico are only two of thousands from across the country where determined individuals, eager for information, have leaned on these annual studies to fight a condition that should never, ever exist in this country.

Dictators depend on a passive citizenry. Unless we act now, Trump’s lies and low regard for the human condition will metastasize further, and in the case of food security, make our country a hungrier place. Please be in touch with your Members of Congress and let them know that you are opposed to the elimination of the U.S. Food Security Report. The Food Research Action Center (FRAC) has made that easy to do. Please go to this link ACTION NEEDED: Tell Congress to Reinstate USDA’s Food Security Report and share your beliefs with your federal officials. If you are part of a food bank, food pantry, or other organization with many volunteers and supporters, share this post and the FRAC link with them. Don’t let the tyrant have the day!