The United States’ battle against hunger faces a new double threat: the loss of vital data tracking the nation’s food insecurity and the exposure of a massive criminal scheme siphoning millions from government food assistance for the needy. In recent weeks, two seismic events have shaken the landscape of food policy and public trust—one in the halls of federal bureaucracy, the other in the criminal courts of Oregon.
In September, the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) announced the cancellation of its annual Household Food Security Report, a move that has left researchers, policymakers, and advocates reeling. For nearly three decades, this report has served as the nation’s gold standard for measuring food insecurity, classifying American households as either food secure or food insecure based on their ability to provide adequate, nutritious food for all members. The final report, featuring 2024 data, is set for release on October 22, 2025. According to the latest numbers, a staggering 47 million people in the U.S. live in food-insecure households.
“The USDA Household Food Security Report classifies households as either food secure or food insecure, meaning that, at some point in the previous year, a household was unable to provide adequate, nutritious food for some or all members due to limited financial resources,” explained Sara Bleich, professor of health policy at Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health, in an interview with Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health News.
This annual survey has been more than just a set of numbers. Policymakers from across the ideological spectrum have used its data to assess the effectiveness of federal nutrition programs like the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP), which serves over 40 million Americans each month. Researchers have relied on it to analyze the causes and consequences of food insecurity, track trends over time, and inform evidence-based recommendations. Nonprofit organizations and advocacy groups have depended on the data to identify regions and populations most at risk, target interventions, and allocate resources efficiently. The report has even fueled public awareness campaigns, helping to mobilize support for anti-hunger efforts.
Yet, the USDA’s reasoning for ending the report has stirred controversy. In their announcement, officials claimed that “trends in the prevalence of food insecurity have remained virtually unchanged” and that the report had become “politicized” and “rife with inaccuracies.” But Bleich pushed back, saying, “That is inaccurate. The prevalence of food insecurity has, in fact, changed significantly over the past two decades.” She pointed to the Great Recession in 2008, when food insecurity surged to 14.6% of households—a jump of more than 30% from the previous year, translating to about 4 million additional households struggling to put food on the table. In 2021, food insecurity dropped to its lowest level in decades (10.2% of households), largely due to economic stimulus measures during the COVID-19 pandemic. But by 2023, after temporary assistance ended and inflation rose, rates spiked again to 13.5% of households, disrupting a decade-long trend of improvement.
Bleich emphasized the rigor of the survey, noting, “The Household Food Security Report is widely regarded as rigorous and is considered the gold standard for tracking food insecurity in the United States.” She highlighted its bipartisan legacy, having been published under both Republican and Democratic administrations, and stressed, “The report provides results from standardized survey questions, without policy recommendations or attributions about the causes of trends.”
The consequences of discontinuing this report extend far beyond academic inconvenience. Food insecurity is linked to a host of adverse health outcomes, including cardiovascular disease, obesity, type 2 diabetes, hypertension, increased risk of birth defects, cognitive impairments, and mental illness. Related healthcare costs are estimated to exceed $50 billion annually. Without the annual report, Bleich warned, “It will make it easier for the [current] administration to obscure the harmful effects of the One Big Beautiful Bill Act, making it much harder for policymakers, researchers, and advocates to understand the full impact of these SNAP cuts.” She added, “Without this critical data, there is also a risk that policymakers will rely more heavily on metrics like SNAP program costs or payment error rates, which could make additional cuts even more likely in the future.”
The timing of the report’s cancellation is especially troubling, given the recent exposure of large-scale fraud targeting SNAP. On October 16, 2025, Giovanni Spirea, a 29-year-old Italian national living unlawfully in Oregon, was sentenced to 24 months in federal prison, followed by three months of probation, and ordered to pay $61,874.32 in restitution for his role in a multi-state SNAP fraud scheme, according to KPTV and the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the District of Oregon.
From August 2023 to October 2024, Spirea and a crew of co-conspirators installed electronic skimming devices to capture data from SNAP recipients’ cards. With this stolen information, they created cloned EBT cards and purchased more than 120,000 pounds of goods—including infant formula, energy drinks, and other nonperishables—at grocery stores in Oregon, Washington, and California, as well as through online grocery apps. The loot, valued at over $2.4 million, was stored in homes and storage units before being moved to California and sold on the black market.
Spirea and 16 others were indicted on October 9, 2024, on 16 counts, including conspiracy to defraud the United States and unauthorized use of access devices. He pleaded guilty on July 30, 2025, to one count of conspiracy to defraud the United States. U.S. Attorney Scott E. Bradford commented, “Protecting government-funded programs like SNAP isn’t just about preserving funds — it’s about safeguarding trust in a vital lifeline that millions of families depend on.”
The case is part of a broader crackdown on SNAP skimming and fraud, with authorities warning that such crimes undermine public confidence and jeopardize support for essential safety nets. Portland Police Chief Bob Day described the impact as “serious,” while Homeland Security Investigations Seattle’s acting Special Agent in Charge April Miller called Spirea “one of the worst of the worst.”
Both the cancellation of the food insecurity report and the revelation of SNAP fraud highlight the precariousness of America’s fight against hunger. On one hand, the loss of a trusted, comprehensive data source makes it harder to understand and address the real scope of need—especially as policy changes and economic shocks continue to buffet vulnerable families. On the other, criminal abuse of the SNAP program threatens not only financial resources but also the credibility and sustainability of the nation’s most important anti-hunger initiative.
For researchers like Bleich, the stakes are deeply personal. “As a researcher, I have frequently relied on the annual USDA food insecurity data in grant applications, academic papers, and presentations,” she said. “The annual data not only offers hard evidence about the scale and scope of the problem, but it also reminds us that each data point represents real people struggling to access affordable, healthy food. Losing this powerful source of objective information would be a significant setback.”
With food insecurity rates once again on the rise, and the integrity of assistance programs under threat, the nation faces urgent questions: How will policymakers track progress—or setbacks—without reliable data? And how can the public be sure that help is reaching those who truly need it, rather than lining the pockets of criminals? The answers, for now, remain uncertain. But for millions of Americans, the stakes couldn’t be higher.
