Abby Leibman on SNAP Cuts: Why Charity Can’t Fill the Gap—and What Happens When the Safety Net Frays
JUDJ-Prepared Summary from January 14, 2026 | The Politics of Hunger: Confronting Poverty in a Time of Division and Crisis. The views and opinions expressed in this blog are those of the speaker.
In a recent America at a Crossroads discussion, Abby Leibman, president and CEO of MAZON: A Jewish Response to Hunger, joined the program to explain what new federal changes to food assistance could mean for American households—and why the country’s hunger response depends on a functioning public safety net, not a patchwork of emergency charity.
A Policy Shift with Immediate Household Consequences
Leibman described the new federal changes as more than a budget adjustment. In her view, the practical effect is straightforward: millions of people who previously qualified for SNAP are at risk of losing benefits, not because their need has changed, but because eligibility rules are being tightened and made harder to navigate.
A major driver is the expansion of work requirements—now applying more broadly to adults and, in many cases, to parents whose children are older. Leibman warned that the “three months” time limit embedded in the new approach creates a narrow runway for people to meet documentation and work-hour thresholds, even in communities where stable employment is hard to find. Many SNAP recipients work already, she noted, but unstable schedules and insufficient hours can quickly push someone out of compliance.
Complexity as a Deterrent
Beyond work requirements, Leibman stressed a second force that often gets overlooked: administrative complexity. When programs become more complicated—more paperwork, more verification, more frequent hurdles—people can be intimidated into dropping off, even when they remain eligible.
That effect isn’t theoretical. Leibman described how confusing eligibility rules and higher administrative friction can lead households to opt out rather than risk mistakes, delays, or penalties. The result, she argued, is a quieter kind of cut: fewer people enrolled, fewer people able to keep benefits, and more families falling into crisis without a clear off-ramp.
“Skin in the Game” and the New State Burden
Leibman strongly rejected the argument that states need “skin in the game” to reduce errors, calling the idea misguided. Historically, SNAP benefits have been federally funded, with states sharing administrative responsibilities. Under the new structure, states are required to pay a portion of benefits—a major shift that, Leibman warned, could force states into impossible tradeoffs.
States cannot conjure hundreds of millions of dollars overnight without cutting other obligations, she said. And because these new costs are tied to prior error rates, states may be penalized for system complexity and workload strain. Leibman’s bottom line: the cost shift risks weakening programs at precisely the moment families need them most.
Why Charity Can’t Replace SNAP
Asked whether charitable organizations can step in, Leibman offered a clear distinction. MAZON’s mission is policy, education, and advocacy—not direct food distribution. And even for organizations that do feed people, she argued the math doesn’t work.
Food pantries and soup kitchens provide essential support, often helping families bridge the final stretch of the month when benefits run out. But Leibman emphasized that charity was never designed—nor funded—to replace a nationwide federal program that supports tens of millions of people. The idea that families can lose SNAP and simply “find another alternative,” she said, is a fantasy.
Dignity, Values, and a Collective Voice
Leibman grounded her case in values that shape MAZON’s work: dignity, nonjudgment, and shared responsibility. People experiencing hunger aren’t defined by how they got there, she said; what matters is that they’re there now—and a healthy society ensures they can stabilize and recover.
She also argued that a mobilized Jewish voice has long played a role in anti-hunger advocacy, rooted in repeated moral imperatives to care for those who struggle. But her point was broader: national priorities are expressed through federal policy, and hunger policy is one of the clearest reflections of who we choose to be.
A Closing Warning
Leibman ended with urgency, describing hunger as pervasive and persistent—and SNAP as a hard-won, effective response built over decades. In her view, the direction of current policy choices is not only harmful, but unnecessary. The stakes, she suggested, are nothing less than whether the nation maintains a system that prevents widespread hunger—or returns to a level of need most Americans associate with history books.
About America at a Crossroads
Since April 2020, America at a Crossroads has produced weekly virtual programs on topics related to the preservation of our democracy, voting rights, freedom of the press, and a wide array of civil rights, including abortion rights, free speech, and free press. America at a Crossroads is a project of Jews United for Democracy & Justice.