By Parthenia Tawfik

No child should have to think about whether their mom ate breakfast. But in many immigrant families across the United States, that small sacrifice is not an exception—it’s the norm. So are lunch boxes packed with too little, and school days that start with hunger pangs. These moments may feel invisible, but they have deep consequences. They affect how children learn, how caregivers function, and how families feel a sense of belonging in the communities they call home. And as the impact of President Trump’s budget reconciliation law becomes clear, even more families will find themselves making these same dreadful choices.

While policy decisions shape the framework of who has access to food, the story doesn’t end there. Even when families technically qualify for benefits, factors like social and cultural barriers, language gaps, stigma, misinformation, and fear often determine whether that access becomes reality. If we want to address child hunger in immigrant communities, we can’t just look at eligibility. We must also look at the lived experience of trying to feed a family in a country where accessing benefits means filling out numerous forms, navigating a language barrier, and encountering far too many snap judgments and assumptions.

SNAP Eligibility and the Bigger Policy Picture in 2025

The effects of food insecurity ripple far beyond the dinner table. Children who don’t eat regularly experience more behavioral issues, lower academic performance, and higher rates of emotional stress. Research shows both that students facing hunger score lower on reading and math assessments and that providing school breakfast is associated with fewer disciplinary infractions and better attendance and tardiness rates. These outcomes make it clear why federal nutrition assistance programs are so critical to both addressing immediate hunger relief and supporting long-term health, education, and stability.

Yet in 2025, access to these programs became significantly harder. Most SNAP recipients are U.S. citizens. Lawful permanent residents become eligible after five years, while refugees and asylees can qualify sooner; as can certain children and pregnant individuals. But under President Trump’s recent budget reconciliation law, major changes went into effect that directly target immigrant families.

The bill expanded work requirements, mandating that most adults between 18 and 64, including those with dependents, work at least 80 hours per month to maintain eligibility. But the reality is that most SNAP recipients are already working, caring for a family member, or temporarily between jobs. Research consistently shows that work requirements do not improve employment outcomes but instead create red tape and make it harder for people to keep the support they need.

For immigrant families, who already face eligibility restrictions like five-year bars for lawful permanent residents, pro-rated benefits in mixed-status households, and confusion over public charge messaging, these expanded work mandates risk deepening food insecurity by raising barriers just when access is most crucial. The bill also shifted financial responsibility to states, creating a chilling effect as local administrators face the difficult task of implementing the U.S. Department of Agriculture’s (USDA) upcoming guidance on this provision. Most alarmingly, the reconciliation bill barred eligibility for asylum seekers, temporary protected status holders, trafficking survivors, and refugee populations, groups that previously had immediate or easier access to food assistance.

A request from the USDA that states share SNAP applicant data, including immigration status and details on non-applicant household members, has only further compounded fear and confusion. While a number of states have sued the USDA over these requests, for many mixed-status families, this has created a chilling effect, where eligible members choose not to apply at all. The Urban Institute projects that over 22 million families could lose benefits under the bill, including 5 million that may lose at least $25 per month. These policy shifts don’t just tweak technical rules. They fundamentally alter who gets to eat and who doesn’t. including 5 million that may lose at least $25 per month. These policy shifts don’t just tweak technical rules. They fundamentally alter who gets to eat and who doesn’t.

The First Invisible Barrier: Language Challenges and Misinformation

Even when families remain eligible, navigating the system isn’t straightforward, especially if English isn’t their first language. Many SNAP applications are only available in English or have poor-quality translations. For Limited-English-Proficient (LEP) families, that means relying on community whispers, social media threads, or outdated news. Misinformation spreads easily, and in immigrant communities, which are reeling from years of punitive policies and currently seeing ramped–up enforcement activities, fear is potent. 

Some programs are working to bridge this divide. Cornell University’s Translator-Interpreter Program (TIP), an organization I am proud to be a part of, connects multilingual students with over 300 local organizations to expand access to key services and benefits for non-English-speaking communities. These students have translated everything from food safety trainings for immigrant dining hall workers to SNAP applications for local families. Every time someone says, “Now I get it,” the barrier shrinks a little.

The Second Invisible Barrier: Cultural Norms and Stigma

Policy and paperwork are only part of the issue. For many immigrant families, the deeper barrier is cultural. In some communities, accepting food aid is equated with failure, something shameful, or embarrassment. Parents worry that neighbors will judge them; children skip free meals to avoid being labeled “poor.” These internalized beliefs can be just as limiting as ineligibility itself, and the result is the same: families who could get help don’t.

There are ways to address this barrier without adding to stigma. For instance, both the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities and Urban Institute note that schools that adopt universal free meals or “Breakfast in the Classroom” programs see participation rise significantly, especially among children of immigrants. In Detroit, when schools began offering halal options, immigrant student participation in breakfast programs rose by 60 percent. When food feels familiar, students feel like they belong. They show up ready to learn, to socialize, and to connect. And when children thrive, their families do, too. Caregivers can work, study, and build consistent routines with less stress and more dignity. When everyone eats, no one feels singled out. Meals become moments of community, not reminders of need.

Addressing the Skepticism

There are many myths around SNAP, including fraud, cost, and whether immigrants should use public aid. SNAP is explicitly excluded from public charge evaluations under current Department of Homeland Security rules. In addition, research from the National Conference of State Legislatures shows that expanding translated applications and using trained interpreters actually increases uptake without increasing misuse. Finally, cutting SNAP doesn’t save money. It simply shifts the burden to emergency rooms, food banks, and schools – places that aren’t built to bear the weight of widespread hunger.

Why This Isn’t Just an Immigrant Issue

Ensuring equitable food access also strengthens public health, economic efficiency, and community resilience. Every SNAP dollar spent generates $1.50 to $1.80 in local economic activity. When children are well-fed, they miss fewer school days, perform better academically, and grow into healthier, more productive adults. Over time, that means lower health care and emergency aid costs and fewer lost wages.

But beyond the numbers, this is about who we are as a society. How we treat our neighbors, especially in moments of vulnerability, reflects our collective values and our commitment to human dignity. Expanding SNAP access and outreach in immigrant communities and protecting the privacy of recipients is not only sound policy. It is a statement that every person’s well-being matters.

A Future Worth Building

Ultimately, there need to be policies and practices backed by public investments that are responsive to the real needs of people in this country. Until then, schools and community centers can adopt TIP-style interpreter programs to break down language barriers. School districts and other child-focused settings should incorporate culturally familiar foods into their menus to ensure every child feels seen.

Policymakers and funders need to protect and expand outreach in immigrant neighborhoods, not scale it back. And for the rest of us, small actions matter such as volunteering at food banks, asking how programs serve LEP clients, or starting language-access efforts in our own communities. We must also have honest conversations within our communities to destigmatize receiving public benefits. Normalizing support helps ensure that everyone feels empowered to access the resources they need.

Imagine a cafeteria where every lunch tray reflects a different culture, and every stomach is full. Imagine a food system built not on fear or paperwork, but on dignity and belonging. That’s not a fantasy. It’s a future we can build. One plate, one program, one translated form at a time.

*Parthenia Tawfik was a Zero Hunger Intern at CLASP, where she supported the Child Care and Early Education Team. She is a student at Cornell University studying Political Science and Near Eastern Studies, and a member of the Translator-Interpreter Program, which works to support immigrant and refugee communities by bridging language gaps in access to public services. As an Egyptian American, Parthenia brings a strong commitment to language justice, cultural inclusion, and community-centered policy solutions.

CLASP is grateful for the opportunity to work with Parthenia this summer and for all her important contributions.