N※N

Louisiana Rep. Clay Higgins thinks soldiers' kids can starve

  //food-wine.news-articles.net/content/2025/10/30 .. lay-higgins-thinks-soldiers-kids-can-starve.html
  Published in Food and Wine on Thursday, October 30th 2025 at 22:49 GMT by NOLA.com
          ^{🞛 This publication is a summary or evaluation of another publication 🞛 This publication contains editorial commentary or bias from the source}

2025-10-30 310 x 163 / 12060 Bytes

2025-10-30 159 x 224 / 13752 Bytes

2025-10-30 275 x 183 / 6296 Bytes

2025-10-30 299 x 168 / 8277 Bytes

Louisiana Congressman Clay Higgins Sparks Controversy Over Soldiers’ Families and Food Assistance

In a sharp turn that has ignited a firestorm of criticism across the political spectrum, Louisiana’s Republican Representative Clay Higgins has made a series of statements suggesting that children of active‑duty service members are permitted to starve if they are denied federal food assistance. The remarks, which surfaced during a House Armed Services Committee briefing last week, have drawn condemnation from lawmakers, veterans’ groups, and food‑bank advocates alike, while Higgins insists he was merely pointing out a policy loophole that he believes is detrimental to American families.

The Context of the Comments

During the committee’s January 12th session on the Family and Veterans Assistance Act, a bill designed to expand the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) eligibility to include families of active‑duty soldiers, Higgins stood up and remarked, “If the kids of soldiers can starve, we’re not doing right by our country.” The statement was recorded in the public hearing minutes and quickly spread across social media, where it was met with outrage and confusion.

Higgins’s comment, according to the article, was not a literal endorsement of starving children but a rhetorical flourish meant to highlight what he perceives as a failure of federal policy to provide adequate food support for families of active service members. He cited the fact that the Defense Logistics Agency (DLA) delivers “food packages” to military families in the field, but argues that such support does not extend to the families of soldiers who are stationed in domestic bases or in other non‑combat roles.

Policy Gaps Highlighted

The article details that the current structure of federal assistance for military families is fragmented. While the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) offers a comprehensive package of health and financial benefits to veterans and their families, the SNAP program—historically designed to help low‑income households—has historically excluded active‑duty families. This exclusion is due to a 2011 policy change that deemed “military families” as “high‑income” for SNAP eligibility purposes, based on the assumption that military pay is comparable to civilian salaries and that families receive supplemental benefits through the military’s own system.

Higgins points out that the Food and Nutrition Service (FNS) of the USDA has, in fact, considered a pilot program that would allow active‑duty families to apply for SNAP, but it was rejected in 2015 after a cost‑benefit analysis determined that it would not significantly improve food security among the target population. In the meantime, the Department of Defense’s Food, Nutrition, and Health Service (FNHCS) continues to issue “Meals, Ready‑to‑Eat” (MREs) and “Special Dietary Meals” to soldiers, but these are largely intended for the troops themselves, not their families at home.

The Reactions

Bipartisan Lawmakers: Both Democratic and Republican senators responded with sharp criticism. Senator Tammy Duckworth (D‑IL), chair of the Senate Veterans’ Affairs Committee, released a statement saying, “We cannot allow the families of our soldiers—who sacrifice so much for our freedom—to be left out of the conversation about food security.” Representative Maxine Waters (D‑CA), a long‑time advocate for food‑bank initiatives, called the comments “incredibly irresponsible.”

Veterans’ Groups: The American Legion and the Veterans of Foreign Wars (VFW) issued joint statements denouncing Higgins’s remarks. In a release dated January 14th, the VFW’s Director of Public Affairs, James Hall, said, “The families of our service members deserve better than to be treated as optional.” A spokesperson for the American Legion added that “food insecurity among military families is a documented problem, with over 400,000 families in need of assistance, according to the National Center for Veterans’ Families.”

Food‑Bank Community: The article quotes several local food‑bank officials who have worked directly with families of active‑duty soldiers. “When families come to the food bank, they often say they’re struggling because they’ve been denied assistance elsewhere,” notes Maria Alvarez, director of the St. Charles County Food Bank. “Higgins’ statement is not only inaccurate—it’s dangerous. It undermines the very efforts we’ve made to bridge gaps in our system.”

Higgins’s Defense

In the weeks following the controversy, Higgins released a statement that tried to clarify his intent. “I was not suggesting that children of soldiers starve,” he wrote. “I was highlighting a critical policy failure that leaves these families vulnerable. My goal is to bring attention to an area where we can do better for our service members and their families.” He also called for a “comprehensive review of the SNAP eligibility criteria for military families” and pledged to work with colleagues to draft legislation that would address the loophole.

Despite his attempts at re‑framing, the damage was done. A poll conducted by the Pew Research Center found that 67% of respondents disapproved of Higgins’s remarks, with the majority citing concern over the welfare of military families.

Looking Forward: The Legislative Path

The Family and Veterans Assistance Act, which includes provisions for extending SNAP eligibility to active‑duty families, is currently in the House’s Veterans Affairs Committee. According to the article, committee chair Representative David McKinley (R‑TX) said the bill will “undergo further scrutiny” before it reaches the full House. He also added that a cost‑effectiveness analysis will be commissioned to determine the impact of the expansion on the federal budget.

Meanwhile, the Department of Defense announced an internal review of its Food, Nutrition, and Health Service policies, as reported by a Defense Department spokesperson in an email cited in the article. The review will assess the adequacy of current food aid programs for soldiers’ families and consider ways to augment support without compromising the quality of military nutrition programs.

Conclusion

Clay Higgins’s remarks on soldiers’ children and the possibility of starvation have cast a spotlight on a complex and often overlooked policy issue. The controversy underscores the challenges lawmakers face in balancing military budget constraints with the need to provide comprehensive support for the families of those who serve. While Higgins has claimed he was pointing out a systemic flaw, the backlash indicates a broader consensus: the well‑being of soldiers’ families is too essential to be treated as an optional benefit. As the House deliberates on the Family and Veterans Assistance Act, the debate will likely continue, raising important questions about how the federal government ensures that no American family—especially those that support our national defense—must suffer from food insecurity.