When School’s Out, Hunger Moves In
As summer settles over Texas, the promise of sunshine and rest for millions of children comes with an invisible cost: empty plates. With schools closed, many low-income families lose access to the steady meals provided through free and reduced-price lunch programs. This year, that burden has been made heavier by a single, far-reaching decision. Governor Greg Abbott has vetoed participation in the Summer EBT program, rejecting over $450 million in federal funds that would have helped feed 3.8 million Texas children during the hottest, hungriest months of the year.
At Feed America, we believe no child should face an empty fridge while funding to prevent it sits unused. Understanding the scope of this decision—and its consequences—is crucial to addressing the deeper crisis at hand.
What Is Summer EBT and Why Was It Offered?
The Summer EBT (Electronic Benefit Transfer) program is a newly permanent federal initiative that provides $40 per eligible child per month in grocery benefits during the summer. The funds are distributed via a digital card system, similar to SNAP, and allow families to purchase groceries at participating retailers. According to the USDA, this program has shown significant success in reducing food insecurity, lowering the risk of hunger by as much as 33% among children who receive benefits.
The program is fully federally funded—requiring only basic administrative support from states to roll it out. But despite the benefits and available funding, Texas opted out.
Governor Abbott’s Decision and What It Means
In June 2025, Governor Abbott vetoed a $60 million budget allocation that would have supported Texas’ implementation of the Summer EBT program. According to a detailed report from KUT Austin, Abbott cited concerns over expanding federal programs and argued that other resources were already available. However, those alternative resources—such as traditional summer meal sites—often require families to travel, follow limited schedules, or navigate bureaucratic hurdles that EBT benefits would bypass entirely.
The Houston Chronicle notes that Texas is now one of only a few states refusing to participate, despite having the highest number of food-insecure children in the U.S. The rejection has sparked concern not just from lawmakers, but from school officials and working parents who were relying on the additional support during the summer break.
The Human Cost of a Missed Opportunity
While the debate plays out in headlines and policy memos, the impact is being felt in kitchens across Texas. Without these funds, many families are facing a greater risk of food insecurity—just as food prices remain inflated and heat wavescontinue to strain household budgets. According to data from the USDA, grocery costs remain above pre-pandemic levels, and the effects are compounded when additional children are at home all day needing meals.
Parents are left to make painful trade-offs—cutting into their own nutrition to stretch food for their children, skipping bills to buy basics, or simply going without. The veto is not just a political statement—it’s a policy that lands squarely on the shoulders of families who were already struggling.
The Everyday Reality: When Policy Meets the Pantry
Summer Without Support
For many low-income families, summer is not a vacation—it’s a logistical and financial hardship. During the school year, breakfast and lunch programs provide consistent, reliable meals for children. When schools close, so do those kitchens. That gap is exactly what Summer EBT was designed to fill. According to the USDA, the program would have reached millions of children in Texas with automatic enrollment and simple grocery-use cards.
Instead, the burden now shifts back to households that were counting on that support. Families who planned around receiving an extra $120 over the summer for each child must now scramble to find alternatives—if any exist at all.
“We were already living check to check. That $40 a month might not seem like much to some people, but to us, it would’ve been everything,” said a parent interviewed by KUT in Austin.
Many families, especially those in rural counties or areas without public transportation, struggle to access traditional summer meal sites. The structured nature of grab-and-go meal pickup locations, often bound to specific times or locations, doesn’t work for parents with full-time jobs, no car, or caregiving responsibilities.
Widening the Nutrition Gap
This loss of federal assistance doesn’t just lead to hunger—it leads to malnutrition. Without support, families often resort to inexpensive, calorie-dense, low-nutrient food options, which are far more accessible and shelf-stable than fresh fruits, vegetables, or whole grains. That shift can have long-term consequences.
According to the CDC, poor nutrition in childhood is linked to impaired physical development, reduced academic performance, and increased risk of chronic diseases such as diabetes and obesity. When access to nutritious food is restricted, it doesn’t just affect a child’s health—it alters their future.
Educational Impact and Emotional Toll
Hunger doesn’t exist in isolation—it ripples into school readiness, focus, and behavior. Studies cited by the U.S. Department of Education show that children who experience food insecurity during summer return to school in the fall academically behind and emotionally burdened. Teachers often report having to spend the first few weeks of the school year not just catching up on curriculum, but addressing behavioral issues and fatigue caused by inconsistent nutrition.
By vetoing Summer EBT, the state has effectively ensured that these setbacks will continue—not just for this summer, but for years to come.
A Broader Battle: What This Means Beyond Texas
A Test Case for National Policy
Texas' decision to reject the Summer EBT program is more than a localized issue—it is a test case for how states across the country may approach future federally funded nutrition programs. While the funds were available and the infrastructure already modeled, the choice to veto on the basis of political philosophy rather than public need sets a precedent that could influence decisions in other states.
Programs like Summer EBT are voluntary, giving governors and legislatures discretion in participation. But when discretion overrides data-driven policy, millions of families risk falling through the cracks. According to Food Research & Action Center, more than 30 states opted in this year—many with fewer resources than Texas—but managed to implement Summer EBT successfully, proving that participation is both logistically feasible and economically sound.
In the face of federal support, Texas' refusal highlights a growing divide in how states prioritize food access.
State vs. Federal Responsibility
The Consolidated Appropriations Act of 2022 made Summer EBT a permanent federal initiative with widespread bipartisan backing. The idea was to establish a nationwide safety net for children who rely on school meals—so that nutrition would not be limited to the school calendar.
The federal government offered the funding and structure; Texas simply needed to administer it. As noted in KUT’s reporting, the $60 million vetoed by Governor Abbott was intended to fund just the state’s share of implementation—not food benefits themselves. That decision underscores a concerning trend: increasing reliance on politics over public need, even when the solution is already paid for.
The federal government cannot force states to accept these programs, leaving millions of children subject to policy decisions beyond their control.
Conclusion: Feeding Children Shouldn’t Be Political
Summer hunger is not a theoretical issue. It is real, measurable, and happening right now in homes across Texas. With funding on the table and infrastructure ready to go, the state’s decision to opt out of Summer EBT has left millions of children without the resources they were promised.
At Feed America, we believe that no child should go hungry in the richest nation on Earth—especially when the tools to prevent that hunger are already in hand. As we continue to advocate for sustainable, community-based solutions to food insecurity, we urge our readers, partners, and policymakers to look closely at decisions like this one. Because hunger doesn’t wait for politics to sort itself out—and neither should we.
