Activists – United Yam

CatholicVote report examines moral implications of immigration enforcement #Catholic

A person detained is taken to a parking lot on the far north side of the city before being transferred to an Immigration and Customs Enforcement facility in Chicago on Oct. 31, 2025. / Credit: Jamie Kelter Davis/Getty Images

Washington, D.C. Newsroom, Nov 13, 2025 / 18:26 pm (CNA).
The Catholic advocacy organization CatholicVote has released a report examining the Trump administration’s immigration enforcement efforts, concluding Christians must balance charity toward the immigrant with the common good of the receiving state.The report, titled “Immigration Enforcement and the Christian Conscience,” comes on the heels of the special message on immigration released by the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops (USCCB) at its fall plenary meeting this past week. “A faithful Catholic approach to immigration begins not with politics but with people. Compassion, hospitality, and solidarity with the poor are not optional virtues,” CatholicVote President and CEO Kelsey Reinhardt said in a press release accompanying the report. “They are at the center of the Gospel,” she added. “Yet, mercy and justice travel together. One without the other distorts both.”The report by author Benjamin Mann labels the Biden administration’s border policies as “reckless” and credits them for resulting in human trafficking, sexual exploitation of immigrants without legal status, and rampant drug cartels. “Catholics who advocate strong but humane immigration enforcement are sometimes accused of disobeying their bishops or the pope, and even violating Church teaching,” the report states. “Properly speaking, there is no such thing as an official ‘Catholic position’ on the practical details of immigration policy.”The report says that “despite what some Church leaders in America have indicated, a faithful Catholic can support strong and humane immigration law enforcement — by means such as physical barriers, detention, and deportation — without violating the teaching of the Church.” The report asserts that Catholic teaching on immigration has been distorted by “an ideological immigration lobby” within the Church that “has sought to present amnesty, minimal law enforcement, and more legal immigration as the only acceptable position for Catholics.” “This is not an act of disobedience or disrespect toward the Church hierarchy but a legitimate difference of opinion according to magisterial teaching,” the report says. “The truth is that faithful Catholics can certainly disagree with the anti-enforcement position — even if some bishops happen to share the policy preferences of these activists. Such disagreement is not a dissent from Church teaching,” the document continues, citing “recent popes” as having said the Catholic Church “has no ‘official position’ on the practical details of issues like immigration policy.” “Rather, our faith teaches a set of broad moral principles about immigration, and their application in public life is a matter of practical judgment for laypersons,” the report said.The CatholicVote document further argues that “it is actually immoral in the eyes of the Church for a country to accept immigrants to the detriment of its own citizens,” citing paragraph 1903 of the Catechism of the Catholic Church, which states: “Authority is exercised legitimately only when it seeks the common good of the group concerned and if it employs morally licit means to attain it. If rulers were to enact unjust laws or take measures contrary to the moral order, such arrangements would not be binding in conscience. In such a case, ‘authority breaks down completely and results in shameful abuse.’”

unitedyam November 13, 2025

A person detained is taken to a parking lot on the far north side of the city before being transferred to an Immigration and Customs Enforcement facility in Chicago on Oct. 31, 2025. / Credit: Jamie Kelter Davis/Getty Images

Washington, D.C. Newsroom, Nov 13, 2025 / 18:26 pm (CNA).

The Catholic advocacy organization CatholicVote has released a report examining the Trump administration’s immigration enforcement efforts, concluding Christians must balance charity toward the immigrant with the common good of the receiving state.

The report, titled “Immigration Enforcement and the Christian Conscience,” comes on the heels of the special message on immigration released by the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops (USCCB) at its fall plenary meeting this past week.

“A faithful Catholic approach to immigration begins not with politics but with people. Compassion, hospitality, and solidarity with the poor are not optional virtues,” CatholicVote President and CEO Kelsey Reinhardt said in a press release accompanying the report.

“They are at the center of the Gospel,” she added. “Yet, mercy and justice travel together. One without the other distorts both.”

The report by author Benjamin Mann labels the Biden administration’s border policies as “reckless” and credits them for resulting in human trafficking, sexual exploitation of immigrants without legal status, and rampant drug cartels.

“Catholics who advocate strong but humane immigration enforcement are sometimes accused of disobeying their bishops or the pope, and even violating Church teaching,” the report states. “Properly speaking, there is no such thing as an official ‘Catholic position’ on the practical details of immigration policy.”

The report says that “despite what some Church leaders in America have indicated, a faithful Catholic can support strong and humane immigration law enforcement — by means such as physical barriers, detention, and deportation — without violating the teaching of the Church.”

The report asserts that Catholic teaching on immigration has been distorted by “an ideological immigration lobby” within the Church that “has sought to present amnesty, minimal law enforcement, and more legal immigration as the only acceptable position for Catholics.”

“This is not an act of disobedience or disrespect toward the Church hierarchy but a legitimate difference of opinion according to magisterial teaching,” the report says.

“The truth is that faithful Catholics can certainly disagree with the anti-enforcement position — even if some bishops happen to share the policy preferences of these activists. Such disagreement is not a dissent from Church teaching,” the document continues, citing “recent popes” as having said the Catholic Church “has no ‘official position’ on the practical details of issues like immigration policy.”

“Rather, our faith teaches a set of broad moral principles about immigration, and their application in public life is a matter of practical judgment for laypersons,” the report said.

The CatholicVote document further argues that “it is actually immoral in the eyes of the Church for a country to accept immigrants to the detriment of its own citizens,” citing paragraph 1903 of the Catechism of the Catholic Church, which states: “Authority is exercised legitimately only when it seeks the common good of the group concerned and if it employs morally licit means to attain it. If rulers were to enact unjust laws or take measures contrary to the moral order, such arrangements would not be binding in conscience. In such a case, ‘authority breaks down completely and results in shameful abuse.’”

‘Every execution should be stopped’: How U.S. bishops work to save prisoners on death row #Catholic

null / Credit: txking/Shutterstock

CNA Staff, Oct 25, 2025 / 06:00 am (CNA).
Bishops in multiple U.S. states are leading efforts to spare the lives of condemned prisoners facing execution — urging clemency in line with the Catholic Church’s relatively recent but unambiguous declaration that the death penalty is not permissible and should be abolished. Executions in the United States have been increasingly less common for years. Following the death penalty’s re-legalization by the U.S. Supreme Court in 1976, executions peaked in the country around the turn of the century before beginning a gradual decline.Still, more than 1,600 prisoners have been executed since the late 1970s. The largest number of those executions has been carried out in Texas, which has killed 596 prisoners over that time period.As with other states, the Catholic bishops of Texas regularly petition the state government to issue clemency to prisoners facing death. Jennifer Allmon, the executive director of the Texas Catholic Conference of Bishops, told CNA that the state’s bishops regularly urge officials to commute death penalty sentences to life in prison. “We refer to it as the Mercy Project,” she said. Though popular perception holds that the governor of a state is the ultimate arbiter of a condemned prisoner’s fate, Allmon said in Texas that’s not the case. “The state Board of Pardons and Paroles has the ultimate authority,” she said. “The governor is only allowed to issue a 30-day stay on an execution one time. He doesn’t actually have the power to grant a permanent clemency.” “We don’t encourage phone calls to the governor because it’s not going to be a meaningful order,” she pointed out. “The board has a lot more authority.”Allmon said the bishops advocate on behalf of every condemned prisoner in the state. “We send a letter to the Board of Pardons and Paroles and copy the governor for every single execution during the time period when the board is reviewing clemency applications,” she said. “Typically they hold reviews about 21 days before the execution. We time our letters to arrive shortly before that.” “We research every single case,” she said. “We speak to the defendant’s legal counsel for additional information. We personalize each letter to urge prayer for the victims and their families, we mention them by name, and we share any mitigating circumstances or reason in particular that the execution is unjust, while always acknowledging that every execution should be stopped.”Some offenders, Allmon said, want to be executed. “We do a letter anyway. We think it’s important that on principle we speak out for every execution.”In Missouri, meanwhile, the state’s Catholic bishops similarly advocate for every prisoner facing execution by the government. Missouri has been among the most prolific executors of condemned prisoners since 1976. More than half of the 102 people executed there over the last 50 years have been under Democratic governors; then-Gov. Mel Carnahan oversaw 38 state executions from 1993 to 2000 alone. Jamie Morris, the executive director of the Missouri Catholic Conference, told CNA that the state bishops “send a clemency request for every prisoner set to be executed, either through a letter from the Missouri Catholic Conference or through a joint letter of the bishops.”“We also highlight every upcoming execution through our MCC publications and encourage our network to contact the governor to ask for clemency,” he said. Individual dioceses, meanwhile, carry out education and outreach to inform the faithful of the Church’s teaching on the death penalty. What does the Church actually teach?The Vatican in 2018 revised its teaching on the death penalty, holding that though capital punishment was “long considered an appropriate response” to some crimes, evolving standards and more effective methods of imprisonment and detention mean the death penalty is now “inadmissible because it is an attack on the inviolability and dignity of the person.”The Church “works with determination for its abolition worldwide,” says the Catechism of the Catholic Church, the revision of which was approved by Pope Francis. The Church’s revision came after years of increasing opposition to the death penalty by popes in the modern era. Then-Pope John Paul II in 1997 revised the catechism to reflect what he acknowledged was a “growing tendency, both in the Church and in civil society, to demand that [the death penalty] be applied in a very limited way or even that it be abolished completely.”The Death Penalty Information Center says that 23 states and the District of Columbia have abolished capital punishment. Morris told CNA that bills to abolish the death penalty are filed “every year” in Missouri, though he said those measures have “not been heard in a legislative committee” during his time at the Catholic conference. Bishops have thus focused their legislative efforts on advocating against a provision in the Missouri code that allows a judge to sentence an individual to death when a jury cannot reach a unanimous decision on the death penalty. Brett Farley, who heads the Catholic Conference of Oklahoma, said the state’s bishops have been active in opposing capital punishment there after a six-year moratorium on the death penalty lapsed in 2021 and executions resumed. Oklahoma City Archbishop Paul Coakley and Tulsa Bishop David Konderla “have been very outspoken both in calling for clemency of death row inmates and, generally, calling for an end to the death penalty,” Farley said. The prelates have called for abolition via Catholic publications and in op-eds, he said.The state’s bishops through the Tulsa Diocese and Oklahoma City Archdiocese have also instituted programs in which clergy and laity both minister to the condemned and their families, Farley said. The state Catholic conference, meanwhile, has led the effort to pass a proposed legislative ban on the death penalty. That measure has moved out of committee in both chambers of the state Legislature, Farley said. “We have also commissioned recent polls that show overwhelming support for moratorium among Oklahoma voters, which demonstrate as many as 78% agreeing that ‘a pause’ on executions is appropriate to ensure we do not execute innocent people,” he said. Catholics across the United States have regularly led efforts to abolish the death penalty. The Washington, D.C.-based group Catholic Mobilizing Network, for instance, arose out of the U.S. bishops’ 2005 Catholic Campaign to End the Use of the Death Penalty. The group urges activists to take part in anti-death penalty campaigns in numerous states, including petitioning the federal government to end the death penalty, using a “three-tiered approach of education, advocacy, and prayer.”Catholics have also worked to end the death penalty at the federal level. Sixteen people have been executed by the federal government since 1976. Executions in the states have increased over the last few years, though they have not come near the highs of the late 1990s and early 2000s. Allmon said Texas is seeing “fewer executions in general” relative to earlier years. The number of executions was very high under Gov. Rick Perry, she said; the Republican governor ultimately witnessed the carrying out of 279 death sentences over his 15 years as governor. Since 2015, current Gov. Greg Abbott has presided over a comparatively smaller 78 executions. “It still shouldn’t happen,” she said, “but it’s a huge reduction.”

unitedyam October 25, 2025

null / Credit: txking/Shutterstock

CNA Staff, Oct 25, 2025 / 06:00 am (CNA).

Bishops in multiple U.S. states are leading efforts to spare the lives of condemned prisoners facing execution — urging clemency in line with the Catholic Church’s relatively recent but unambiguous declaration that the death penalty is not permissible and should be abolished.

Executions in the United States have been increasingly less common for years. Following the death penalty’s re-legalization by the U.S. Supreme Court in 1976, executions peaked in the country around the turn of the century before beginning a gradual decline.

Still, more than 1,600 prisoners have been executed since the late 1970s. The largest number of those executions has been carried out in Texas, which has killed 596 prisoners over that time period.

As with other states, the Catholic bishops of Texas regularly petition the state government to issue clemency to prisoners facing death. Jennifer Allmon, the executive director of the Texas Catholic Conference of Bishops, told CNA that the state’s bishops regularly urge officials to commute death penalty sentences to life in prison.

“We refer to it as the Mercy Project,” she said.

Though popular perception holds that the governor of a state is the ultimate arbiter of a condemned prisoner’s fate, Allmon said in Texas that’s not the case.

“The state Board of Pardons and Paroles has the ultimate authority,” she said. “The governor is only allowed to issue a 30-day stay on an execution one time. He doesn’t actually have the power to grant a permanent clemency.”

“We don’t encourage phone calls to the governor because it’s not going to be a meaningful order,” she pointed out. “The board has a lot more authority.”

Allmon said the bishops advocate on behalf of every condemned prisoner in the state.

“We send a letter to the Board of Pardons and Paroles and copy the governor for every single execution during the time period when the board is reviewing clemency applications,” she said. “Typically they hold reviews about 21 days before the execution. We time our letters to arrive shortly before that.”

“We research every single case,” she said. “We speak to the defendant’s legal counsel for additional information. We personalize each letter to urge prayer for the victims and their families, we mention them by name, and we share any mitigating circumstances or reason in particular that the execution is unjust, while always acknowledging that every execution should be stopped.”

Some offenders, Allmon said, want to be executed. “We do a letter anyway. We think it’s important that on principle we speak out for every execution.”

In Missouri, meanwhile, the state’s Catholic bishops similarly advocate for every prisoner facing execution by the government.

Missouri has been among the most prolific executors of condemned prisoners since 1976. More than half of the 102 people executed there over the last 50 years have been under Democratic governors; then-Gov. Mel Carnahan oversaw 38 state executions from 1993 to 2000 alone.

Jamie Morris, the executive director of the Missouri Catholic Conference, told CNA that the state bishops “send a clemency request for every prisoner set to be executed, either through a letter from the Missouri Catholic Conference or through a joint letter of the bishops.”

“We also highlight every upcoming execution through our MCC publications and encourage our network to contact the governor to ask for clemency,” he said. Individual dioceses, meanwhile, carry out education and outreach to inform the faithful of the Church’s teaching on the death penalty.

What does the Church actually teach?

The Vatican in 2018 revised its teaching on the death penalty, holding that though capital punishment was “long considered an appropriate response” to some crimes, evolving standards and more effective methods of imprisonment and detention mean the death penalty is now “inadmissible because it is an attack on the inviolability and dignity of the person.”

The Church “works with determination for its abolition worldwide,” says the Catechism of the Catholic Church, the revision of which was approved by Pope Francis.

The Church’s revision came after years of increasing opposition to the death penalty by popes in the modern era. Then-Pope John Paul II in 1997 revised the catechism to reflect what he acknowledged was a “growing tendency, both in the Church and in civil society, to demand that [the death penalty] be applied in a very limited way or even that it be abolished completely.”

The Death Penalty Information Center says that 23 states and the District of Columbia have abolished capital punishment. Morris told CNA that bills to abolish the death penalty are filed “every year” in Missouri, though he said those measures have “not been heard in a legislative committee” during his time at the Catholic conference.

Bishops have thus focused their legislative efforts on advocating against a provision in the Missouri code that allows a judge to sentence an individual to death when a jury cannot reach a unanimous decision on the death penalty.

Brett Farley, who heads the Catholic Conference of Oklahoma, said the state’s bishops have been active in opposing capital punishment there after a six-year moratorium on the death penalty lapsed in 2021 and executions resumed.

Oklahoma City Archbishop Paul Coakley and Tulsa Bishop David Konderla “have been very outspoken both in calling for clemency of death row inmates and, generally, calling for an end to the death penalty,” Farley said. The prelates have called for abolition via Catholic publications and in op-eds, he said.

The state’s bishops through the Tulsa Diocese and Oklahoma City Archdiocese have also instituted programs in which clergy and laity both minister to the condemned and their families, Farley said.

The state Catholic conference, meanwhile, has led the effort to pass a proposed legislative ban on the death penalty. That measure has moved out of committee in both chambers of the state Legislature, Farley said.

“We have also commissioned recent polls that show overwhelming support for moratorium among Oklahoma voters, which demonstrate as many as 78% agreeing that ‘a pause’ on executions is appropriate to ensure we do not execute innocent people,” he said.

Catholics across the United States have regularly led efforts to abolish the death penalty. The Washington, D.C.-based group Catholic Mobilizing Network, for instance, arose out of the U.S. bishops’ 2005 Catholic Campaign to End the Use of the Death Penalty.

The group urges activists to take part in anti-death penalty campaigns in numerous states, including petitioning the federal government to end the death penalty, using a “three-tiered approach of education, advocacy, and prayer.”

Catholics have also worked to end the death penalty at the federal level. Sixteen people have been executed by the federal government since 1976.

Executions in the states have increased over the last few years, though they have not come near the highs of the late 1990s and early 2000s. Allmon said Texas is seeing “fewer executions in general” relative to earlier years.

The number of executions was very high under Gov. Rick Perry, she said; the Republican governor ultimately witnessed the carrying out of 279 death sentences over his 15 years as governor. Since 2015, current Gov. Greg Abbott has presided over a comparatively smaller 78 executions.

“It still shouldn’t happen,” she said, “but it’s a huge reduction.”

Trump administration’s move to end annual hunger report meets criticism #Catholic

U.S. Agriculture Secretary Brooke Rollins hosts a USDA all-staff meeting on May 23, 2025, in Washington, D.C. Rollins announced the termination of household food insecurity reports in September 2025. / Credit: USDAgov, Public domain, via Wikimedia Commons

Washington, D.C. Newsroom, Oct 20, 2025 / 05:20 am (CNA).
The Trump administration’s recent decision to cease publishing an annual U.S. Department of Agriculture report on household food insecurity is being met with strong criticism by the Catholic Health Association of the United States, anti-hunger activists, and academics.The last USDA food insecurity report, covering 2024 data, is set for release Oct. 22. On Sept. 20, the USDA, led by Secretary of Agriculture Brooke Rollins, who was appointed by President Donald Trump, announced the termination of future “Household Food Security Reports,” which were first published in 1995 during the administration of then-President Bill Clinton.“These redundant, costly, politicized, and extraneous studies do nothing more than fearmonger,” the USDA said in a published statement.The USDA questioned the legitimacy of the annual reports, saying food insecurity trends have remained virtually unchanged since 1995, “regardless of an over 87% increase in SNAP spending between 2019–2023.”SNAP is an acronym for “Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program,” which according to the USDA “provides food benefits to low-income families to enhance their grocery budget so they can afford the nutritious food essential to health and well-being.” SNAP was formerly known as the “Food Stamp Program.”The Trump administration explained its decision for discontinuing the reports, saying: “For 30 years, this study — initially created by the Clinton administration as a means to support the increase of SNAP eligibility and benefit allotments — failed to present anything more than subjective, liberal fodder.”Responses to terminating the report“I don’t think collecting data about food insecurity across the country is ‘liberal fodder,’” said Lisa Smith, vice president of advocacy and public policy for the Catholic Health Association of the United States, which generally aligns with Church teaching but has clashed with the U.S. bishops in the past on health care issues, such as the Affordable Care Act. “When you don’t have the data, it makes it more difficult to know where the keys areas of need are.”The end of the annual food security report “is going to impact the health of low-income communities,” Smith said. Smith’s concerns were echoed by Colleen Heflin, a professor of public administration and international affairs at Syracuse University and co-author of “Food for Thought: Understanding Older Adult Food Insecurity,” a book published last month along with Madonna Harrington Meyer, a sociology professor at Syracuse.“Without national data from the Current Population Survey on food insecurity, it will no longer be possible to track year-to-year variation in food insecurity due to changing economic and policy conditions,” Heflin said. “This lack of data will make it harder for Catholic charities and other community-based organizations to effectively address food insecurity without a consistent and comprehensive understanding of how food insecurity is changing for different demographic and geographic communities.”Like Smith, Heflin dismissed the Trump administration’s claim that the reports were little more than liberal, redundant fearmongering.“Food insecurity data collection has been a bipartisan issue since the Reagan administration,” since the 1980s, Heflin said. Referring to the Trump administration’s plan to end the annual report, Heflin said she found “both the decision and the justification provided quite shocking and without merit.”James Ziliak, a professor of microeconomics and founding director of the Center for Poverty Research at the University of Kentucky, told CNA that eliminating the USDA household food security reports could reduce public and policy awareness of hunger needs and hinder private-sector responses, such as those by Catholic health and social service organizations.“This report was one of the most widely watched barometers of economic well-being among low- and moderate-income households in the U.S. and provided key information for policymakers, charitable organizations, and researchers,” Ziliak said in an email.Like Smith and Heflin, Ziliak said he did not accept the Trump administration’s explanation for ending publication of the annual report.“This is absolutely not justified, and the timing is especially harmful to public policy as the economy slows down and major cuts are being implemented in the largest federal food assistance program,” he said, referring to SNAP.

unitedyam October 20, 2025

U.S. Agriculture Secretary Brooke Rollins hosts a USDA all-staff meeting on May 23, 2025, in Washington, D.C. Rollins announced the termination of household food insecurity reports in September 2025. / Credit: USDAgov, Public domain, via Wikimedia Commons

Washington, D.C. Newsroom, Oct 20, 2025 / 05:20 am (CNA).

The Trump administration’s recent decision to cease publishing an annual U.S. Department of Agriculture report on household food insecurity is being met with strong criticism by the Catholic Health Association of the United States, anti-hunger activists, and academics.

The last USDA food insecurity report, covering 2024 data, is set for release Oct. 22. On Sept. 20, the USDA, led by Secretary of Agriculture Brooke Rollins, who was appointed by President Donald Trump, announced the termination of future “Household Food Security Reports,” which were first published in 1995 during the administration of then-President Bill Clinton.

“These redundant, costly, politicized, and extraneous studies do nothing more than fearmonger,” the USDA said in a published statement.

The USDA questioned the legitimacy of the annual reports, saying food insecurity trends have remained virtually unchanged since 1995, “regardless of an over 87% increase in SNAP spending between 2019–2023.”

SNAP is an acronym for “Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program,” which according to the USDA “provides food benefits to low-income families to enhance their grocery budget so they can afford the nutritious food essential to health and well-being.” SNAP was formerly known as the “Food Stamp Program.”

The Trump administration explained its decision for discontinuing the reports, saying: “For 30 years, this study — initially created by the Clinton administration as a means to support the increase of SNAP eligibility and benefit allotments — failed to present anything more than subjective, liberal fodder.”

Responses to terminating the report

“I don’t think collecting data about food insecurity across the country is ‘liberal fodder,’” said Lisa Smith, vice president of advocacy and public policy for the Catholic Health Association of the United States, which generally aligns with Church teaching but has clashed with the U.S. bishops in the past on health care issues, such as the Affordable Care Act. “When you don’t have the data, it makes it more difficult to know where the keys areas of need are.”

The end of the annual food security report “is going to impact the health of low-income communities,” Smith said. Smith’s concerns were echoed by Colleen Heflin, a professor of public administration and international affairs at Syracuse University and co-author of “Food for Thought: Understanding Older Adult Food Insecurity,” a book published last month along with Madonna Harrington Meyer, a sociology professor at Syracuse.

“Without national data from the Current Population Survey on food insecurity, it will no longer be possible to track year-to-year variation in food insecurity due to changing economic and policy conditions,” Heflin said. “This lack of data will make it harder for Catholic charities and other community-based organizations to effectively address food insecurity without a consistent and comprehensive understanding of how food insecurity is changing for different demographic and geographic communities.”

Like Smith, Heflin dismissed the Trump administration’s claim that the reports were little more than liberal, redundant fearmongering.

“Food insecurity data collection has been a bipartisan issue since the Reagan administration,” since the 1980s, Heflin said. Referring to the Trump administration’s plan to end the annual report, Heflin said she found “both the decision and the justification provided quite shocking and without merit.”

James Ziliak, a professor of microeconomics and founding director of the Center for Poverty Research at the University of Kentucky, told CNA that eliminating the USDA household food security reports could reduce public and policy awareness of hunger needs and hinder private-sector responses, such as those by Catholic health and social service organizations.

“This report was one of the most widely watched barometers of economic well-being among low- and moderate-income households in the U.S. and provided key information for policymakers, charitable organizations, and researchers,” Ziliak said in an email.

Like Smith and Heflin, Ziliak said he did not accept the Trump administration’s explanation for ending publication of the annual report.

“This is absolutely not justified, and the timing is especially harmful to public policy as the economy slows down and major cuts are being implemented in the largest federal food assistance program,” he said, referring to SNAP.