[ CYPHER CODE #361 ]
A program built for hunger should not look like a perks card.

[ CYPHER CODE #362 ]
The quickest way to fix SNAP is to make it impossible to misuse.

[ CYPHER CODE #363 ]
An MRE would expose the difference between need and convenience.

BRIEFING

Grant here. With the recent government shutdown and the absolute EBT meltdown that followed, many people are now putting the SNAP program under the microscope, questioning how this program literally became so bloated. Both literally and figuratively. There are a lot of suggestions floating out there on solutions to improve SNAP, but one that's especially interesting is the good ol' MRE. Let’s break it down.

The idea is really not that complicated; basically, take all the folks buying copious amounts of junk food with their EBT card and instead give them the same government-provided food our military eats: MREs.

This meme lands so brilliantly because it exposes something Washington never wants to say out loud. If SNAP were actually treated like a crisis program, the way the military handles rations, the entire structure would collapse overnight. The joke is not about feeding people MREs. The joke is that the program depends on looking nothing like a safety measure and everything like a spending card.

Then there's this Crowder clip that makes the same point from another angle.

Crowder sat down with a liberal defending SNAP, and what started as a debate about “choice” quickly turned into a breakdown of how the program actually works. He pointed out that soldiers receive basic MREs and still pay for them out of pocket, while SNAP dollars routinely cover snacks, treats, and even pre-filled buckets of Halloween candy.

SOURCE

🚨 JAW-DROPPING moment as Steven Crowder stuns liberal when he exposes the reality of SNAP. She admits he's RIGHT.

"Our soldiers get MREs and they have to pay for them. Why should somebody able-bodied, choosing not to work, get ANYTHING better than our soldiers?"

CROWDER:… pic.twitter.com/4g9xhki0fV

— Eric Daugherty (@EricLDaugh) November 17, 2025

And Crowder isn't speaking out of turn here. He's absolutely on point when he says that those using SNAP are infinitely more unhealthy than those who aren't.

The nutrition data exposes the core flaw in the program’s design. Low-income adults outside of SNAP already face higher obesity risks, but participation in the program pushes those numbers even further upward. At the same time, a major share of SNAP spending goes straight to sugary drinks, snacks, desserts, and candy. Taken together, the pattern makes one thing clear. A system meant to protect health is quietly incentivizing the opposite.

SOURCE

SNAP was originally aimed at alleviating hunger, but subsidizing all calories makes little sense today. Figure 4 shows that low‐​income adults and children have higher obesity rates than other Americans. Also, SNAP recipients are more obese than low-income nonrecipients of the program. A 2021 USDA study found that adult men in SNAP had a higher obesity rate (37 percent) than low-income nonrecipient men (32 percent) and that adult women in SNAP had a higher obesity rate (52 percent) than low-income nonrecipient women (40 percent).^9\

...

However, SNAP does not deliver “nutritious food” and “healthy eating patterns” for many recipients. Recipients can use their EBT cards for virtually any food item in grocery and convenience stores except alcohol, hot items, and items for on‐​premises consumption. SNAP can be used to purchase soda, candy, potato chips, desserts, and many other unhealthy foods. A 2016 USDA study using point-of-sale data found that 23 percent of purchases by SNAP households were sugary drinks, desserts, salty snacks, candy, and sugar, which is generally called junk food.¹⁷ With SNAP purchases of more than $100 billion a year, that would mean more than $23 billion of junk food a year.

DEBRIEFING

Look, at the end of the day, we all know that the government isn't going to limit SNAP users to only MREs, but the comparison works because it exposes a truth the government never wants to acknowledge. SNAP only functions the way it does because no one treats it like an emergency program. If the benefit looked anything like the rations given to soldiers, the usage and political support behind it would evaporate overnight.

That is why the Crowder exchange landed so brilliantly. The moment he contrasted what soldiers eat with what SNAP routinely funds, the conversation flipped. You cannot call MREs “good enough” for active-duty service members and then defend candy buckets, snack aisles, and holiday treats as essential anti-hunger tools.

In the end, SNAP’s problem isn’t about lending help to those in need; it's about having practically zero guardrails. What the program desperately needs is some type of structure, some type of accountability.

Otherwise, something as drastic as MREs might actually be the only feasible solution.

NOW YOU KNOW

SNAP works because it feels like money. MREs work because they don’t.