California to deploy National Guard to support food banks, fast-track funding as Trump’s shutdown strips families of food benefits – California State Portal | CA.gov

Report on California’s Response to Federal Food Benefit Delays

Executive Summary

On October 22, 2025, the State of California initiated a significant humanitarian mission to counteract the effects of a federal government shutdown on food security for its residents. The shutdown has caused delays in the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP), known locally as CalFresh, affecting 5.5 million individuals. In response, the state is mobilizing substantial financial and human resources. This action directly supports several United Nations Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), primarily SDG 2 (Zero Hunger) and SDG 1 (No Poverty), by providing a critical safety net for vulnerable populations facing food insecurity.

State-Level Intervention and Mobilization

Operational Strategy

The state’s response is a multi-faceted strategy designed to ensure the continued operation of food distribution networks. This intervention is critical for maintaining progress toward SDG 10 (Reduced Inequalities) by shielding low-income families from the immediate consequences of federal inaction.

• Financial Allocation: The expedited release of up to $80 million in state funds to support local food banks.
• Personnel Deployment: The humanitarian deployment of the California National Guard to assist with logistical challenges at food banks, such as distribution and organization.
• Volunteer Coordination: The mobilization of California Volunteers and the California Service Corps to supplement food bank staffing and operational capacity.

Historical Precedent and Institutional Capacity

This mission structure is based on a proven model implemented in March 2020 during the COVID-19 pandemic. The previous deployment successfully supported the distribution of over 800 million meals, demonstrating the state’s capacity for rapid and effective response. This reflects a commitment to SDG 16 (Peace, Justice and Strong Institutions) by leveraging state institutions to ensure public welfare and social stability.

Alignment with Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs)

Primary Goals Addressed

California’s initiative is fundamentally aligned with the core principles of the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development. The state’s actions provide a clear framework for achieving key SDGs at a sub-national level.

1. SDG 2: Zero Hunger: The primary objective is to prevent hunger and ensure access to safe, nutritious, and sufficient food for the 5.5 million CalFresh recipients. The support for food banks is a direct measure to achieve food security.
2. SDG 1: No Poverty: By replacing suspended federal food benefits, the state is implementing a social protection system to mitigate poverty and prevent families from falling below the poverty line due to the loss of essential support.
3. SDG 3: Good Health and Well-being: Ensuring consistent access to food is foundational for public health. This intervention prevents malnutrition and other negative health outcomes associated with food insecurity.

Supporting Goals and Partnerships

The collaborative nature of the response highlights the importance of integrated approaches to sustainable development.

• SDG 10: Reduced Inequalities: The program specifically targets vulnerable and low-income households, which are disproportionately affected by the federal shutdown, thereby working to reduce socio-economic inequalities.
• SDG 17: Partnerships for the Goals: The mission exemplifies a multi-stakeholder partnership, uniting the Governor’s Office, the California Military Department, state volunteer organizations (Cal Volunteers), and local food banks to achieve a common objective. This collaboration is essential for effective implementation and resource mobilization.

Conclusion

The State of California’s response to the federal shutdown and subsequent delay in SNAP benefits serves as a critical measure to protect its residents from hunger and poverty. By mobilizing state funds, the National Guard, and volunteer corps, the government is taking decisive action that strongly aligns with the Sustainable Development Goals. This initiative underscores the state’s commitment to building resilient institutions and fostering partnerships to ensure the well-being of all its citizens, particularly in times of federal crisis.

Analysis of the Article in Relation to Sustainable Development Goals

1. Which SDGs are addressed or connected to the issues highlighted in the article?

• SDG 2: Zero Hunger

  This is the most central SDG to the article. The entire text focuses on the state of California’s emergency response to a delay in SNAP (Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program) food benefits, which threatens the food security of millions. The deployment of the National Guard and the allocation of state funds are direct actions to combat hunger and ensure people have access to food.

• SDG 1: No Poverty

  The article addresses poverty by focusing on the disruption of a key social safety net, CalFresh (SNAP). These benefits are designed to help low-income individuals and families afford food. The article mentions that the shutdown is “pulling food from the tables of families who were already struggling to get by,” directly linking the issue to poverty and the need for social protection systems.

• SDG 16: Peace, Justice and Strong Institutions

  The article highlights the role of institutions in providing essential services. It contrasts the failure of the federal government (“Trump’s failure isn’t abstract,” “federal cowardice has failed families”) with the responsive and effective actions of state-level institutions. The Governor’s office, the California National Guard, and California Volunteers are shown as effective institutions stepping in to fill a critical gap left by the federal shutdown.

• SDG 17: Partnerships for the Goals

  The response described in the article is a clear example of a multi-stakeholder partnership. It details the collaboration between various state entities, including the Governor’s Office, the California National Guard, California Volunteers, and Cal OES, all working together on a “humanitarian mission” to support food banks and ensure food distribution.

2. What specific targets under those SDGs can be identified based on the article’s content?

1. Target 2.1: By 2030, end hunger and ensure access by all people, in particular the poor and people in vulnerable situations, including infants, to safe, nutritious and sufficient food all year round.

   The article directly addresses this target by describing actions to ensure 5.5 million vulnerable Californians continue to have access to food despite the interruption of federal benefits. The goal is to prevent hunger among this specific population.

2. Target 1.3: Implement nationally appropriate social protection systems and measures for all, including floors, and by 2030 achieve substantial coverage of the poor and the vulnerable.

   The article discusses the failure of a major national social protection system (SNAP/CalFresh) and the state’s immediate implementation of an alternative measure (state funding and logistical support for food banks) to maintain coverage for the vulnerable population that relies on it.

3. Target 16.6: Develop effective, accountable and transparent institutions at all levels.

   The article serves as a public announcement of the state government’s decisive action, demonstrating its effectiveness and accountability to its citizens in a time of crisis caused by a shutdown at a higher level of government. The deployment of the National Guard and the fast-tracking of funds are examples of an institution responding effectively to the needs of its people.

4. Target 17.17: Encourage and promote effective public, public-private and civil society partnerships, building on the experience and resourcing strategies of partnerships.

   The coordinated effort between the California National Guard, California Volunteers, and the Governor’s Office to support food banks exemplifies a public partnership aimed at achieving a common humanitarian goal. The article explicitly mentions this collaboration: “In collaboration with Cal OES and Cal Volunteers, we are dedicated to this critical mission.”

3. Are there any indicators mentioned or implied in the article that can be used to measure progress towards the identified targets?

• Number of people at risk of hunger: The article explicitly states that “5.5 million Californians” are affected by the delay in SNAP benefits. This number serves as a direct indicator of the scale of the food insecurity challenge being addressed (relevant to Target 2.1).
• Financial resources mobilized: The state is “fast-tracking up to $80 million in state funds.” This monetary value is a clear indicator of the resources being committed to combat hunger and support the social protection gap (relevant to Targets 2.1 and 1.3).
• Number of personnel deployed: The article mentions the deployment of the “California National Guard and California Volunteers,” including “California Service Corps members.” While a specific number of personnel is not given for this mission, it is an indicator of the human resources mobilized for the partnership (relevant to Target 17.17).
• Number of meals served: The article references a past, similar mission during the pandemic where the state’s efforts resulted in serving “more than 800 million meals.” This is mentioned as a benchmark, implying that the number of meals distributed is a key performance indicator for the success of this type of operation (relevant to Target 2.1).

4. Summary Table of SDGs, Targets, and Indicators

Source: gov.ca.gov