In his second term, President Donald Trump aims to dismantle U.S. social welfare programmes developed in the 1960s during the “War on Poverty,” despite ongoing public need. Jalyn Shahid-EL examines how these cuts disproportionately impact low-income Americans, particularly rural white voters who support Trump. She argues racial prejudice and hierarchy may outweigh economic self-interest, raising the question: is this a war on poverty or a war on poor Americans?
In the 1960s, U.S. President Lyndon B. Johnson launched the “War on Poverty” to address social inequalities in struggling communities. Today, President Donald Trump’s administration seeks to weaken and completely abolish these safety nets, which a significant portion of his constituents rely on. Cuts to Medicaid, SNAP (Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program), housing assistance, and other social programmes disproportionately impact low-income Americans, particularly rural white voters who backed Trump in the 2024 election. The Trump administration’s regressive attempts to improve economic efficiency raise the question: Has the war on poverty become a war on poor white Americans?
Many poor white Americans who supported Trump did so in the belief that his policies would target Black and Brown communities—not themselves. Their support stems from “perceived racial status threat”—deeply ingrained beliefs of white supremacy and entitlement, and a rejection of any policies that would even remotely place them on equal footing with Black Americans. Their commitment to racial prejudice and hierarchy blinds them to economic inequality. Ultimately, Trump’s policies have not only failed to address poverty but have actively contributed to the worsening conditions of the very people who elected him. To understand the pattern of why many poor white Americans vote against their interests, we must discuss the deeper psychological roots of white entitlement.
The role of white entitlement and racial hierarchies
Coined in many academic disciplines, “white entitlement” is an idea at the intersection of whiteness and privilege that helps explain why working-class white Americans hurt themselves by voting for Trump. W.E.B. Du Bois’s concept of “psychological wage” further explains why some poor white voters continue to support policies that harm them as long as the racial hierarchy remains. The Trump administration exploited this, using racial tensions as a weapon to justify regressive politics.
A National Bureau of Economic Research (NBER) study found that respondents were asked about their beliefs on the racial distribution of welfare recipients. Results concluded that respondents overestimated that 37 per cent of Black people and 39 per cent of white people received welfare benefits. In reality, Black beneficiaries only make up 21 per cent, far from the 37 per cent of the respondents’ belief.
The NBER study further included party affiliation as a determining factor for biased ideology. The results found that “conservatives and moderates are significantly more likely to overestimate the share of welfare recipients who are Black than liberals.” These findings indicate that Trump’s strategic approach relies on undermining evidence-based and inclusive social policy, and in doing so, he continues to weaponise racial tensions for political gain.
Despite aid being essential to millions of white Americans, the continued reinforcement of long-standing racial stereotypes surrounding welfare recipients by the Trump administration perpetuates fear and resentment. For example, the term “welfare queen” came into conversations about poverty in the 1970s during the Reagan administration. This stereotypical language shames Black women who receive welfare based on assumptions rather than their actual realities, which stems from the belief of who is the “most” deserving of government aid. In other words, once accessible welfare programmes developed a negative connotation because they made non-recipient families and working-class people internalise their struggles as not deserving enough. The Clinton administration solidified the link between the poor and poverty by codifying it through policy and reshaping welfare dependency, further enhancing the “welfare queen” narrative, as mentioned by New America.
The Trump administration reinforces this rhetoric in how Trump himself speaks about immigration, shifting the conversation to frame non-white communities against immigrants as a national threat. Notably, during Trump’s first term, his detest for immigrants, especially Black and Brown immigrants, was met with strong family separation policies. As this Just Security article highlights, the Reagan-era stereotypes painted Black women as “irresponsible” women who make many babies to benefit from government welfare checks. Over time, racial and welfare discussions changed, creating another stereotype where “Black children born on US soil [were] for…citizenship.” This narrative fuelled discussions of “whataboutism” and strong views of separating “anchor babies” from “welfare queen” mothers.
The dual nature of the “war” on poverty and poor white Americans
The Price of Poverty
The Trump administration plans to abolish essential programmes, including the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) and federal rental aid. If implemented, his proposed cuts would seriously harm at-risk communities that depend on the services during emergencies. Disasters like Hurricane Helene in 2024 made this evident, as struggling communities were left heavily reliant on federal aid and demonstrated the essential part of these programmes.
By reconsidering and potentially modifying this funding, the administration is introducing uncertainty within the nation and deepening the very crisis it claims to address, all while promoting Trump’s vague slogan of “putting America first”. Eight days into Trump’s new administration, the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) issued a temporary pause on certain federal financial assistance programmes to review spending priorities, reported by The 19th. Although this pause was lifted after legal changes were made the following day, the confusion already had a lasting impact on its beneficiaries, shifting to intensified negative stereotypes and racist beliefs about social welfare recipients.
Government Neglect and Disaster Failures
While Trump’s funding review did not completely halt all social programmes, the damage was already done, especially during Trump’s confusing “federal freeze“. As a result, many Americans who rely on consistent access to critical services like SNAP benefits, particularly in rural areas, faced confusion and panic. In September 2024, the devastation from Hurricane Helene foreshadowed the chaos that the federal freeze would create during the 2025 federal review. Hurricane Helene targeted the Western region of North Carolina, leaving the state’s relief plan and FEMA (Federal Emergency Management Agency) under scrutiny as communities struggled to get aid. During his “Tour of Hurricane Helene Disaster Site”, Trump made it clear that he intended to significantly alter FEMA by “fundamentally reforming [it] and overhauling”, as reported by The American Presidency Project. With the changes to FEMA, the affected community felt abandoned and uncertain about their future, particularly among working-class white Americans who make up a crucial demographic in Trump’s political base.
Final Realities
Currently, Trump’s politics reinforce these illusions of an “America First” agenda while undermining his voter base—majority poor white Americans. Recently, Time reported the Department of Government Efficiency’s (DOGE) plan to eliminate jobs and funding, forcing jobs at the Social Security Administration and their offices to close. Some policymakers even fear new “identification policies”, introduced by the Senate or House, which increase the difficulties of accessing these offices, including requiring beneficiaries and applicants to come into their offices or call as opposed to online access. As a result, rural communities (full of his supporters) will face challenges due to the inaccessible nature of these codified policies.
So, is this a war on poverty or a war on poor white Americans? …It’s both! Poor white Americans hope and aspire to “get ahead” of people they view as beneath them, particularly Black people. To be seen in the same class as other minorities goes against their fundamental principles of entitlement and some of their beliefs about white entitlement. Therefore, their vote in hopes of getting ahead ends up impacting them more, as this demographic does not tend to vote where they socially, politically, or economically stand.
In the end, despite the policies favouring the capitalist wealthy, these fundamentals contradict the U.S.’s self-proclaimed role as a representative and advocate of human rights. Its own citizens, especially rural poor white Americans, are left to face the systematic economic obstacles they had hoped to combat by voting for Trump. The same government that touts American exceptionalism is completely disregarding the well-being of one of its most vulnerable populations, with 73.9 per cent of majority-white rural counties supporting Trump in 2024 & 52 per cent of Trump supporters came from families earning $50,000-$99,999 in 2023. By provoking a race war with extreme political rhetoric, Trump fails to address these concerns, taking advantage of their economic instability.
All articles posted on this blog give the views of the author(s), and not the position of the Department of Sociology, LSE Human Rights, nor of the London School of Economics and Political Science.
Image credit: René DeAnda
The post Trump’s war on poverty: poor white Americans and the social safety nets first appeared on LSE Human Rights.
This post was originally published on LSE Human Rights.