Why the poor vote matters: Under the right threshold, it could be you

Late last month, President Trump addressed the latest Census report, Poverty in the United States: 2025 , saying, “We have the best poverty numbers ever in the history of the country,” and “there is less poverty now than in any time in the history of the country.”

This is only true if we take the most limited data from the report and ignore the harsh reality facing the nation.

The president was referring to the 10.2 percent poverty rate as measured by the official poverty measure. This is, however, the wrong data to be looking at. Instead, we should focus on the supplemental poverty measure data.

While the official poverty measure is based solely on pre-tax household income, the supplemental poverty measure accounts for taxes, non-cash benefits, necessary out of pocket expenses and geographic variations in housing costs. Developed by the National Academy of Sciences, it is widely recognized by economists, social scientists and government agencies as a more accurate measure of economic hardship.

According to the supplemental poverty measure, 13.1 percent — or approximately 44 million people — were poor in 2025.

Although a better gauge, the supplemental poverty measure is still constrained by a notoriously low threshold. The Center for Poverty and Social Policy at Columbia University shared estimates with the Kairos Center, where I work, based on data from the 2026 Annual Social and Economic Supplement to the Current Population Survey.

The estimates show that, depending on location and whether they rent or have a mortgage, an individual’s income must be between approximately $15,500 and $28,000 to meet the threshold. Similarly, the income for a two-adult, two-child household must be between about $33,000 and $61,000.

In other words, these numbers are still too small to capture the real economic hardship households are facing, especially amid rising costs of living, defunded social welfare programs, the 2025 tariffs, war on Iran and other harmful policies. With heating costs on the rise, many are anticipating a “heat or eat” winter coming soon.

Another compounding factor is H.R. 1 , the “One, Big Beautiful Bill Act” which went into effect last year. It made the largest cuts to the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program — the country’s most extensive food security program — in its entire history. Since then, 5.5 million people have lost their SNAP benefits, including over 1 million children. The effects of these cuts travel through the food supply chain , from growers to grocers, retailers, community-based networks, churches, SNAP recipients and their families, while food pantries face shortages nationwide.

What’s happening to SNAP will soon happen to healthcare. In September, 750,000 people lost their Affordable Care Act coverage. Additionally, America awaits more of the devastating $1 trillion in cuts to Medicaid , which currently provides healthcare to 80 million people and accounts for one-fifth of all hospital care spending . As Medicaid loses hundreds of billions of dollars, millions of people will lose coverage, and millions more will be affected by job losses, reduced services and hospital closures .

To estimate the impact of these conditions, the Kairos Center and the Center on Poverty and Social Policy at Columbia University worked to identify the population living at or below 250 percent of the poverty threshold. Depending on where someone lives, this would include individuals earning up to approximately $71,000 or a family of four with household incomes of up to $153,000.

Using this broader range reveals a far more vulnerable, unstable terrain: 53 percent of the population — or 180 million people — are poor, low-income or economically fragile, living within one or two emergencies of economic ruin. The first emergency might push a family into unsustainable debt burdens, while the second means losing their electricity, heat, water or home.

These 180 million people are disproportionately people of color: 71.8 percent of the Latino/Hispanic population (50.3 million), 69.3 percent of the Black, non-Latino population (27.3 million), 48.5 percent of the Asian American-Pacific Islander population (12.3 million) and 56.6 percent (8.1 million) of a multi-racial, non-Latino population. The white non-Latino population has the lowest rates at 43.4 percent but the greatest number of people, 82 million, experiencing economic fragility. This threshold also includes more than 60 percent of our children (44 million) and the majority of our elders (34 million).

Notably, this crisis isn’t just affecting one region of the country but unfolding from coast to coast and everywhere in between.

These conditions help explain why affordability has become the defining issue of the midterm elections — and why this massive population of 180 million people, including at least 135 million adults and tens of millions of eligible voters, matters in November.

This low-income electorate has often accounted for one-third of the eligible voting population. Although these 80-90 million people represent a massive, potentially tide-shifting segment of voters, their turnout rate is often 20 percentage points lower than higher-income voters. Structural barriers, voter suppression and intimidation contribute to these turnout disparities, along with the general belief that their priorities are not politically relevant.

This year, the needs of these 180 million poor, low-income and economically fragile households are a majority issue. These voters are hungry, uninsured, watching fuel costs rise and fearing eviction, wondering which bills can wait until next month. They are tired of being over-policed, in debt and under-employed. They are ready for a change.

Shailly Gupta Barnes is the director of policy and research at the Kairos Center and was the founding policy director of the Poor People’s Campaign .