Sen. Kennedy: The Census Counts Her as Poor Because It Never Counts Her Benefits

Sen. John Kennedy of Louisiana has a simple question for the Census Bureau: how can a family be counted as poor after the government hands it tens of thousands of dollars a year in benefits? The answer, which most Americans have never been told, is that the nation’s official poverty rate does not count most of that help at all.

Kennedy first pressed the point at a Senate appropriations hearing in February 2026. It is worth revisiting now: on September 15, the Census Bureau released its annual poverty report, and the same old measure produced the same old headline number.

One household, line by line

At a February 10, 2026, hearing of the Senate Commerce, Justice, Science Appropriations Subcommittee, Kennedy walked Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick, whose department oversees the Census Bureau, through a single example: a mother with two children. Her poverty threshold, Kennedy said, is $27,000. She earns $11,000 a year. By the official measure, she is poor.

Then he listed what else she receives, according to an account of the hearing by the Census Project: $3,400 in refundable tax credits, $9,200 in food stamps, $9,500 in housing subsidies, $900 in utility subsidies, $16,000 in Medicaid, $3,100 in free school lunches and $6,600 in TANF cash welfare. Kennedy put her total at $64,100 a year, tax-free. In a National Review op-ed published the next day, he itemized a $4,100 earned income tax credit separately from a $3,400 child tax credit, which accounts for most of the gap between the items read aloud and his total.

“Is she living in poverty?” Kennedy asked. Lutnick said it did not sound like it. “No, but your Census Bureau counts her as being poor,” Kennedy replied.

Lutnick’s answer was candid. “It sounds to me that you and I are going to spend some time together and we’re going to change it, but I did not know that,” he said, adding, “And it sounds like something that we should add.”

Kennedy was explicit that his purpose was “not to punish people who need help.” His target was the yardstick, not the benefits.

How the official number works

Kennedy is right about the mechanism. According to the Census Bureau’s own guidance, the official poverty measure “uses money income before taxes” and excludes “Noncash benefits (e.g. food stamps and housing subsidies)” as well as tax credits. The measure was developed in the mid-1960s, with thresholds derived from the cost of a minimum food diet multiplied by three. Apart from annual inflation adjustments, its basic design has changed little since.

That design has a strange consequence. Kennedy told the subcommittee that Washington spends about $1.4 trillion a year on people in need, yet food stamps, housing assistance, refundable tax credits and Medicaid cannot move the official rate. Congress could double those programs tomorrow, and the headline number would not budge, because it was never looking at that money.

On September 15, 2026, the Census Bureau reported that the official poverty rate fell 0.5 percentage points in 2025, to 10.2 percent, with 34.5 million people counted as poor. That is good news. But it is still a measure of cash, not of how people actually live.

The honest caveats

Two points deserve to be stated plainly, because readers check.

First, the Census Bureau does publish a second number. The Supplemental Poverty Measure adds the value of in-kind benefits such as nutrition assistance, subsidized housing and home energy help. But it also subtracts taxes, work-related costs, child support paid out and spending on medical care and health insurance premiums, and it uses different thresholds. The result is not 1 percent. For 2025, the bureau put the supplemental rate at 13.1 percent, higher than the official rate.

Kennedy’s 1 percent figure comes from a different approach. In his op-ed, he said that if non-cash benefits and cash payments are counted, “the actual percentage of Americans with incomes at or below the poverty line is only 1 percent.” At the hearing, he called the roughly 11 percent official figure “a lie.” That is his estimate, and other analysts would put the number elsewhere depending on what they count.

Second, the single biggest item in his example, $16,000 in Medicaid, is the value of health coverage. It is real and valuable, but it does not pay the rent or buy groceries. Even the Census Bureau’s supplemental measure does not count it as income.

What Kennedy wants

Kennedy has introduced the Poverty Statistics Enhancement Act, S. 3756, which would require the Census Bureau to include the Congressional Budget Office’s poverty methodology in its reporting. On February 26, he took the issue to the Senate floor. “They need to redefine the poverty level in America and the definition of poverty,” he said. “He can do it with a rule or regulation. I’ve introduced a bill.” And, addressed to Lutnick: “Mr. Secretary Lutnick, with all the respect I can muster, please fix this.”

His argument survives every caveat. Policymakers on both sides cite the official rate to argue about whether anti-poverty programs work, yet the official rate is blind to most of those programs by design. A country that spends heavily to fight poverty deserves a number that can tell whether the money is doing anything.

You cannot grade a trillion-dollar effort with a test that was built never to see it.

Editor’s note: This article covers a February 2026 Senate hearing exchange that drew renewed attention in September 2026, when the Census Bureau released its 2025 poverty figures.

More from The Rothman Report

Netanyahu Answers Obama’s Belfast Attack: ‘We’re Not the Belgians in the Congo, We’re Jews in Judea’Lifelong Democrat Sheriff Quits the Party After Locals Told Him to Leave for Backing Rogers and JamesTaco Bell Coworker’s Tip Stopped a Self-Described Neo-Nazi’s Alleged Plot Against an Aurora Hindu Temple