Comedian and conservative commentator Steven Crowder brought one of his famous “Change My Mind” segments to the University of Oklahoma.
This time, the “Louder with Crowder” podcaster decided to go after SNAP benefits, one Democrats’ favorite means of attacking conservatives during the government shutdown. The Democrats strangely claimed that President Donald Trump was responsible for the shutdown, and subsequently letting millions of needy people starve.
The truth is not so simple, as putting SNAP in the spotlight has uncovered numerous cases of fraud with dead people getting benefits, one person getting SNAP in six different states, and hundreds of thousands getting benefits twice.
Crowder took the position for his segment, “End all SNAP benefits,” with one exchange going viral. It showed the conversation between Crowder and a young woman on campus that day — she appeared to finally start to come around to the notion that government is not your nanny or overseer to fulfill every wish.
Crowder visited the university in the first week of October, as The Oklahoma Daily, the school newspaper, reported. The “Change My Mind” episode was streamed on the social media platform Rumble on Monday.
🚨 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
“For me its pretty simple. You pay, you choose. I pay – the taxpayer – I choose,” he told the student about the array of foods and beverages available through SNAP, not all of them nutritious.
“Milk, eggs, meat, produce, and fabric softener, otherwise get to work. Is that fair?” he asked. (Crowder was misinformed about the “fabric softener” part of that list. Household products such as fabric softener aren’t covered by SNAP.)
Does Generation Z increasingly appear to be anti-woke and even conservative in some ways?
The young lady gave a simple “no” in response.
“There should be some choice in that,” she told him.
“Our soldiers get MREs and they have to pay for them. Why should someone who’s able-bodied, choosing not to work, get anything better than our soldiers?” he asked.
Crowder then pulled out his phone to show her all the things SNAP recipients could get. “Pre-filled pumpkin buckets with assorted Halloween candy. Does that seem like helping someone with a tough break? And how do we make the case to low-income Americans that they should fund that?”
“Well a lot of them [SNAP recipients] have children,” she responded only for him to quickly shoot back, “So do the people paying taxes who are working for a living.”
“OK, that’s a fair point,” she conceded.
That’s a breakthrough moment.
For a debate, this is an extremely mild mannered exchange, and one that shows not every college student is too far gone.
Certainly, why should SNAP recipients — presumably needy people who’ve fallen on hard times — have an array of choices that promote a comfortable lifestyle?
They should not feel comfortable; they should feel motivated to change their circumstances and support themselves, something they won’t do if they’re using tax dollars on candy, junk food, and other luxuries.
Moments like this are why the left resorts to violence and suppression.
And they’re why conservative organizer Charlie Kirk engaged in the “Prove Me Wrong” college campus campaign that, tragically, got him killed.
It just takes one moment to spark a profound change in someone’s thinking.
Today, she wonders about the utility of SNAP, tomorrow she might realize that her side’s backward views on gender and race are destroying this country.
Advertise with The Western Journal and reach millions of highly engaged readers, while supporting our work. Advertise Today.
