The administration’s proposal to eliminate Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) funding has set off new fire bells. Advocates, state leaders, and the public are raising deep alarm. The proposed cuts would total an estimated $230 billion over the next decade, significantly impacting food assistance for millions of Americans. Opponents say that such changes would hit sensitive populations, like children, seniors, and low-income families the hardest.
We are pleased that Republican leaders support the proposed legislation. It attempts to reduce their preferred bogeyman of “waste, fraud, and abuse” in entitlement programs. Opponents to the cuts warn that the damage could be both immediate and severe. Over 42 million Americans rely on SNAP to feed their families every day. According to the City, New York City is experiencing unprecedented levels of soup kitchen and food pantry visits. The timing of these proposed cuts puts the future of food security in the region at risk.
Art City Harvest‘s CEO, Jilly Stephens, underscored SNAP’s vital importance in the fight against hunger, calling it “the first line of defense.” She noted that for every meal that food banks serve, SNAP serves nine meals to hungry Americans. This dark comparison underscores the critical need to sustain strong funding for the program in the face of economic adversity.
Long-Term Risks of SNAP Cuts
Marc Vetri, a Philadelphia-based restaurateur and cookbook author, has taken to social media to educate his followers on the long-term risks associated with the proposed SNAP cuts. His point is that slashing SNAP funding is more than just hurting food assistance. It also represents one of the greatest threats to public health and economic stability.
Vetri stated, > “This is the furthest thing from waste. Knowing how to cook is a skill that can literally change a person’s life and give them a skill that can keep them and their family healthy and well-fed by focusing on making healthy choices.”
His advocacy reminds us that we can’t just feed kids. We need to inspire and arm people with the tools they need to support healthier dietary choices. States are already preparing to meet significant new fiscal challenges that would come with these suggested changes. At the same time, the proposed elimination of indirect nutritional education programs such as SNAP-Ed could exacerbate issues with food literacy in low-income households.
The bill makes a significant change in who pays. Beginning in 2028, states will have to pay for a minimum of 5% of SNAP benefits. Unlike T—not to mention its sister program, SNAP—SNAP is currently completely federally funded. This change imposes a new fiscal burden on states. In addition, they now need to identify several million—and in some cases, several billion—dollars in their own budgets to continue to play in the program.
Economic Implications for States
The fiscal burden of this bill goes far beyond affecting just the households that are directly impacted. It’s a huge state budget crisis waiting to happen. Texas Governor Greg Abbott’s recent veto of a state budget measure. This new measure would have provided his state with quicker and easier access to the federal Summer EBT Program for 2027. He cited as one key example the alarming new requirements states would need to follow with funding SNAP.
Governors from 23 of the Democratic-led states expressed their outrage in no uncertain terms in a letter to congressional leaders. Specifically, they called on them to oppose any proposals that would undermine state SNAP programs. They warned that the legislation would force states into an untenable situation: either find new funding to compensate for federal cuts or cut off families from essential food assistance.
“Congress is forcing states into an impossible ultimatum: either come up with new funding to backfill federal cuts or cut off families from essential food assistance,” – Democratic governors from 23 states.
Advocates are adamant that the Trump Administration’s proposed, historic cuts will result in millions of Americans losing access to vital food resources. This will only increase food insecurity around the country. The governors’ letter made clear that states cannot and should not continue to be expected to accept the costly mandates that Congress imposes on them.
“The idea that states will be able to respond to these massive cuts by backfilling with state resources is unrealistic,” – Democratic governors from 23 states.
Criticism of Proposed Legislative Changes
Proponents of the bill argue it goes after the low-hanging fruit of inefficiencies in SNAP. Critics say it cuts one of our most effective weapons against hunger. Smart Transportation advocate Jilly Stephens put this message very succinctly. She explained that SNAP is not only the most effective anti-hunger program which decreases food insecurity instantaneously, it supports local economies.
“SNAP helps low-income working people, senior citizens, the disabled and others feed their families,” – USDA.
The proposed bill would tighten eligibility requirements, raising the work requirement age from 54 to 64 and mandating that parents with children older than six meet certain work criteria. These shifts would result in greater hurdles for families to get the help they need.
House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries and Democratic Reps. They’re suggesting specific changes to protect Medicaid and SNAP from deep cuts. This is a positive sign that lawmakers are growing increasingly aware of the negative downstream effects that would come from drastically cutting appropriations for these key programs.