Republicans seek US$290B SNAP cut despite health and nutrition experts’ outcry
The Republican-led US House Agriculture Committee are proposing a slash to the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) and shifting the US$290 billion toward farm policy over ten years. In response, nutrition and health organizations warn of dire consequences for people’s health and the economy.
To accomplish the budget cut, the anti-hunger program may face tightened eligibility, increased work requirements, reduced state administrative reimbursements, and elimination of specific programs.
“For far too long, the SNAP program has drifted from a bridge to support US households in need to a permanent destination riddled with bureaucratic inefficiencies, misplaced incentives, and limited accountability,” states House Agriculture Committee chairman Glenn Thompson.
He believes the proposal will restore the program’s original intent — be a temporary help to people while encouraging them to work, close loopholes that states exploit, and protect taxpayer money.
In response, Crystal FitzSimons, president of the Food Research & Action Center (FRAC), urges every member to keep children, families, older adults, veterans, farmers, rural communities, and grocers top of mind. “This means no cuts to SNAP. Period.”
“SNAP is a lifeline for over 42 million Americans, fueling health and opportunity, as well as the economy in every congressional district. Slashing billions from SNAP would deepen hunger, increase poverty, and weaken communities,” she states.
“Instead of shifting costs to states, knowing that states cannot take these added costs on, and cutting SNAP, we must ensure access to the nutrition everyone needs to thrive. The markup is an opportunity for the committee to do the smart thing and the right thing: protect SNAP.”
The Center for Science in the Public Interest (CSPI) warns the bill will require states to pay parts of SNAP starting FY28, with Alaska, South Carolina, Hawaii, Delaware, and New Jersey, hit first.
Organizations unite to protect health and nutrition
Organizations joined to protest and warn of the health and economic security consequences of an “unprecedented drop” in SNAP and Medicaid for millions of US citizens. The bill adds new work requirements for parents and older people between 55 and 65. It will eliminate SNAP-Ed, a program combining education, marketing, family support, and community outreach, warns CSPI.
Republicans on the House Agriculture Committee aim to cut US$290 billion from the SNAP program and redirect it to farm policy, a move critics say would deepen hunger and strain state budgets.Additionally, the bill would result in health care coverage losses, forcing rural hospital shutdowns and tight state budgets.
The cuts could lead to over a US$113 billion reduction in states’ GDPs, warn organizations like Families USA, FRAC, First Focus Campaign for Children, Hunger Free America, National Rural Health Association, Alliance to End Hunger, Community Catalyst, MAZON: A Jewish Response to Hunger, and Children’s HealthWatch.
They urge Congress to reject the proposals, protect the food assistance programs, and support those vulnerable to hunger and poverty. Children, older adults, disabled people, and rural households would significantly suffer. FitzSimons believes the “bill is a cruel attempt to drastically shrink access to critical food assistance and deter enrollment.”
Statements against budget proposals
FRAC says SNAP saves US$1,400 in healthcare costs per Medicaid enrollee annually. It also generates jobs, improves health, and strengthens local economies.
“Deep cuts to Medicaid and SNAP would be a devastating one-two punch for working families, resulting in significant health care coverage losses, forcing rural hospitals to close or scale back services, and throwing state budgets into crisis, all while making it more difficult for families to put food on the table,” comments Anthony Wright, executive director of Families USA.
“The same members who ran for office promising lower costs and cheaper groceries for everyone are now overseeing the shredding of our nation’s social safety net, with no plans to support working families or lower costs for people. We should all be asking every member of Congress who is considering this budget why they are willing to harm working families in their district just to pay for a tax break for billionaires.”
Bruce Lesley, president of First Focus Campaign for Children, notes that the proposed cuts are an “attack on children” that would snatch healthcare and nutrition from them, “forcing impossible choices between food and medicine for families already struggling.”
“Hungry children can’t learn, sick children can’t thrive, and children without support can’t reach their potential. The consequences extend far beyond empty stomachs and untreated illnesses — they diminish academic achievement, worsen health outcomes, and perpetuate poverty.”
According to Joel Berg, CEO of Hunger Free America, reducing nutrition and health care funding to provide tax cuts for the wealthy is “morally problematic and economically reckless.” He adds that it would harm farmers and lead to layoffs throughout the food supply chain.
Nutrition and health organizations warn the proposed cuts could result in over $113 billion in GDP losses across states, jeopardize rural hospitals, and reduce food access for millions.Mona Shah, senior director of policy and strategy at Communityt, says that the bill would make things worse at a time when people are forced to choose between putting food on the table or going into medical debt.
“If lawmakers are serious about lowering costs, they should start by reining in the corporate profiteering driving up health care and food prices, not taking support away from those already struggling. Health and economic justice go hand in hand — and a future where everyone has what they need to thrive is not only necessary but also possible.”
Why SNAP needs reform
Thompson claims the proposed plan will restore SNAP’s integrity while helping fund farm bill programs. “Since 2019, SNAP costs have skyrocketed from US$60 billion to US$110 billion annually — an 83% increase — while enrollment has grown from 36 million to 42 million.”
“Unlike every other state-administered entitlement program, the SNAP benefit is 100% funded by the federal government, resulting in minimal incentive for states to control costs, enhance efficiencies, and improve outcomes for recipients.”
According to Thompson, less than one-third of non-disabled adults on SNAP, who are supposed to be working, receive benefits.
“States that administer the program collectively make close to US$13 billion per year in erroneous payments — both overpayments and underpayments — to participants in the SNAP program. This number has nearly doubled since 2019. This is a slap in the face to taxpayers, but more importantly, it is a disservice to the truly needy who rely on SNAP,” he continues.
Thompson’s critiques that delays leave eligible families in need waiting for assistance. “SNAP is not working as Congress intended… An efficiently delivered benefit, with a meaningful incentive to work toward independence, is a win for the taxpayer and the SNAP recipient.”
Advocates argue that while SNAP supports over 42 million Americans and reduces healthcare costs, the GOP proposal frames it as inefficient and misaligned with its original intent.In March, over 1,800 organizations urged the House and Senate to protect SNAP and child nutrition programs from cuts.
Investment in farm bill programs
Thompson argues that his proposal is needed to prevent the largest tax increase in US history on families, farmers, and small businesses while helping fund the Trump Administration.
He notes that the 2018 Farm Bill has led to high input costs, falling commodity prices, and margin squeezes — “by the end of 2024, farm debt reached its highest level in more than 50 years.”
Thompson highlights that producers are facing volatile markets, rising costs, regulatory burdens, animal disease outbreaks, labor shortages, and supply chain issues.
“We need a strong farm safety net and forward-looking policy that offers producers real certainty.”
“I assume my colleagues need reminding of contemporary farm bills where farmers were stripped of billions in exchange for additional funds in nutrition, or where nutrition saw a 1% decrease in the deficit reduction exercise of 2014, yet farmers had to face an astonishing 25% cut,” he comments.
Meanwhile, Governor Tina Kotek counters: “When you cut SNAP, you’re not cutting bureaucracy. You’re cutting a child’s dinner. You’re cutting their breakfast, you’re cutting their family’s dignity.”
