By Teon Hayes

Millions of families depend on the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) to put food on the table, but its future is at risk. The House budget resolution proposes slashing at least $230 billion from the program—a staggering 20 percent reduction in total funding that would be the largest cut in SNAP’s history. To make matters worse, these cuts are happening at a time when the cost of living and food prices are rising across the country, and a deep sense of unease is growing among historically marginalized communities as they face uncertainty about their safety and what lies ahead. The country is already in a fragile state—now is not the time to deepen the crisis by cutting essential benefits. 

To grasp the impact of these cuts, it’s crucial to understand SNAP’s history. Originally launched in 1939 as the First Food Stamp Program, SNAP has long helped families combat hunger by expanding their food purchasing power. These current, unprecedented threats would undermine the program’s core mission.  

The cuts proposed in the House budget resolution are not about eliminating fraud, waste, or abuse. Rather, members of Congress are simply trying to reduce the number of people who receive benefits so they can use the savings to help fund tax breaks for the nation’s wealthiest individuals and corporations. Such reductions do not serve the best interests of people experiencing poverty. Instead, they represent an attack on families with low incomes who rely on SNAP to put food on the table. 

To illustrate the human impact, consider the story of Sarah, a mother of two and an elementary school paraprofessional in Georgia, who relies on SNAP to help feed her family. Each of these proposed changes will not affect families in isolation. When benefits are reduced, food choices restricted, and eligibility tightened, Sarah will face impossible trade-offs between food, rent, and child care. The loss of one safety net provision will cascade into others, pushing Sarah’s family and thousands of others deeper into financial insecurity and making it even harder for them to regain stability. 

Reversing the 2021 Thrifty Food Plan Update and Freezing Future Adjustments 

In 2021, SNAP benefits were updated to better reflect the true cost of a nutritious diet. Even after the update, SNAP benefits in Georgia are roughly $6.15 per person per day. If this update is reversed, Sarah’s benefits will shrink, making it even more difficult to buy enough food for her family. Instead of fresh produce, she will be forced to rely on cheaper and less nutritious options to stretch her benefits as far as possible. Sarah knows how to prepare a balanced, healthy meal, but she lacks affordability and access. She makes food choices based on what is available and what will keep her children full the longest. Unfortunately, the only corner store within five miles of her home recently closed due to economic downturns, leaving her with even fewer options. If future SNAP benefit adjustments are limited to inflation alone, the program will continue to fall behind the rising cost of food, making survival even more difficult. 

Restricting Food Choices 

Limiting what kinds of food SNAP recipients can purchase would make grocery shopping even more challenging for Sarah. With few grocery stores in her neighborhood, her primary option was the now-closed corner store, which already had a limited selection of fresh food. If new restrictions prevent her from buying certain items such as “accessory foods”, she may struggle to find eligible foods nearby, creating more stress for Sarah and her family. 

It is important to recognize that restricting food choices is about policing people experiencing poverty, not improving public health. These restrictions contradict the very purpose of SNAP, cutting benefits while simultaneously limiting food options only deepens food insecurity.

Expanding Time Limits and Work Requirements 

As a working mother, Sarah already juggles multiple responsibilities. Expanding strict work requirements would mean that if she ever lost hours to take care of a sick child or deal with an emergency, she could lose her SNAP benefits altogether. These requirements ignore the unpredictable challenges faced by workers earning low wages and push struggling families deeper into hardship. 

Recent proposals extend work requirements for able bodied adults without dependents who have children ages 7–17 and older adults up to age 65. These changes disregard a fundamental reality: the majority of people who rely on public benefits already work, have disabilities, or serve as full-time caregivers. Increasing work requirements exacerbates poverty without addressing its root causes.

Shifting SNAP Costs to States 

If Congress forces states to cover a portion of SNAP benefits, states will be burdened with significant new costs, leading to funding shortfalls and benefit cuts. In times of economic downturn, when more families need assistance, Sarah could see her benefits reduced or face longer wait times for help. In addition, the strain on states has affected other critical programs Sarah utilizes such as Medicaid and child care subsidies. States struggling to fill the funding gap may impose stricter eligibility requirements, shorten benefit periods, or cut the size of individual SNAP allotments, deepening food insecurity for millions. 

Before advocating for this shift, Congress should revisit history. When states were given more responsibility for social safety net programs, such as with “welfare reform” in 1996, caseloads dropped significantly—not because fewer people needed assistance, but because states imposed stricter rules and administrative burdens to limit access. The result? More families going hungry and a weakened safety net that failed to reach families in need. 

Furthermore, giving states flexibility in how they allocate funding for critical programs can be a dangerous game. We see this failure playing out in Mississippi today. Despite having one of the highest poverty rates in the country and a population of 2.9 million residents, only 1,600 families received Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) benefits in 2024. This staggering disparity highlights how states can divert funds away from direct support for families in need, often based on political priorities rather than actual demand. If SNAP follows a similar path, states could spend federal dollars on anything except ensuring people have food. 

We cannot allow basic needs like food to become a political battleground. Shifting SNAP costs to states would repeat these failures, leaving millions at greater risk of hunger simply because of where they live. 

The Bigger Picture 

Sarah’s story is not unique. It reflects the daily struggle of over 42 million individuals who are parents, seniors, and workers that rely on SNAP. The choices Congress makes determine whether a child goes to bed hungry, whether an elderly neighbor skips meals to afford medication, or whether a single mother like Sarah is forced to choose between rent and groceries. SNAP is not just a program. It is a lifeline that allows families to afford food and hold onto hope in the face of hardship. Weakening it would mean more empty refrigerators, more children going to school on empty stomachs, and more families pushed further into crisis. We cannot allow that to happen.