FRAC Chat

Published September 19, 2025

Food insecurity is one of the strongest drivers of poor health outcomes in the U.S., which is why the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) is vital. Research shows that hunger, not individual food choices, is the most damaging health consequence of poverty, contributing to chronic disease, poor child development, and billions in avoidable health care costs each year.

Restricting SNAP is a short-sighted strategy that fails to address the root causes of a poor diet: limited resources, affordability, and proximity to healthy food. SNAP recipients’ diets mirror those of other low-income individuals not on SNAP. The Trump administration’s efforts to push states, for the first time in history, into adopting them are motivated less by health concerns and more by weakening the program. The recent cuts under H.R. 1, totaling a $187 billion reduction, advanced by President Trump and the majority of congressional Republicans, add administrative burdens and jeopardize small rural retailers, where store closures could devastate entire communities. The National Grocers Association projects that SNAP cuts alone could reduce sales by 6 percent, threatening the survival of stores that are often the only food source within 100 miles in rural areas.

Proposals to transform SNAP into a “nanny state” are not only unworkable and un-American; they distract from proven solutions that benefit society as a whole: such as improving job opportunities for full-time living- wage employment, increasing access to healthy food, and enhancing transportation networks. The Trump administration’s approach is particularly troubling when viewed alongside its handling of Medicaid cuts and rural health funding. SNAP was not the only program impacted by H.R. 1. It also reduced federal Medicaid spending by $911 billion over 10 years and will lead to 10 million more people becoming uninsured. To soften the blow in rural states, H.R.1 created a $50 billion Rural Health Fund. But this fund covers only one-third of the $137 billion in projected rural Medicaid cuts over 10 years, and a mere 5 percent of total reductions. Analysts agree that the fund is poorly designed, temporary, and insufficient, with vague criteria, limited transparency, and broad discretion left to the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS), raising concerns about political influence.

Worse, the administration has promoted state applications for SNAP restriction waivers as a “positive factor” in securing this funding. This practice pits state Medicaid and SNAP agencies, often separate entities, against one another, forcing SNAP administrators already burdened by H.R. 1 implementation and error-rate reduction mandates to divert scarce resources into unworkable waiver processes. Such policies not only undermine SNAP’s effectiveness but also risk increasing error rates, destabilizing program administration, and worsening conditions in rural communities that already face limited food retail options and fragile health care systems. By tying much-needed rural health funds to SNAP restrictions, the administration is effectively shifting blame for its own Medicaid cuts while jeopardizing two critical safety net programs at once.

Advocates must act now by engaging their state health care and SNAP agencies to flag the serious risks these proposals create — including heavy administrative burdens, the loss of rural retailers, worsening food insecurity, and erosion of dignity for recipients. Urge state officials to focus instead on proven solutions such as strengthening benefits, expanding access to affordable fresh foods, and protecting the dignity of every SNAP participant.