FRAC Chat

Published May 16, 2025

House Agriculture Republicans advanced a damaging budget reconciliation bill this week on a party-line vote of 29–25, including an estimated $300 billion in cuts to the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) over the next decade. These cuts follow demands from President Trump for a “big, beautiful bill” — one that prioritizes billionaires and Wall Street over working families and local communities. 

Despite rhetoric about “Making America Healthy,” this proposal dismantles the nation’s most effective anti-hunger program while simultaneously advancing historic cuts to Medicaid and other pivotal economic mobility programs. 

 Make no mistake: This proposal would slash billions in basic food assistance for millions of Americans across the country.  

One of the most alarming provisions is the restructuring of SNAP’s funding model. Currently, SNAP is a fully federally funded entitlement: The federal government covers 100 percent of food benefit costs and splits administrative costs with states. This proposal would reverse that and impose an unfunded mandate on states. 

 Under the new proposal: 

• States would begin paying at least 5 percent of food benefit costs in fiscal year (FY) 2028, and up to 25 percent if they have higher error rates. Based on FY 2023 data, 28 states would fall into the 25 percent bracket. 

• Federal support for administrative costs would drop from 50 percent to 25 percent, shifting 75 percent of the burden to states. 

This would force states to choose between raising taxes, cutting other programs, or limiting SNAP access — particularly dangerous during recessions or disasters when enrollment surges. These changes are delayed until after the next midterm elections, allowing proponents to obscure the long-term consequences. 

See the table below that shows the proposed fiscal impact on states, including increased administrative and benefit costs under the new funding model. These projections are estimates based on fiscal year 2023 data. Important to note that these funding and expense models are reactive to enrollment and the economy.  For fiscal year 2024 SNAP enrollment and other SNAP facts per state, see here.  

Additional harmful provisions include: 

• capping Thrifty Food Plan updates at every five years with no cost adjustments, eroding benefit value; 

• expanding time limits and work requirements for adults up to age 64; 

• narrowing caregiving and parent exemptions, putting more families and older adults at risk; 

• restricting utility deductions to only elderly or disabled households; 

• imposing a zero-tolerance policy for payment errors; and 

• eliminating all funding for SNAP-Ed, which provides essential nutrition education to families with low incomes. 

The expanded time limit proposal is particularly harsh: expanding the age group from 18– 54 to 18–64, and narrows the definition of a dependent child to those under age 7. These individuals must prove they work 20 hours per week or lose benefits after three months within a three-year period.  

Consider a single working mother who depends on her 62-year-old retired mother — a former teacher — to care for her 8-year-old child before and after school. The grandmother receives SNAP to supplement her Social Security. Under this bill, she’d be required to find and maintain a 20-hour-per-week job to keep her benefits, despite already providing essential unpaid care. 

The proposal is especially disconnected from the current labor market. As of April 2025: 

• 4.2 million people were involuntarily working part-time due to a lack of full-time opportunities. 

• 5.7 million were unemployed and actively seeking work. 

• The average duration of unemployment was 23.2 weeks; 2.6 million were unemployed for over 15 weeks, and 1.6 million for 27 weeks or more. 

SNAP is designed as a temporary support during hardship. Most participants use it for six to 24 months and the number one reason people are forced to enter the program is job loss, followed by having an ill household member. Exit rates vary: Those with stable, full-time jobs, and higher education tend to leave the program quickly, while families living below the poverty line, single-parent households, or individuals with chronic illnesses often need longer support. 

Punitive measures won’t reduce hunger — they will increase it. If Congress wants to reduce SNAP costs, it should focus on strengthening the job market and lowering food prices, not cutting off lifelines for the most vulnerable. 

Timeline 

The bill passed from the House Agriculture Committee and other committees with reconciliation instructions now head to the House Budget Committee, which will begin markup of the full reconciliation bill, and then to the House Floor for a proposed vote next week. 

Call to Action 

At a time when grocery prices remain high, housing costs are surging, and families are stretched thin, this bill chooses to cut from those with the least to provide for those with the most. It erodes the historic federal guarantee of food assistance, shifts costs to states unequipped to bear them, and ultimately increases hunger and hardship nationwide. 

SNAP must remain intact as a fully federally funded, responsive solution that protects Americans from hunger during downturns, disasters, and hard times. Anything less is not only harmful, it is economically reckless. 

Advocates are urged to immediately contact their House Members to raise the alarm and help stop this harm. Visit FRAC’s Legislative Action Center for advocacy resources to oppose the proposed draconian cuts to SNAP, including sending a message directly to Members of Congress via FRAC’s Action Network(LiNk)  and sharing FRAC’s state SNAP participation fact sheets ,LINK) budget reconciliation leave-behind, quotes from SNAP participants on why SNAP matters, and talking points. Be sure to use FRAC’s SNAP digital toolkit to get loud on social media.