Published June 12, 2025

Senate Republicans have introduced a reconciliation bill that echoes the House’s approach to the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP), proposing sweeping and deeply concerning cuts. While not identical, the Senate proposal poses a similarly serious threat to food assistance for millions of Americans.

This bill would slash billions in food assistance for millions of Americans to help pay for a $3.8 trillion package that overwhelmingly benefits the wealthy. It is a terrible tradeoff: A handful of billionaires get richer, while working families face weaker supports to meet their basic needs, rising hunger, and deeper poverty. These proposed cuts pose a direct threat to economic resilience, health, school children, farmers, grocers, rural food systems, and community stability across the country. Though framed as a fiscally responsible measure, the reality is that these changes shift costs onto families and communities, while fueling long-term harm across sectors.  

SNAP is not a driver of the federal deficit. It is the tax policies handing trillions in breaks to billionaires and large corporations that have exploded the federal deficit. The 2001–2003 Bush-era tax cuts, made largely permanent in 2013, have cost the U.S. over $5 trillion1. The 2017 Trump Tax Cuts and Jobs Act added an estimated $1.7 trillion, delivering permanent corporate tax cuts and windfalls to the ultra-wealthy. The new Trump tax cuts included in the budget reconciliation would further increase the deficit by $3.8 trillion.   

SNAP is a strategic investment in the health, well-being, and future of our nation. For families with young children, SNAP increases the likelihood of affording enough food by 22 percent and reduces the chances of cutting children’s meal sizes by 33 percent compared to income-eligible non-participating families. Children in SNAP households exhibit better health, growth, and emotional and academic outcomes compared to their peers in non-participating income-eligible families. For adults, SNAP participation is associated with improved mental health and a reduced risk of obesity, diabetes, and hypertension, particularly for those who participated during early childhood. Additionally, mothers who participate in SNAP during pregnancy are less likely to have low-birth-weight babies, thereby avoiding various adverse health outcomes. 

SNAP serves as a critical economic stabilizer. It expands in times of crisis, such as the Great Recession and the COVID-19 pandemic, supporting families and stimulating local economies. SNAP dollars are spent quickly and locally — at grocery stores, farmers’ markets, and small businesses — creating ripple effects throughout communities. Cutting this lifeline amid high food prices and economic uncertainty is a recipe for deeper hardship, both for families and local economies. 

These proposals, nearly identical to those in the House version, are not about reform or efficiency. They are about dismantling a proven anti-hunger program to pay for an agenda that serves the wealthiest Americans. If enacted, these proposals would inflict long-term harm on children, older adults, veterans, military families, and low-wage workers — the very people SNAP is designed to support. 

Summary of SNAP-Related Provisions (Sections 10101–10108) 

Administrative Cost Sharing
Beginning in fiscal year 2027, the federal government will reduce its share of SNAP administrative costs from 50 percent to 25 percent, requiring states to pay the remaining 75 percent. 

Impact: Shifts a larger financial burden to states, reducing the capacity of state agencies to administer SNAP effectively. This could delay access and strain operations. 

Expanded Work Requirements, i.e., Time Limits (participants must prove that they work at least 20 hours a week; if not, they can only receive SNAP for three months in three years).  

Raises the work requirement age for Able-Bodied Adults Without Dependents (ABAWDs) from 54 to 64, narrows the definition of a dependent child to those under age 10, and limits caregiving exemptions.  

Impact: Significantly expands the population subject to time limits, increasing the risk of food insecurity for older adults and households with children. Under this proposal, a parent or caregiver could be cut off from SNAP simply for not meeting the 20-hour-per-week work requirement — even if they’re already providing unpaid care or face barriers to employment. But while the adult loses benefits, the household’s food needs and expenses remain the same or may even increase. 

Research shows that SNAP’s time limits are not effective at increasing employment. Instead, they often result in eligible individuals losing benefits due to burdensome paperwork and administrative red tape. Since these policies were first introduced under the 1996 Personal Responsibility Act, deep poverty has increased among childless adults, underscoring that these measures punish rather than empower. 

Imagine a single working mom who relies on her 62-year-old retired mother to care for her 10-year-old child before and after school. The grandmother receives SNAP benefits to supplement her limited income. Under this bill, the grandmother would need to find and maintain a 20-hour-per-week job to keep her benefits, even though she’s already providing critical, unpaid care.   

Consider a low-wage unwed couple in a rural community raising two homeschooled children over the age of 9. The father works full-time, and the mother stays home to care for and educate their children. Currently, the family’s SNAP benefits, combined with the father’s income, help meet their basic needs. Under this proposal, the mother would lose her SNAP eligibility unless she works at least 20 hours per week, because caring for children at home would no longer qualify as a valid exemption. She would be forced to either find nighttime work while her children sleep or abandon the family’s commitment to homeschooling. That means fewer groceries and more stress for a family already on the edge. 

Internet Cost Exclusion
Households can no longer include internet service costs when calculating their excess shelter deduction for SNAP benefits. 

Impact: Penalizes families with low incomes who rely on internet access for work, education, and health care. This reduces SNAP benefits despite the internet being an essential household expense. 

Restrictions on Noncitizen Eligibility
It maintains current eligibility for U.S. citizens, nationals, certain lawful permanent residents, and Cuban nationals but removes access for those with humanitarian protections. 

Impact: This proposal removes SNAP eligibility for several categories of lawfully present immigrants, including refugees, individuals granted asylum, and certain survivors of domestic violence, human trafficking, or other humanitarian protections. These are among the most vulnerable individuals, often rebuilding their lives after crisis or persecution. 

This provision does little to reduce costs — 95.2 percent of people who receive SNAP are U.S. citizens — but it causes significant harm by excluding people already facing hardship and uncertainty. It is both unnecessary and unjust. 

SNAP-Education
Defunds the program, effective in fiscal year (FY) 2025.

Impact: Cuts off vital nutrition education and obesity prevention efforts that support nutritious food choices for families, especially children. 

State Matching Requirements for Benefit Costs
For the first time in SNAP’s history, beginning in 2028, states would be required to contribute toward the cost of SNAP food benefits, not just administrative costs. The required match would be tied to each state’s SNAP payment error rate: 

  • States with less than 6 percent error rate: 0 percent match. Based on FY 2023, Idaho, Iowa, South Dakota, Vermont, Utah, Wisconsin, and Wyoming would not have a cost share. However, this 0 percent match is not a guarantee; all of these states have previously approached or exceeded the 6 percent threshold, meaning even a slight increase in error rates could trigger new financial obligations. 
  • States with 6 percent–8 percent error rate: 5 percent match. Based on FY 2023, it would impact Alabama, Kentucky, Louisiana, Minnesota, Montana, Nevada, Nebraska, Ohio, Texas, and Washington. 
  • States with 8 percent–10 percent error rate: 10 percent match. Based on FY 2023, it would impact Arkansas, Colorado, Connecticut, Illinois, Massachusetts, North Dakota, North Carolina, and Virginia. 
  • Over 10 percent error rate: 15 percent match. Based on FY 2023, it would impact Alaska, Arizona, California, Delaware, Florida, Georgia, Hawaii, Indiana, Kansas, Maine, Maryland, Michigan, Mississippi, Missouri, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, Oklahoma, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, South Carolina, Tennessee, West Virginia, and the District of Columbia. 

This will significantly increase states’ financial responsibility and alter the current federal-state structure, where the federal government pays 100 percent of SNAP food benefits. While states currently fall into different brackets based on their FY 2023 error rates, these categories are not fixed, and we cannot know how the proposed increase in administrative costs and reduction in federal support will affect states’ ability to maintain low-error rates. Many could shift into higher-cost brackets over time. 

Impact: Forces states to absorb additional costs or cut program eligibility. This undermines SNAP’s role as a federally funded basic needs program that responds to economic need, especially during downturns. Higher state burdens would likely result in reduced access for eligible families. 

Thrifty Food Plan (TFP) Re-Evaluation
Limits benefit reevaluations to every five years and mandates cost neutrality.  

Impact: Prevents benefits from increasing alongside actual food costs, risking benefit erosion over time. 

Utility Deduction Limits  

Restricts utility deductions to households with elderly or disabled members only.  

Impact: Reduces SNAP benefit amounts for families with low wages or limited incomes who struggle with high utility bills but do not meet the new eligibility criteria. This change ignores the real burden of utility costs on working families, particularly in high-cost-of-living states. 

Waiver Restriction 

It limits the USDA’s ability to grant work requirement waivers. Only areas with an unemployment rate above 10 percent would qualify for waivers, removing the current flexibility based on local job availability. 

Impact: Strips states of flexibility to respond to local economic conditions. Many areas with limited job opportunities but unemployment rates below 10 percent would no longer qualify for waivers, leading to a loss of benefits for residents.  

These cuts will also ripple through communities. State agencies may face layoffs due to rising administrative and added benefit costs, even as they are held to strict performance standards. Local grocery stores — especially in rural areas — may see fewer SNAP customers, threatening their viability. If these stores close, families are left with fewer food options, longer travel distances, and reduced access to essential services, weakening both community infrastructure and local economies. 

Take Action  

This is a moment of reckoning. We must reject false fiscal narratives and stop using working families as bargaining chips to advance tax breaks for billionaires. Congress should be strengthening our public programs, not gutting them.  

The proposed changes would force states to make impossible choices: raise taxes, cut essential services, or restrict access to SNAP — especially dangerous during economic downturns or natural disasters, when need is greatest. In the Senate version, the state administration and new state benefit match are delayed until after the next midterm elections, masking the choices the states will have to make and the full harm of this bill.  

Use the FRAC Action Network to send a message today directly to your U.S. Senators and urge them to vote NO on these harmful provisions.