SNAP Cuts Are Coming

People need care, not a cold shoulder

Since President Trump was inaugurated for a second time, on January 20, he and his co-president Elon Musk have been rampaging through federal agencies, canceling contracts, freezing funding, and firing staff en masse, all of it as unjustifiable and senseless as it is illegal. The destruction of the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID)—and cancelation of most of its programs—has cost thousands of lives already. But Trump so far has not sabotaged the federal nutrition assistance programs¹, the largest of which is the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP), commonly called food stamps. Why? Likely because SNAP is an entitlement program and not as easy to shut off as foreign aid grants. But make no mistake: substantial SNAP cuts are coming.

The GOP-controlled House committed to a budget plan that calls for $2 trillion in spending cuts. This is only possible through deep and painful cuts to SNAP and Medicaid and, indeed, the House budget resolution demands $230 billion in cuts to SNAP and other agriculture programs, and $880 billion in cuts to health programs, primarily Medicaid. The House and Senate must agree to identical budget resolutions before proceeding to budget reconciliation, where the two chambers would negotiate specific cuts to meet the targets set in the budget resolutions. But we know the parameters of how they want to cut SNAP.

SNAP cuts would be a combination of benefit reductions and eligibility restrictions. The GOP wants to cut SNAP by reversing the science-based update to the Thrifty Food Plan, expanding SNAP work requirements (again), shifting benefit costs to states for the first time in SNAP history, and eliminating broad-based categorical eligibility (BBCE).

Thrifty Food Plan

The Thrifty Food Plan (TFP) is the lowest cost plan set forth by USDA, and it is the basis for determining SNAP benefit levels. As instructed by the 2018 Farm Bill, USDA revised the TFP in 2021, based on a scientific review of the adequacy of the frugal food plan for affording a nutritious diet. This was the first time the TFP had been revised in 50 years. It resulted in a 23% increase in SNAP benefits. Congressional Republicans saw the TFP revision as overreach by USDA because it increased benefits without going through Congress—even though Congress passed the Farm Bill authorizing the review that led to the increase. But the TFP revision did not see SNAP participants livin’ la vida loca: the net effect gave recipients about $6.40 per person per day. Rolling back the TFP update would cut that down to $5. As it is, SNAP benefits tend to run out 2-3 weeks into the month. What food would you buy if you could only spend $5 per day?

Work Requirements

SNAP has had work requirements from its inception in the 1970s. For its first 20 years, SNAP rules required participants who are age 16-59 and able to work to meet what’s called the general work requirement, which mandates that such participants:

• register for work if they are not working at least 30 hours per week,

• participate in SNAP Employment and Training (SNAP E&T) or “workfare” (assigned by the state SNAP agency), and

• accept a suitable job if offered.

There are exceptions for people caring for a child under age 6 or meeting work requirements for another program, like Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF), along with a few other exceptions. But participants subject to these rules are not allowed to quit or reduce their hours below 30 hours a week. Failing to meet these requirements could lead to suspension from SNAP for a month or longer, or permanent disqualification.

In 1996, the Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act (PRWORA) added a new set of work requirements: the ABAWD work requirement and time limit. ABAWD stands for Able-bodied adults without dependents, but it defines dependents differently than the general work requirement. The ABAWD rules exempt people caring for people in their household who are under age 18, at least age 60, or who have a disability. The ABAWD rules require participants to work and/or take part in SNAP E&T at least 80 hours per month. Failure to comply cuts participants off of SNAP after 3 months, and may have to wait 3 years to apply again. Initially, the ABAWD rules applied to applicants age 18 to 49. The Fiscal Responsibility Act (FRA) of 2023 gradually increased the upper age limit to 54.

Now Republicans want to “strengthen” work requirements by increasing the age limit even further. Rep. Dusty Johnson (R-SD) introduced a bill to increase the ABAWD age limit to 65, ignoring the reality of age discrimination in the workplace. Rep. Johnson’s America Works Act also would require parents of children age 7 to 18 to comply with the work requirements.

Republicans also want to expand work requirements by limiting states’ ability to waive the work requirements in areas with high unemployment. Currently, states can waive a portion of their SNAP caseload from the work requirements if they live in a high-unemployment area, and states have the flexibility to calculate local unemployment rates for this purpose. Project 2025 would prohibit states from using these waiversunless the state unemployment rate is higher than 6% for more than 24 months and prohibit states from using their own local unemployment rate calculations.

Rep. Johnson said “Work is a powerful pathway out of poverty.” Here’s the thing: we know that it is not. In 2022, 30 million workers in their prime working years earned less than $16.98 per hour, with no benefits, job security, or control over their work schedules. The federal minimum wage is $7.25 per hour for most hourly wage jobs, but $2.13 per hour for tipped employees. This is not enough to meet basic needs, like food. In California, a minimum wage worker would have to work 96 hours per week to afford a modest one-bedroom apartment. For tens of millions of jobs, work is not only not a pathway out of poverty, it is a guarantee that workers will be trapped in poverty.

For single parents, work is only possible if they have access to safe, affordable child care. We are in the midst of a child care crisis in America, where the US Department of Labor reported last year that child care costs exceed the cost of rent in some counties. That’s if parents can even find open child care slots. Getting assistance with child care is not easy.

“‘I need a job to prove that I need daycare, in order to get a job? What kind of fuckery is that?’ she asks the social worker, who nods like she’s heard it all before.” Alex (played by Margaret Qualley) in Maid, the Netflix series adaptation of the memoir of the same name by Stephanie Land

[https://www.theguardian.com/culture/2021/dec/14/maid-the-bleak-humour-of-netflixs-hit-show-rings-true-to-victims-and-thats-not-all-it-gets-right]

In the end, work requirements are actually just paperwork requirements, and excuses to cut people off of aid. Expanding SNAP work requirements to include older applicants will not result in more older Americans working. It will result in more older Americans going hungry, at a time when homelessness among older Americans is on the rise. Ending waivers from the ABAWD requirements for high-unemployment areas will not magically create jobs for people to fill. People will just go without food.

Shift Costs to States

Perhaps the most draconian and damaging proposal is the GOP push to shift SNAP benefit costs to states. Since its inception, SNAP benefits have been fully paid for by the federal government. States generally pay about 50% of the administrative costs of operating SNAP. Congressional Republicans want to make states pick up part of the tab for SNAP benefits, for the first time in SNAP history. In 2018, Trump’s budget called for leaning on states to pay 10% of SNAP benefits initially, increasing to 25% over time. One of the best features of SNAP is that it responds to downturns in the economy. When times get tough, SNAP benefits reach more people with more aid; these benefits are then spent in the local community, stimulating the economy. If states have to pick up some of the tab for benefits, SNAP will be pitted against other state funding priorities, giving states an incentive to cut people off of assistance. One of the best tools states have been using to increase SNAP participation is Broad-Based Categorical Eligibility (BBCE). States faced with budget crunches would quickly stop using BBCE, making many SNAP participants suddenly ineligible.

BBCE

Republicans want to do away with BBCE entirely. They see it as a gimmick to get around federal rules and give people more help than they “need”, again showing that punishing the poor is a higher priority than cutting red tape and supporting people. BBCE is a clever bit of policymaking that allows states to align eligibility policies across multiple programs. If you participate in TANF, you’re likely eligible for SNAP. If you get SNAP, you’re probably eligible for Medicaid. So BBCE allows states the flexibility to modify federal policies to streamline program access. For example, if a state does not consider assets in TANF eligibility, then it can waive the asset test in SNAP. If a state’s TANF income limit is 200% of poverty, it can use that for SNAP instead of the federal 130% limit.

Government agencies spend a lot of time checking people’s income, assets, citizenship, etc. to determine if they are eligible for SNAP, TANF, Medicaid, General Assistance, housing vouchers, child care assistance, and many other forms of support. BBCE arose from saying, “Hey, instead of checking people’s income and assets over and over for every program they apply for, wouldn’t it be better to check their eligibility once and, if they’re eligible for, say, TANF, just assume they’re also eligible for SNAP and other programs?”

BBCE is a way to shed or modernize outdated federal policies that make little sense now, like the SNAP asset limit (link to prior post on asset limits), and the artificially low federal poverty guidelines. The federal SNAP asset rules exclude the value of homes, but include things like checking and saving accounts, vehicles, even burial plots. If you need help affording food because you lost your job or your wages can’t keep up with the cost of food, the last thing you need is to have to track down the asset value of a burial plot you inherited from your great grandparents.

If BBCE ends, SNAP applicants in every state will be subject to a $3,000 asset limit ($4,500 for households with elderly or disabled members) that has barely budged in 50 years. All vehicles will count, meaning families may have to lose their cars to get help with food. Households with income above 130% of the poverty limit will lose eligibility. Many states use BBCE to increase the asset limit to 185% or 200% of poverty, which is sensible because the poverty definition is outdated, and families well above the poverty limit are struggling to meet basic needs.

The phrase “perfect storm” is overused. But the proposals to cut SNAP benefits, while the Trump administration is deporting immigrants en masse (including many agricultural workers) and imposing tariffs on our neighbors and allies, is indeed a perfect storm of misery for tens of millions of Americans. Unless these SNAP cuts are blocked, hunger in America will soar. Poverty is traumatic, and people going through trauma need trauma-informed care, not the cold shoulder.

1. The Trump administration did cancel the $660 million Local Food for Schools program that enabled schools to buy food directly from local farms, and the $420 million Local Food Purchase Assistance Cooperative Agreement, which facilitated food banks’ access to fresh produce from local farms.