Tell Congress: Defend America Against Trump’s Power Grab
In President Donald Trump’s first term, his administration tried again and again to take food away from hungry families in need, most often by cutting or adding restrictions to the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP). Although these efforts were largely unsuccessful, the more than 42.6 million Americans who rely on these essential benefits to feed their families now may face even greater threats of rising food costs as conservative Republican lawmakers in Congress and the White House formulate their legislative agenda. They see safety net programs as prime targets for budget cuts even as more than 1 in 8 households already say they have difficulty getting enough food.
This column highlights potential dangers to come in 2025 and beyond, based on previous attacks on households receiving SNAP.
Cuts to SNAP may form part of coming legislative battles
Now that Trump is back in office and Republicans control both chambers of Congress, households receiving SNAP—which provides low-income families with benefits to buy groceries—will likely face many attacks as House Republicans debate how to reduce government spending in a budget resolution needed to kick-start the reconciliation process. Under this process, bipartisan support would not be needed to pass the final package of legislation. Policy changes to take SNAP away from those who lose their jobs, to limit what SNAP can be used for, and to cap maximum benefits arbitrarily are reportedly already on the table as potential sources of cuts to pay for an expensive extension of the 2017 tax bill that would primarily benefit the wealthy. Even if they are not included in a tax package, SNAP cuts may play a significant role in other legislative battles. In fact, before the new administration officially took control, Trump and Elon Musk—who leads the new Department of Government Efficiency—generated opposition to a funding bill set to pass Congress in December 2024 that included continued support to reimburse stolen SNAP benefits.
Congress may also consider converting SNAP into a block grant and having states pay a share of benefits, proposals that were included in the most recent Republican Study Committee budget plan. Such changes would severely limit access to this assistance in times of economic crisis when families often need it the most.
Additionally, Congress will seek to reauthorize the farm bill in 2025, providing another legislative threat that causes families to go hungry. Negotiations on passing a long-term farm bill extension in 2024 stalled, thanks in part to the inclusion of a provision that would have slashed future benefits for all participants by more than $30 billion over 10 years through limiting future adjustments to the Thrifty Food Plan (TFP), which is used to calculate SNAP benefits. The previous bipartisan farm bill enacted in 2018 required periodic reevaluations of the TFP to recognize that the cost of a healthy diet had changed as dietary guidance and food consumption patterns shifted since the plan was established in the 1970s. Some conservatives are pushing for a complete repeal of the 2021 TFP modifications, a move that would reduce food assistance by an estimated $274 billion over 10 years. Centrist Republicans as well as Democrats in the House of Representatives, however, are warning against deep spending cuts.
Proposed cuts to families’ food budgets in Trump’s first term
Trump’s first term also saw repeated attempts to cut families’ SNAP benefits by reducing funding levels—typically totaling 25 to 30 percent cuts in funding—in annual budget proposals that were sent to Congress. Below are some of the most harmful provisions, none of which ended up being implemented:
- Enacting SNAP regulatory proposals: Similar versions of all three SNAP rules on work requirements, categorical eligibility, and standardizing utility cost calculations (see Table 1) were introduced in Trump’s fiscal year 2018 and FY 2019 budgets before being proposed as regulatory changes. Now, conservative Republicans are pushing again to enact similar cuts through legislation.
- Requiring older Americans to keep working in order to receive SNAP: Proposals in the FY 2020 and FY 2021 budgets would have replaced the two existing work requirements with a single policy and expanded it to recipients as old as 64, up from a current maximum age of 59. The FY 2019 budget would have expanded work requirements to recipients as old as 61.
- Requiring states to pay for 25 percent of SNAP benefits: The FY 2018 budget proposal would have shifted a share of benefit costs to the states, forcing them to each come up with the tens or hundreds of millions—or for the largest states, billions—of dollars every year necessary to pay recipients in full by raising revenue or by cutting spending elsewhere. Alternatively, states could have reduced benefit levels to manage costs. Reporting on recent House Republican conference meetings suggests similar proposals are being explored again.
- Shifting a portion of benefits to food boxes: The largest singular cut Trump attempted was to withhold a portion of benefits and instead provide recipients a box of nonperishable food. Under the plan, the government would theoretically buy the boxes at a reduced cost compared with sending recipients their full benefit and pocket the savings. However, the resources needed to administer a system that delivers millions of food boxes every month would have been unprecedented, inefficient, and restrictive, compared with the reliability and freedom of having benefits delivered on a card. In addition, SNAP dollars are spent at local stores in communities across the country: Roughly 80 percent of SNAP-authorized retailers are small businesses. This proposal would have harmed small businesses across the country, not just consumers.
- Capping state administrative funding: The federal government typically covers half of state administrative expenses, so putting a cap on the amount states receive would have severely limited their ability to invest in innovative strategies that aim to make processes more efficient, protect program integrity, and reduce costs in the long term.
Potential rule changes would significantly reduce SNAP access
Despite Trump’s previous attempts to cut SNAP through regulatory changes largely failing in his first term, there is reason to be prepared for additional attacks on this front. After winning the 2024 election, Trump selected multiple authors of Project 2025, a far-right road map for a conservative government, to join his administration. The Project 2025 playbook suggests enacting major SNAP rule changes pursued in Trump’s first term and aspects of the public charge rule. (see Table 1) It also suggests that the TFP should remain cost-neutral, something the administration can ultimately decide during the next scheduled TFP reevaluation in 2027 if Congress has not already limited the scope of future adjustments.
The potential harms would also be felt on the state level, from approving or disapproving state waivers and special demonstration projects to encouraging particular state policy options. For instance, in 2019, the Trump administration sent a letter to state agencies to highlight an option to disqualify from SNAP parents who do not cooperate with the state child support agency or who fall behind on payments. In other words, children would be punished for their parent being behind on child support payments. The Biden administration later urged states who may be considering using this option to evaluate the impact it would have on access to critical food assistance among vulnerable populations, particularly children. Indeed, research shows this policy does not increase child support paid, and worsens the financial stability of sanctioned parents.
Conclusion
Trump made repeated attempts to take food away from people and make groceries more expensive during his first term. So far, it seems likely he will try again during the next four years. But history also shows that these attacks have failed before and can fail again, so long as others are willing to fight to protect access to basic human needs and safeguard the interests of American families.
The author would like to thank Natalie Baker, Bobby Kogan, Lily Roberts, Doug Molof, Emily Gee, Rosa Barrientos-Ferrer, Ben Greenho, Kennedy Andara, Cindy Murphy-Tofig, Steve Bonitatibus, and Keenan Alexander of the Center for American Progress for their support and feedback. Additionally, the author would like to thank Katie Bergh of the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities for her valuable review.