Tipping Point: What Happens When SNAP Gets Cut

As Congress barrels into one of the most contentious budget cycles in years, the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) – the country’s largest anti-hunger program – is facing existential threats. At least $230 billion in proposed cuts loom over a program that not only feeds over 40 million Americans but also anchors local economies, rural grocery stores, and public health systems. According to Gina Plata-Niño, SNAP Deputy Director at the Food Research & Action Center (FRAC), the consequences of those cuts would ripple far beyond the checkout line.

“This is about far more than just benefits. If SNAP is gutted, cities, states, and service providers will be left scrambling to fill the void – and they can’t.”

The scenario she describes is bleak but grounded in data. With inflation still high, pandemic era safety net expansions long gone, and local budgets stretched thin, Plata-Niño says any cut – whether it’s 5%, 10%, or the full $230 billion – would create a domino effect: more hungry families, more avoidable ER visits, more economic strain on mom and pop retailers, and less local tax revenue to fix it.

At the policy level, she’s particularly concerned about efforts to shift responsibility from the federal government to the states. “No state has the resources to make up the difference,” she said. “And very few even have rainy day funds. Those that do would blow through them just trying to plug the hole – risking their bond ratings, long-term investment plans, and essential services in the process.”

The threat isn’t just fiscal. Plata-Niño sees a broader ideological shift in play – one that could endanger the future of the entire Farm Bill coalition. With House Republicans proposing deep cuts to Title IV, the nutrition portion of the bill, and whispers about breaking apart the Farm Bill entirely, she warns that a carefully balanced ecosystem could collapse. “It works because it’s comprehensive,” she said. “When you take nutrition away from agriculture, everyone loses.”

SNAP, she argues, is both temporary and transformational. Most recipients stay on the program for just six to 24 months – usually triggered by a job loss or health crisis. “This is a bridge, not a lifestyle,” she said. “If you want fewer people on SNAP, raise wages. Lower childcare costs. Make housing and healthcare more affordable. SNAP doesn’t create poverty – it mitigates it.”

Despite its efficiency and reach, SNAP remains politically vulnerable. Plata-Niño links this to long standing racialized narratives and misinformation about who receives benefits. “Nearly 80% of people on SNAP are working,” she said. “But the myth persists that it’s lazy people taking advantage of the system. That narrative took root in the Reagan era and it’s never really gone away.”

She traces the misconception back decades – from Johnson’s War on Poverty, which framed assistance around a white working class identity, to Reagan’s infamous “welfare queen” rhetoric. “People picture a certain kind of person when they hear ‘SNAP,’” she said. “But most recipients are U.S. born, working, and white. The reality doesn’t match the rhetoric.”

FRAC’s approach to shifting that narrative includes both hard data and human stories. In a recent blog series, the organization interviewed rural grocery owners, pediatricians, mayors, and budget officials across the country to illustrate how SNAP strengthens communities. In Kansas, a small town grocer described SNAP as the only thing keeping his store open. In Massachusetts, a pediatrician called it “a vaccine against chronic illness.” In California, a mayor said, “We can’t make up that kind of money – we just can’t.”

One major policy fight ahead centers on the treatment of the Basic Allowance for Housing (BAH) in eligibility calculations. For military families, BAH is counted as income, often inflating their earnings on paper by tens of thousands of dollars – enough to disqualify them from SNAP even when they’re struggling to afford food. “This one technicality blocks thousands of service members from help,” Plata-Niño said. “And it’s just wrong.”

She also raised alarm about escalating time-limit rules and work requirements. SNAP already has employment conditions, but recent proposals would expand mandatory work hours and narrow exemptions for older adults, parents, and students. “These changes won’t increase employment – they’ll increase hunger,” she said. “We’ve seen this story before.”

As for the Farm Bill itself, Plata-Niño laid out FRAC’s top priorities: protect SNAP from cuts, strengthen benefit adequacy, simplify program administration for states, and preserve the unified structure of the Farm Bill. “Every dollar spent on SNAP generates local economic activity – and every restriction placed on it adds administrative costs and delays,” she said.

With budget negotiations underway, Plata-Niño says advocates should keep the pressure on – especially at the local level. “Media and community based organizations play a huge role,” she said. “They can elevate stories that remind lawmakers: these aren’t abstract numbers. These are your constituents. These are people trying to keep their kids fed.”

To support that narrative, FRAC has been amplifying voices from every corner of the country. In Kansas, community leaders have warned that SNAP cuts would devastate not only families, but entire rural economies. Brian Posler of Fuel True, representing rural grocers and convenience stores, warns that many small town businesses already operating on razor thin margins could be forced to close. These stories, a part of FRAC’s ongoing blog series: From City Hall to the Dinner Table, document the nationwide impacts of proposed SNAP cuts.

FRAC is also organizing a webinar with state comptrollers, former mayors, and budget experts to demonstrate SNAP’s economic impact at the municipal level. “We want every local official to know what’s at stake,” she said. “And we want them in front of the White House and Congress saying, ‘Don’t do this to us.’”

As the conversation wound down, Plata-Niño offered a final reflection on why this work matters. “SNAP is one of the most effective public policies we’ve ever created. If we lose it – or weaken it – the consequences will reverberate for generations.”