As the country prepares for a new administration and a potentially Republican controlled Congress, the future of the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) hangs in the balance. SNAP, the nation’s largest federal nutrition program, provides food assistance to over 42 million people each month and is widely recognized as one of the most effective tools for combating food insecurity. Feeding America notes that SNAP’s impact is nine times greater than its entire network of food banks. However, with the Farm Bill – a key piece of legislation governing SNAP – set to expire, significant changes to the program may be on the horizon.

The current five-year Farm Bill was originally passed in 2018 and extended through September 2024 after lawmakers failed to reach an agreement on a new package by its September 2023 deadline. Now, as the December 2024 expiration of key programs approaches, lawmakers face mounting pressure to act. Without a new bill or another extension, programs governed by the Farm Bill will begin reverting to older versions of the law, potentially disrupting services and benefits.

The prospects for passing a new Farm Bill this year appear dim, despite Senate Agriculture Chairwoman Debbie Stabenow releasing her latest draft earlier this week. According to Ellen Nissenbaum, Senior Advisor at the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, a one-year extension is the most likely outcome. Speaking at the Hunger Free Communities annual summit, Nissenbaum explained, “Republicans will control the House and Senate next year. They will have more power and therefore believe they can produce a Farm Bill that is more to their liking.”

Central to the debate over the Farm Bill is the Thrifty Food Plan, the method used to calculate SNAP benefits. The 2018 Farm Bill modernized the Thrifty Food Plan for the first time in 50 years, reflecting updated food prices and dietary needs, and resulting in a 21% increase in benefits per person. Republican proposals in the House Farm Bill – and supported by many Senate Republicans – seek to preserve the previous increase but ensure that future updates remain “cost-neutral.”

The implications of this cost-neutral approach are stark. According to the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, it would result in a cumulative $30 billion reduction in SNAP benefits over time, marking the largest SNAP cut in nearly 30 years. “As SNAP benefits become more and more inadequate,” the Center’s report warns, “this reduction would grow.” This erosion of purchasing power could leave millions of SNAP recipients struggling to meet their basic food needs, even as inflation and food costs rise.

Another critical issue under consideration is the protection of SNAP recipients against fraud, particularly “card skimming,” where criminals exploit outdated technology in benefit distribution cards to steal funds. States are currently required to replace stolen benefits, and the USDA reports that $53 million has already been reimbursed. However, this figure likely underrepresents the scope of the problem, as many thefts go unreported. Whether these protections will remain in a new Farm Bill remains uncertain, leaving SNAP recipients vulnerable to losing critical assistance.

SNAP is also at risk of changes beyond the Farm Bill itself. Budget reconciliation – a legislative process that allows for passing certain budgetary measures with a simple majority in the Senate – could be used by the new Congress to extend the 2017 Trump tax cuts. Nissenbaum warns that reconciliation could also include provisions to reduce SNAP benefits, placing the program at further risk. Debt ceiling negotiations present another potential avenue for change. In past negotiations, compromises to avoid default included increases in SNAP work requirements, a precedent that could repeat as lawmakers seek to balance competing priorities.

The structure of SNAP is also a potential target for reform. Currently, SNAP operates as an entitlement program, ensuring that all who qualify have access to benefits. Some lawmakers have proposed converting the program to a block grant system, which would allocate fixed funding amounts to states. While proponents argue that block grants allow for greater flexibility, critics caution that they limit the program’s ability to respond to economic downturns or spikes in demand, ultimately reducing its effectiveness in addressing food insecurity.

These threats to SNAP are part of a broader landscape of potential changes to federal assistance programs, including Medicaid. Nissenbaum highlights the interconnected nature of these programs, noting that cuts to Medicaid could force households to redirect resources toward healthcare costs, leaving less money for food. “We don’t want to focus just on SNAP,” she emphasized. “If there are harmful cuts and changes to Medicaid, then people may not have as much for food.”

Throughout the year, Nissenbaum predicts, various legislative “vehicles” will arise that could introduce significant changes to SNAP. From the reconciliation bill to debt ceiling agreements, these processes offer opportunities for both cuts and structural reforms that may have long-term consequences for the program and its recipients.

For the millions of Americans who rely on SNAP to meet their basic food needs, the stakes are high. Advocates are urging lawmakers to protect the program’s integrity and resist measures that could erode its effectiveness. As the Farm Bill, budget reconciliation, and debt ceiling negotiations unfold, SNAP’s future remains uncertain, with outcomes that could reshape the nation’s fight against hunger for years to come.