As budget cuts, state mandates and new food restrictions converge, a looming crisis threatens to upend the nation’s food assistance programs — pushing millions of low-income Americans closer to hunger. Recent Republican-led efforts to slash funding for SNAP, combined with proposals requiring states to foot part of the bill, could leave the most vulnerable without the resources they rely on for basic sustenance.
Meanwhile, calls for banning “junk food” from the program raise difficult questions about personal choice, public health and the practicalities of enforcement. As these forces collide, the question remains: Can the nation’s safety net survive without unraveling the very fabric of food security it was designed to protect?
Last week, the Republican-led House passed a budget framework that could drastically reduce funding for public benefit programs, including Medicaid and SNAP. Although the plan does not specify exact cuts, it directs committees to slash $880 billion from health programs and $230 billion from SNAP over the next decade. These reductions could lead to a 20% decrease in SNAP benefits and stricter eligibility rules, which would disproportionately impact low-income Americans. The proposed cuts are projected to cause over 1 million job losses and a $113 billion economic loss in affected states by 2026.
Democratic leaders and advocacy groups are warning that these cuts could devastate vulnerable communities, while Republicans argue the plan is necessary to curb government spending. Experts suggest that even if direct benefit reductions are avoided, the sheer scale of the cuts could still result in reduced support for millions of Americans. According to the Associated Press, the Senate is expected to propose its own version of the budget, which includes much smaller cuts and the two chambers will negotiate before a final deal is reached.
Chief among the emerging proposals is a plan to require states to pay for a share of SNAP food benefits, a cost currently covered entirely by the federal government.
This would mark a fundamental shift in how the country funds its largest anti-hunger program. “Requiring states to pay even a modest portion of SNAP benefits would radically change the program’s funding structure,” the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities warned in a new report, noting that the move would abandon “the long-standing national commitment to provide low-income households a SNAP benefit sufficient to afford a basic healthy diet.” States, already grappling with revenue shortfalls in the wake of a sluggish economy, could be forced to reduce benefits, narrow eligibility or both — effectively shifting the burden of cuts away from Congress and onto state legislatures.
The financial strain could be significant. According to one analysis, if a state like Pennsylvania were required to cover just 10% of SNAP costs, it would have faced a bill of nearly $427 million last year—more than the state spends annually on its entire community college system. And if states fell short of the required match, benefits would shrink accordingly: “An average household could lose more than $1,000 annually in food assistance,” the report found.
The proposal would also erode SNAP’s role as an economic stabilizer during economic downturns, when more families become eligible and state revenues are most constrained. “Mandating that states pay even a small share of SNAP food benefit costs would hit state budgets hard at a time when many states are facing revenue downturns,” the report said. “The painful trade-offs that states would face would only be compounded if this proposal were combined with other Republican proposals to force sizable new costs on states, especially in Medicaid, but also in education, transportation, and other key public services.”
While some proposals target SNAP’s funding structure, others seek to reshape its function — by exerting more control over the food choices of those who rely on the program.
Both Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. and Agriculture Secretary Brooke Rollins have expressed support for restricting SNAP recipients from using their benefits to purchase soda and other “junk food.” In a private White House meeting with the group Make America Healthy Again — an excerpt of which was obtained by POLITICO — Rollins said sugary drinks are “the top item that food stamps support through taxpayer dollars — going to a group of children who come from lower socioeconomic backgrounds, many of them from very impoverished families. And yet that’s the number one thing our food stamp program is buying.”
Some state-level leaders have joined calls for a ban.
In December, Gov. Sarah Huckabee Sanders of Arkansas sent an open letter to Kennedy and Rollins saying current SNAP policies “undermine the health of millions of Americans, on the taxpayer’s dime,” citing rising rates of obesity and chronic illness among low-income families.
She pointed to data suggesting that sugary snacks and beverages make up nearly a quarter of all SNAP purchases — roughly $25 billion annually — and highlighted the potential public health savings of removing soda from the program. Sanders also expressed intent to seek a waiver allowing Arkansas to restrict SNAP purchases and redirect benefits toward fresh, locally produced food.
“As Secretaries, I ask that you work collaboratively across the Administration to prohibit the sale of junk food in SNAP and end taxpayer-funded junk food,” she wrote.
However, proposals to restrict the types of food SNAP recipients can purchase have faced criticism on both practical and philosophical grounds. Detractors argue that such policies would strip low-income Americans of autonomy in their food choices, while also being costly and difficult to implement.
In response to Governor Sanders’s letter, the American Beverage Association — which represents companies including Coca-Cola, Pepsi, and Dr Pepper — warned that restrictions like these “effectively create a two-tiered system in which the right to personal autonomy around diet is conditioned on income and means,” calling it an affront to “America’s commitment to individual liberty and freedom.”
That sentiment is echoed by some SNAP recipients. In an interview with NPR, Natalia Kiyah, a single mother of four who has intermittently relied on food assistance for more than a decade, described soda as an occasional treat — something to pair with pizza during a birthday or family celebration.
“The more choice I have, I feel more dignity,” she said. “I feel more secure in who I am — having options — which then makes me a better mom and better mental health. It’s all connected.”
The debate also raises the thorny question of what, exactly, qualifies as “junk food.” That conversation overlaps with a broader and still-evolving dialogue about the health effects of so-called “ultra-processed foods” — and how best to define them. At a February seminar hosted by the Institute of Food Technologists, Dr. Susanne Bügel, a nutrition professor at the University of Copenhagen, noted that the existing NOVA classification system, widely used to categorize food processing, lumps together items as varied as yogurt, bread, and soft drinks. Bügel, who is leading efforts to refine that system, emphasized that many processed foods still provide key nutrients and can be part of a balanced diet. If a SNAP ban were enacted, it’s unclear how the government would draw the line: Would orange juice, for example — high in natural sugars, but also rich in vitamins — be allowed or deemed off-limits?
Even if policymakers could agree on a definition of “junk food,” another question remains: Who would be responsible for enforcing it? When Congressional Republicans proposed a pilot program in 2024 to catalog and restrict SNAP purchases, the National Grocers Association pushed back forcefully. In a letter co-signed by nearly 2,500 business and trade organizations and sent to top congressional leaders, the group warned that such a policy would be a bureaucratic quagmire.
Categorizing more than 600,000 food products — and updating that list annually — would create “needless red tape,” they argued, while doing little to improve public health. “Grocery store cashiers will become the food police,” the letter read, “telling parents what they can and cannot feed their families.”
The letter continued: “No consumer purchases have ever been subjected to this Orwellian level of snooping by the Federal government, and it would set a terrifying precedent of intruding on the most private areas of our lives.”
