Food access is a human right. As nutrition students, we are taught that food security is essential to achieving overall health and well-being. We learn that when individuals and families lack consistent access to nutritious, affordable food, it increases their risk for chronic diseases, worsens health disparities, and creates unnecessary barriers to success in school, work, and life [1,2]. Programs like the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) play a critical role in reducing food insecurity, supporting vulnerable communities, and promoting health equity across the country. 

SNAP, formerly known as the “Food Stamp Program,” was initially established in 1939 as a pilot program to address widespread hunger and agricultural surplus in the United States during the Great Depression [3]. It was created for low-income individuals and families to purchase nutritious food in an effort to ensure that no one had to go hungry due to their lack of resources. In 1964, the Food Stamp Act was passed, which made the program a permanent federal initiative aimed at combating food insecurity on a national scale [3]. Over the past 50 years, SNAP has become a foundational program in supporting the health and well-being of millions of Americans, representing a bipartisan commitment to reducing food insecurity. It is the nation’s most effective anti-hunger program and serves as a vital lifeline for vulnerable populations, especially children, seniors, and people with disabilities. 

On May 22, 2025, House Republicans advanced a budget reconciliation bill that proposes the deepest cuts to SNAP in our history [4]. According to estimates from the Congressional Budget Office (CBO), the proposed changes could reduce SNAP funding by $300 billion – roughly 30% – through 2034 [4,5]. A key part of the proposal shifts more financial responsibility to the states. Starting in fiscal year 2028, states must cover 5% of the SNAP benefits costs. The bill also mentions penalties for states with higher error rates [6]. An error rate is the percentage of cases where benefits are either overpaid or underpaid due to mistakes in how eligibility or benefits are calculated. According to the bill, those with error rates between 6-8% must contribute 15%, 8-10% must contribute 20%, and states with error rates of 10% or more must cover 25% of benefit costs [6].  

This structure is meant to encourage states to be more careful and accurate when giving out benefits, but it may have detrimental effects. In an effort to avoid penalties, states may compensate by being overly strict or making it harder for people to qualify. This could harm eligible individuals and families, who may be wrongly denied the food assistance they rely on to meet basic needs. Instead of penalizing states, a more effective approach would be to provide additional resources for staff training, upgrading outdated administrative systems, and offering more technical support. This way, states would be able to reduce their error rates for the long term, and eligible individuals wouldn’t be mistakenly turned away in the process. Simplifying the SNAP application and eligibility process would also go a long way in reducing errors. There is no doubt that applying for SNAP is a complicated process. The current system is complex and confusing, especially for applicants. If the process is easier to understand and navigate, accuracy may improve naturally, and those who need help aren’t excluded in a grueling eligibility process. 

The cost-shifting doesn’t end with benefit payments. The bill also proposes to cut the federal share of SNAP administrative costs from 50% to just 25%, requiring states to cover the remaining 75% [6]. For years, the states would administer SNAP and share administrative costs with the federal government, with each paying roughly half [7]. With this bill, states would now be expected to pay more than half. Federal funding is one of the largest sources of funding for state governments, second only to taxes [8]. In addition to increased benefit payments, a 25% cut in federal funding towards the administrative costs for SNAP  would greatly hinder most states’ capacity to manage not only SNAP, but other critical state-funded programs as well. 

What does this mean for states and, more importantly, for individuals who are in need of food assistance? States could be forced to make tough choices, including cutting staff, which may lead to delayed application processing and overburden. For families who rely on SNAP to put food on the table, these changes could mean longer wait times, delays in benefits, and less support when they need it the most. The administrative burden won’t just fall on the states, it will fall hardest on the people the program was designed to help.

And there’s more. In addition to shifting costs, the bill appears to expand already strict work requirements for certain adults receiving SNAP [6]. These requirements disproportionately affect older adults, parents, veterans, individuals facing homelessness, and youth who have aged out of the foster care system [9]. Rather than supporting individuals in finding long-term employment, these punitive requirements can push people off the program.
The effects of these changes will ripple through other essential programs, particularly those aimed at children. Cuts to SNAP, alongside cuts to programs like the Special Supplemental Nutrition Program for Women, Infants, and Children (WIC), may unintentionally threaten children’s access to free school meals. Many students are enrolled for free school meals through a process known as Direct Certification, which automatically qualifies children for free meals if someone in their household receives SNAP or WIC benefits. Weakening these programs puts access to school breakfast and lunch at risk for millions of children - many of whom live in low-income households and depend on these meals as their most reliable and consistent source of daily nutrition [9, 10, 11]. 

John Allegrante, Charles Irwin Lambert Professor of Health Behavior and Education and instructor of the Social Policy and Prevention course at Teachers College, Columbia University, warns that, “The proposed cuts to SNAP would have a devastating impact on maternal and child health in the United States. The negative public health outcomes will include increases in morbidity and mortality associated with malnourishment, diminished academic achievement of children and adolescents, and increased risk for chronic diseases later in life.” These cuts will only deepen the very health disparities that many public health efforts strive to eliminate. 

Beyond the health effects, these cuts send a troubling message about our national priorities. “A terrible message,” Allegrante emphasizes. “The proposed cuts will ultimately result in preventable deaths and raise serious questions about our moral commitment to health equity and the millions of Americans who have come to depend on SNAP and other social programs, like Medicaid, that are being eliminated or substantially reduced. These cuts are cruel and un-American.”

He continues, “The current spending bill being proposed by Congress prioritizes giving huge tax breaks to the wealthiest Americans while stealing from lower-income and middle-class families. What does that say about America? How many more homes around the world, how many more yachts do billionaires need?”

These are just some of the many changes proposed in the budget reconciliation bill. While they may appear technical on the surface, they carry real consequences for millions of families who rely on SNAP to make ends meet. Policy decisions made in budget negotiations can lead to fewer groceries in the fridge, more skipped meals, and heart-wrenching trade-offs between food, rent, and medication – turning budget battles into empty plates. In our classes in the Program of Nutrition, we often discuss the cultural continuum, the importance of meeting people where they are, and designing nutrition interventions that are respectful, accessible, and equitable. Severe cuts to the nation's most effective anti-hunger program directly contradicts those values, creating more barriers for the very people we aim to support as future public health and nutrition professionals.

Works Cited:

1. Food Insecurity - Healthy People 2030 | odphp.health.gov. https://odphp.health.gov/healthypeople/priority-areas/social-determinants-health/literature-summaries/food-insecurity.
2. Odoms-Young A, Brown AGM, Agurs-Collins T, Glanz K. Food insecurity, neighborhood food environment, and health disparities: state of the science, research gaps and opportunities. American Journal of Clinical Nutrition. 2023;119(3):850-861. doi:10.1016/j.ajcnut.2023.12.019
3. Commemorating the History of SNAP: Looking back at the Food Stamp Act of 1964. Home. https://www.usda.gov/about-usda/news/blog/commemorating-history-snap-looking-back-food-stamp-act-1964. Published June 13, 2025.
4. Center on Budget and Policy Priorities. House Reconciliation Bill Proposes Deepest SNAP Cut in History, Would Take Away Nearly $300 Billion From Food Assistance Program. Published May 28, 2025. Accessed June 13, 2025.
5. Estimated budgetary effects of a bill to provide for reconciliation pursuant to Title II of H. Con. Res. 14, The One Big Beautiful Bill Act. Congressional Budget Office. https://www.cbo.gov/publication/61420. Published May 20, 2025.
6. Section-by-section. (n.d.-a). https://agriculture.house.gov/uploadedfiles/section_by_section_hac_print_reconciliation_final_700pm.pdf
7. Feasibility of Assessing Causes of State Variation in Food Stamp Program Administrative Costs | Food and Nutrition Service. Usda.gov. Published 2024. https://www.fns.usda.gov/research/snap/feasibility-assessing-causes-state-variation-food-stamp-program-administrative-costs
8. Where states get their money, FY 2022. The Pew Charitable Trusts. https://www.pew.org/en/research-and-analysis/data-visualizations/2024/where-states-get-their-money-fy-2022.
9. Bergh K. Worsening SNAP’s Harsh Work Requirement Would Take Food Assistance Away From Millions of Low-Income People | Center on Budget and Policy Priorities. Center on Budget and Policy Priorities. Published April 30, 2025. https://www.cbpp.org/research/food-assistance/worsening-snaps-harsh-work-requirement-would-take-food-assistance-away
10. USDA. Updates to the School Nutrition Standards | Food and Nutrition Service. www.fns.usda.gov. Published January 29, 2025. https://www.fns.usda.gov/cn/school-nutrition-standards-updates
11. Food Research & Action Center. Benefits of School Lunch. Food Research & Action Center. Published 2018. https://frac.org/programs/national-school-lunch-program/benefits-school-lunch

The views expressed in this article are solely those of the speaker to whom they are attributed. They do not necessarily reflect the views of the faculty, administration, staff or Trustees either of Teachers College or of Columbia University. 

— Sacha Sulaiman