Proposed SNAP Benefit Reductions Could Leave Millions Without Assistance, Analysis Finds
WASHINGTON — A new analysis released this week indicates that the administration's proposal to lower Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) benefits this month could result in millions of low‑income Americans receiving no assistance at all. The study, conducted by the Center for Budget and Policy Priorities, projects that the proposed cuts would be steeper than initially expected, raising concerns about food security for vulnerable households.
The plan calls for a reduction in monthly allotments for eligible participants, with the average benefit slated to drop by roughly 10 percent. According to the analysis, the changes could affect as many as five million households, or more than eight million individuals, who rely on SNAP for basic nutrition. The cuts are set to take effect at the beginning of the next benefit cycle, leaving little time for families to adjust their budgets. The Center’s report highlights that a significant portion of those impacted would fall below the minimum benefit threshold, resulting in a zero‑payment outcome for many.
SNAP, the nation’s largest anti‑poverty program, provides food‑purchase assistance to roughly 40 million Americans and has historically been adjusted in response to economic conditions and legislative priorities. Officials involved in the policy review have argued that the reductions are necessary to address growing federal deficits, while critics warn that the timing could exacerbate hunger amid lingering inflationary pressures. State welfare agencies have signaled readiness to implement the changes, but several governors have expressed reservations, citing potential spikes in local food‑bank demand.
Lawmakers are expected to debate the proposal in the coming weeks, with some members of Congress indicating they may seek to block or modify the cuts through legislative action. Legal challenges are also possible, given past court rulings on SNAP funding adequacy. Analysts suggest that if the reductions proceed, the short‑term fiscal savings could be offset by longer‑term costs associated with increased health care utilization and social service needs among those who lose access to nutritious food.
