Skip to main content

By Ashley Burnside

As Congress works to advance the proposed budget reconciliation bill of 2025, CLASP’s series “The 2025 Budget Reconciliation’s Impact on People with Low Incomes” will examine the policies put forward that have particular resonance for children, families, and communities with low incomes. This is the fifth blog in the series.

On May 13-14, the House Ways and Means Committee met to mark up its portion of the reconciliation bill. The tax package that passed in 2017, which the reconciliation bill seeks to extend, was skewed to the wealthiest individuals and widened the racial wealth gap. Congressional leadership is using the same playbook now. The proposed tax package will continue to widen inequality by benefiting the wealthiest people and corporations by cutting critical health and nutrition programs that families rely on. It will also enforce harmful restrictions for families who file taxes with Individual Taxpayer Identification Numbers (ITINs), despite the fact that ITIN filers pay taxes and contribute substantially to our nation’s economy. No families should be left out of important tax credits simply because they don’t have a Social Security number.

Below, we take a closer look at some particularly harmful parts of the proposed bill.

CTC and Immigrant Children

The committee is considering changing the Child Tax Credit (CTC) so that only households where every member has a Social Security number would be eligible for the credit. In families where even just one parent has an ITIN, otherwise eligible children would no longer receive the CTC. This would restrict access to an estimated  4.5 million children who are U.S. citizens and legal permanent residents. The bill also permanently restricts children who don’t have Social Security numbers from accessing the CTC, which is estimated to impact 1 million children. 

All families who file a tax return and are otherwise eligible should be able to get the CTC, regardless of their immigration status. People with ITINs pay federal taxes — that’s why they have an ITIN number. This provision only perpetuates the myth that undocumented immigrants don’t pay taxes. In 2022, undocumented immigrants paid an estimated $59.4 billion in federal taxes and $37.3 billion in state and local taxes, totaling $96.7 billion. And in 40 states, undocumented immigrants pay higher state and local tax rates than the top 1 percent of households in the state.

CTC Leaves Behind Too Many Children

Policymakers have proposed raising the maximum CTC amount to $2,500 per child from tax years 2025 through 2028 and adjusting it to inflation. However, this will not address the equity gap in the CTC or most effectively reduce child poverty because children in families with very low incomes will continue to be left out of getting the full credit.

An estimated 17 million children don’t get the full CTC because their families don’t have high enough incomes. These children are disproportionately likely to be Black and Latino due to structural racism embedded within our nation’s labor market. In addition, 30 percent of children living in rural communities were not eligible for the full CTC because their families’ income was too low. If the maximum credit increases to $2,500 per child, an estimated 20 million children would not get the full credit.

Lawmakers should prioritize changes to the CTC that make the credit fully refundable and available to families with little to no earnings in the reconciliation package. This would be the most effective way to reduce child poverty. And there is precedent for bipartisan support for these reforms: Under last year’s Wyden-Smith proposal, lawmakers reached an agreement on CTC reforms that would have helped families with low incomes get a higher credit through increasing the credit available to families with low incomes and multiple children, and by removing the refundability cap.

Immigrant Eligibility for Health Programs
Undocumented immigrants are already restricted from coverage under the Affordable Care Act (ACA) and its premium tax credits, but the proposal goes further to restrict authorized immigrants from affordable health coverage. It establishes new restrictions for the Advanced Premium Tax Credit (APTC) for Temporary Protected Status (TPS) holders or individuals covered by or Deferred Enforced Departure (DED), individuals with humanitarian parole, or asylees or those with a pending asylum application.

This is significant because the APTC allows working-class families to better afford health coverage on the ACA Marketplace. Improved parental insurance coverage and health outcomes consistently benefit children in the short- and long-term through improved family health and financial security, just as a lack of health care coverage and the inability to afford medical costs lead to significant burdens on families.

Additionally, the bill strips Medicare coverage for older immigrants who have contributed to the program, often for decades, including TPS and DED holders, refugees, asylees, persons granted withholding of removal, individuals with humanitarian parole, and other immigrants authorized to be in the United States. People work and contribute to programs like Medicare with the expectation that they’ll have access to that support when they are older and retired. Pulling the rug out from under their feet will leave millions of older individuals and individuals with disabilities without coverage.

In addition to losing Medicare coverage and access to the APTC, the bill also strips coverage for lawfully present immigrants to even access the Marketplace coverage if they are under 100 percent of the federal poverty level, or roughly $32,000 for a family of four. This special exception was created because many lawfully present immigrants with low incomes are ineligible for Medicaid coverage. Removing this exception means that immigrants with low incomes would not be eligible for the ACA or Medicaid, denying them any pathway to affordable health coverage.

“No Tax on Tips” and “No Tax on Overtime” Policies
The bill’s attempt to prohibit tips from taxation is regressive and would reduce federal revenue. Workers who don’t pay federal taxes because they earn too little would largely miss out on the benefits of this proposal. The policy would affect payroll and income taxes by reducing what tipped workers pay into and get out of Social Security in retirement.

For its part, the “no tax on overtime” proposal would fully exclude overtime pay from federal income tax. Workers who earn too little to owe federal income tax—often people who are the lowest-paid and most economically vulnerable—receive no benefit at all, despite often working long or irregular hours. The proposal also assumes that all workers have equal access to overtime, but overtime opportunities are not evenly distributed. Workers in sectors like hospitality, caregiving, and retail, who are disproportionately women and people of color, often face unpredictable schedules and limited access to overtime. A truly worker-centered policy would expand access to overtime protections and provide refundable tax credits that reach workers regardless of income level or tax liability.

A Bill That Benefits the Wealthy
Republicans claim that this bill will help workers and families. But these proposed changes—along with tax breaks that reward ultra-wealthy corporations; proposals to exclude immigrant student borrowers and create financial incentives for students to pursue low-quality education programs; an end to the Direct File program; implementing complicated pre-certification requirements in the Earned Income Tax Credit; and punishing private postgraduate institutions that the Trump Administration considers too “woke”— make it clear that only the wealthy and corporations will truly benefit from the current version of the bill. The child care and paid leave provisions will not reach the people who would most benefit from them, and cannot compare to true investments in child care and paid leave.

If Congress votes to include these proposals in the final reconciliation bill, children and families will be worse off. These proposals will deepen income inequality, make it harder for people to access benefits they contribute to, and reward wealthy Americans and corporations at a time when everyday Americans are struggling.

By Suzanne Wikle

As Congress works to advance the proposed budget reconciliation bill of 2025, CLASP’s series “The 2025 Budget Reconciliation’s Impact on People with Low Incomes” will examine the policies put forward that have particular resonance for the children, families, and communities with low incomes. This is the fourth blog in the series.

On May 13, the House Energy and Commerce Committee began marking up its portion of the GOP’s proposed reconciliation bill. One of the main topics of discussion was changes to Medicaid.

Medicaid currently provides health insurance for over 70 million people, including 30 million children and 60 percent of all nursing home residents; the program also covers 40 percent of all births in the United States. In addition, Medicaid is the largest payer of mental health care in the country, paying for 1 in 4 dollars spent on mental health care.

Policymakers have proposed cuts totaling $715 billion to the program, which, if enacted, would represent the largest cuts to Medicaid in its nearly 60-year history. Based on the committee’s text, the Congressional Budget Office estimates that at least 8.6 million people on Medicaid would lose their health insurance by 2034. Combined with other health care cuts, the reconciliation bill is estimated to cause 13.7 million people to lose health insurance.

The proposed changes include introducing work requirements, shifting costs to states and individuals, and increasing red tape:

Work Requirements

While states were allowed to implement work requirements through a waiver process during the first Trump Administration, there has never been a federal work requirement for people to access Medicaid.

The work requirements program proposed in this bill is modeled after a work requirements program in Georgia. An evaluation of that program conducted after its first year of operation found that not only did the requirement increase eligibility, but it also cost the state $58 million, greatly increased the paperwork requirement for eligible applicants, and shifted the cost burden to Georgia taxpayers.

As both the Georgia experiment and decades of research show, policies like this do not meaningfully increase employment, particularly not the kind of employment that offers affordable health insurance. Rather, work requirements are just a cut to Medicaid by another name. They implement burdensome paperwork requirements that cause eligible people to become disenrolled and lose their health insurance. Work requirements also increase administrative costs to states, which will have to stand up new components of eligibility systems to implement this provision.

Although the bill has many exemptions, the reality is that those exemptions don’t often work as intended. For example, if someone has a medical condition that is considered serious and complex and thereby qualifies for an exemption, how will they obtain documentation of their condition if they are uninsured? If a doctor’s note is required to prove a medical condition, how will someone get that before they enroll? And who at the state level is determining whether the note is enough proof to qualify for exemption? The process will be cumbersome and complicated, and many people who are eligible will fall through the cracks.

More Frequent Redeterminations

Currently, most adults insured through Medicaid receive a 12-month determination if they are deemed eligible. They are required to submit any changes to the state that would affect their eligibility at any point during their enrollment, and many states do behind-the-scenes checks against state wage databases to ensure people remain eligible.

These checks and balances are adequate to ensure that people receiving Medicaid are indeed eligible for the program. Implementing more frequent checks – including redeterminations every six months for certain individuals – will only increase the number of eligible people losing coverage and re-enrolling. The only purpose of this provision is to cut people off Medicaid.

Codifying Exclusion of DACA Recipients

Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) recipients have long been excluded from coverage until a rule the Biden Administration made them eligible for coverage under the ACA Marketplace. The current bill language would codify into law a Trump Administration rule that excludes DACA recipients from health coverage. Over a quarter of a million children have a parent with DACA, the vast majority of whom are U.S. citizens. Research has shown that children of uninsured parents are more likely to be uninsured themselves than the children of parents with insurance coverage.

Shifting Costs to Individuals

The bill would require people living above the poverty line to pay $35 for each medical encounter, up to a certain limit. This is a direct cost shift to people and will be prohibitive for many people to access care.

In addition, the bill would eliminate the special enrollment period for people making under 150 percent of the poverty level to enroll in insurance through the Marketplace; allow states to change retroactive coverage from 90 days to 30 days; and prohibit Medicaid and the Children’s Health Insurance Program from allowing gender affirming therapy as an Essential Health Benefit. All of these amount to more out-of-pocket costs for individuals and families.

Shifting Costs to States and Reducing State Autonomy

The bill calls for reducing the Federal Medical Assistance Percentage (FMAP) by 10 percent in states that choose to use state dollars to cover people regardless of their immigration status, which restricts states’ autonomy over their own health care programs and sets a dangerous precedent. While federal law restricts undocumented immigrants’ access to federally supported health coverage, it doesn’t limit states’ ability to spend state dollars on similar programs. No member of Congress should support a provision that places such limits on a state’s own budget authority.

Cutting federal Medicaid funding to states that use their own funding to provide benefits to immigrants would harm all families, including U.S. citizens. This proposal is a direct cost-shift to states, which will have to replace the lost FMAP or cut people, regardless of immigration status, off Medicaid. Estimates show that states could lose up to $75 billion in funding through fiscal year 2034.

Bottom Line: This Bill Cuts Eligible People Off Medicaid

As currently written, the committee’s proposal makes it more difficult for millions of people to apply and to stay enrolled despite being eligible. It increases costs to states, will increase their administrative burden, and undermines their ability to ensure all communities in their states have access to health insurance coverage. By denying people affordable health care, this bill threatens the safety and well-being of communities, states, and the entire country.

 

By Teon Hayes

As Congress works to advance the proposed budget reconciliation bill of 2025, CLASP’s series “The 2025 Budget Reconciliation’s Impact on People with Low Incomes” will examine the policies put forward that have particular resonance for children, families, and communities with low incomes. This is the third blog in the series.

On May 13, the House Agriculture Committee met to mark up its portion of the GOP’s proposed reconciliation bill. One of the main issues under consideration is the Supplemental Nutritional Assistance Program (SNAP), which provides food assistance to families with low incomes.

The proposed changes largely restrict access, tighten eligibility, and shift administrative costs from the federal government to the states. If enacted, this will amount to the largest cut in the program’s history.

Implementing Strict Work Requirements

Most adults who use SNAP either are already working but in jobs that pay low wages and offer unstable hours. They could also be briefly between jobs, have a disability, and/or have significant caregiving responsibilities. The House Agriculture bill proposes raising the age for work requirements from 54 to 64 for able-bodied adults without dependents and redefines “dependent child” to include any child under seven, instead of under 18. It also limits the USDA’s ability to approve state waivers for work requirements only in areas with over a 10 percent unemployment rate and reduces the allowable exempt population from 8 percent to 1 percent. This means that more caregivers and older adults are expected to work to receive SNAP, a change that may disproportionately affect Black and brown families, especially single mothers with school-aged children.

This heartless provision jeopardizes the livelihoods of 6 million adults by putting them at risk of losing SNAP benefits entirely. It could also reduce food assistance for an additional 5 million people in their households, including more than 4 million children between the ages of 7 and 17. That’s about 11 million people in total. Cuts of this scale would have devastating consequences for the most vulnerable. Families in areas with high unemployment could lose protections due to stricter waiver rules, and it would be more difficult for states to protect vulnerable populations during economic downturns or in areas with unemployment rates that are high but not extreme. Simply looking for work doesn’t count toward the requirement, and many unemployed individuals need more than the allotted three months to secure a job, even in strong labor markets.

Research shows that work requirements do not lead to stable jobs or economic security but, rather, cause a large decline in program participation. Work requirements don’t address the real barriers that keep people from finding stable employment—they ignore systemic issues like racial discrimination, lack of child care and transportation, and the shortage of living-wage jobs. Therefore, work requirements push people deeper into a cycle of low-wage, volatile, unstable work. These policies have roots in harmful, racially charged narratives about who is “deserving” of help—narratives that have long targeted Black and brown communities. Work requirements make public benefits more complicated to access and add unnecessary burdens for people who need food. They also cost states millions of dollars. When Arkansas implemented work requirements for Medicaid, the policy ended up costing the state and federal government $26.1 million without achieving its intended employment goals. Basic, life-sustaining support should not depend on meeting a work requirement.

State Match

Currently, the federal government covers 100 percent of SNAP benefits, while states share administrative costs, which are typically split 50/50 with the federal government. The proposed reconciliation bill would require states to gradually cover a minimum of 5 percent of SNAP benefits starting in fiscal year (FY) 2028. States with high SNAP error rates would pay up to 25 percent. The federal share of administrative costs would drop from 50 percent to 25 percent, with states having to contribute up to 75 percent of these costs.

This shift would push states into a cost-containment mindset, giving them financial incentives to restrict eligibility and reduce participation, even if the need for benefits remains high. It would also cost states hundreds of millions of dollars at a time when their budgets are under strain and could lead to stricter eligibility rules, reduced benefit amounts, or both, as well as reduced staffing, services, and program access at state agencies. States that struggle to cover their share may be forced to limit participation, making it harder for families striving for economic security to access the nutrition they need to stay healthy and financially stable. While this change would impact all states, large states like Texas and California, and poor states, primarily in the Deep South, would be disproportionately affected.

Restricting Thrifty Food Plan Updates

This bill also seeks to permanently freeze the Thrifty Food Program (TFP) and adjust it only for inflation. This proposal would lock SNAP benefits to outdated food cost estimates, ignoring both scientific evidence and the actual cost of a healthy diet. This would prevent benefits from keeping pace with rising food prices—repeating the same shortcomings seen during the 50 years before the 2021 update. Even after that update, SNAP benefits remain modest, increasing from just $4.80 to $6.20 per person, per day. As food prices continue to rise and funding for food assistance programs is reduced nationwide, families will be left without enough support to put food on the table, and with fewer community resources like food banks to help fill the gap.

Restricting Immigrant Eligibility
The proposed legislation would deny food benefits to all non-citizens who are not lawful permanent residents, including refugees and people who have been granted asylum. These two categories of immigrants were exempted from restrictions enacted in 1996. In FY23, 434,000 refugees and asylees participated in SNAP.

It’s essential to understand that asylees and refugees have fled persecution and violence, and often carry deep trauma. Instead of supporting their healing, policies that restrict access to food only add to their stress and hardship. In addition, this proposal creates fear and confusion, discouraging even eligible immigrants and U.S. citizen children from accessing food assistance. When immigrant families avoid programs like SNAP due to fear, it deepens hunger and poverty. This change would have a particularly chilling effect on SNAP enrollment among immigrant communities. It could also cause mixed-status families to lose benefits or face confusion and fear around eligibility.

 We must remember the human lives behind these numbers. These harmful cuts will directly impact hardworking adults, parents, children, seniors, and people with disabilities—those who already face some of the most significant barriers to stability. Black and brown communities, who have long been marginalized and disproportionately affected by hunger and poverty, will bear the brunt of these changes. Hunger and access to food should never be treated as political bargaining chips. It is the duty of our elected leaders to protect and uplift the communities they serve. This reconciliation bill does the opposite. It reflects priorities that are out of step with justice, compassion, and basic human dignity, and we must demand better.

By Isha Weerasinghe and Jace Peterkin

Medicaid is the nation’s single largest payer for mental health services and provides coverage for nearly 40 percent of all children in the United States. Medicaid also pays every 1 in 4 dollars for vital mental health and substance use disorder treatment. If Congress dismantles the program or limits its reach through funding cuts, it will reverse much of the progress made to expand mental health access since the onset of the Covid-19 pandemic.

>> Read the fact sheet 

By Teon Hayes

“We are the ones we’ve been waiting for. We are the change that we seek.” Dr. Martin Luther King Jr.

When families are facing soaring food prices, stretched resources, and fewer avenues of support, the strength of a community is often what keeps them afloat. Across the nation, food insecurity continues to rise as everyday essentials become harder to afford. At the same time, the Trump Administration has proposed cuts to SNAP and reduced funding for local farmers and food banks, and food assistance programs report difficulty meeting the increased demand. The administration’s efforts to weaken the nation’s basic needs programs have become clear during its first 100 days, and the stability that millions of families rely on is under growing threat.

While federal funding should serve as the foundation of food security efforts, the reality is that community support is often the only safety net left for families in need. Let’s be clear, though: no matter how powerful they are, community efforts cannot replace the consistent, predictable investment of federal dollars. That’s why it’s more important than ever for individuals and organizations to step up and support one another. Whether it’s through volunteering, donating to local food banks, supporting community centers and pantries, or boldly advocating against threats to critical programs like SNAP, these actions help bridge the gap.

In response to these challenges, organizations like CLASP are taking intentional steps to support local efforts. This week, CLASP is hosting an organization-wide community service day that encourages our staff to volunteer and/or donate to local community centers, food banks, and food pantries. Our service day falls on May 2, which is the 62nd anniversary of the Children’s Crusade in Birmingham, Alabama. This historic 1963 march demonstrated the undeniable power of collective action, as thousands of young Black students took to the streets to demand civil rights and justice. Their courage and determination changed the course of history, proving that when communities come together, real change is possible.

Call to Action

Just as the children of Birmingham raised their voices for justice and served as a catalyst for nationwide change, we too must take action to support our neighbors in need. The long history of food apartheid in the U.S. has left Black and brown communities disproportionately affected by food scarcity, which will be further exacerbated by decisions made on the federal level. If the government will not provide consistent and adequate support, then we, as a community, must step in where we can.

The Children’s Crusade showed the country that local action, especially when led by those most impacted, can change national narratives. Now is the time to act. Whether you volunteer at a food bank, launch a community food drive, speak out at a town hall, or contact your elected officials to defend vital programs like SNAP, every small act of service contributes to a larger movement of resilience. We’re not only meeting an immediate need—we’re reaffirming the power of collective action. When rooted in compassion and solidarity, community-led efforts can offer vital relief and restore hope. When federal systems fail, it’s community that rises. Stand up. Show up. Because when we stand together, we thrive together.

This statement can be attributed to Cemeré James, interim executive director and president of the Center for Law and Social Policy (CLASP), and Wendy Chun-Hoon, incoming executive director and president of CLASP.

Washington, D.C., April 28, 2025—For over 50 years, the Center for Law and Social Policy (CLASP) has worked to advance policies that support children, families, and individuals with low incomes, as well as people of color, immigrants, and other historically marginalized communities. In the first hundred days of President Trump’s second term, we have witnessed unprecedented threats to health, stability, security, and fundamental freedoms—disproportionately harming the most vulnerable. Efforts to dismantle the federal government put all of us at risk. Now, more than ever, our ability to understand, measure, and respond to these risks is critical.

In response, CLASP has launched a new tracker that compiles and updates the harmful actions taken by the Trump Administration—particularly through the Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE), led by unelected billionaire Elon Musk—to dismantle the federal government. We will update the tracker weekly, as DOGE announces new directives and layoffs.

DOGE’s actions are having an immediate and devastating impact on workers, families, communities, and the government’s ability to function.

The harm includes:

History shows that an informed, engaged public is key to driving social change and economic stability. In a time of confusion and fear, this tracker helps cut through the chaos, offering clear, digestible information so communities can strategize and protect those most affected.

While CLASP’s mission focuses on marginalized communities, the tracker shows that these cuts impact people across all demographics. Children and families who rely on programs that support basic needs are already feeling the effects, but the federal workforce is also being hollowed out at an alarming rate.

DOGE’s so-called “efficiency” is a thinly veiled attempt to gut programs without Congressional oversight—benefiting Musk and fellow billionaires while destabilizing public services. The skilled civil servants who’ve dedicated their careers to making government work are being pushed out, their expertise dismissed.

We hope this tracker, alongside the work of our partners, shines a light on the real-world impacts of these cuts. CLASP remains committed to lifting the voices of those most affected and fighting for policies that truly support workers, families, and communities.

Updated April 2025

>> Read the full report

Since 1965, Medicaid has been providing affordable access to health care for children, workers, seniors, and persons with disabilities through a shared state-federal funding arrangement. Medicaid provides health insurance for more than one in five Americans, including 80 percent of children living in poverty; 44 percent of children with special health care needs; 43 percent of nonelderly adults with disabilities; and more than 60 percent of nursing home residents. Medicaid covers about one-third of the non-elderly Black and Hispanic populations and 17 percent of the white population. People of color are more likely to be insured by Medicaid because of systemic racism and economic oppression that has denied them access to quality jobs, including those that provide health insurance.

Medicaid is overwhelmingly popular among voters. More than 80 percent of people want to increase or maintain Medicaid spending. But despite the program’s popularity, Republicans are again threatening to make dangerous changes to Medicaid, some of which would impact its funding structure. Under current law, Medicaid is funded through a shared state-federal funding arrangement. The federal government pays states a percentage of Medicaid costs, called the Federal Medical Assistance Percentage (FMAP). The federal government’s contribution varies based on per capita income and other criteria. Republicans want to limit how much federal money flows to states to help pay for Medicaid coverage for every eligible person through per capita caps or block grants.  

>> Read the full report

By Catherine Rampell

(Excerpt)

This article addresses the assault on immigrant children and cites a CTAN fact sheet and a Medicaid infographic published by CLASP.

>> Read the full article here

This statement can be attributed to Rricha deCant, director of legislative affairs at the Center for Law and Social Policy (CLASP)

April 10, 2025, Washington, D.C. – Today, the U.S. House of Representatives approved a budget resolution bill by a vote of 216-214 that was passed by the Senate last week. Its passage highlights the willingness of Congressional leaders to fund tax breaks for the rich and corporations and drive up the deficit through massive Medicaid cuts of $880 billion and SNAP cuts of $230 billion.

The proposal would also slash other public benefit programs that people with low incomes rely on. Instead of passing a budget resolution that would help families grapple with rising costs in an already chaotic economy, Congressional leaders are making it more difficult for families, children, and workers to have access to health care, food, and other essentials.

This measure now opens the door for Congress to write a budget reconciliation bill that could have far-reaching impacts on the lives of millions of Americans for decades to come.

By Teon Hayes and Marquelle Ogletree

Millions of families depend on the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) to put food on the table, but its future is at risk. The House budget resolution proposes slashing at least $230 billion from the program—a staggering 20 percent reduction in total funding that would be the largest cut in SNAP’s history. To make matters worse, these cuts are happening at a time when the cost of living and food prices are rising across the country, and a deep sense of unease is growing among historically marginalized communities as they face uncertainty about their safety and what lies ahead. The country is already in a fragile state—now is not the time to deepen the crisis by cutting essential benefits. 

To grasp the impact of these cuts, it’s crucial to understand SNAP’s history. Originally launched in 1939 as the First Food Stamp Program, SNAP has long helped families combat hunger by expanding their food purchasing power. These current, unprecedented threats would undermine the program’s core mission.  

The cuts proposed in the House budget resolution are not about eliminating fraud, waste, or abuse. Rather, members of Congress are simply trying to reduce the number of people who receive benefits so they can use the savings to help fund tax breaks for the nation’s wealthiest individuals and corporations. Such reductions do not serve the best interests of people experiencing poverty. Instead, they represent an attack on families with low incomes who rely on SNAP to put food on the table. 

To illustrate the human impact, consider the story of Sarah, a mother of two and an elementary school paraprofessional in Georgia, who relies on SNAP to help feed her family. Each of these proposed changes will not affect families in isolation. When benefits are reduced, food choices restricted, and eligibility tightened, Sarah will face impossible trade-offs between food, rent, and child care. The loss of one safety net provision will cascade into others, pushing Sarah’s family and thousands of others deeper into financial insecurity and making it even harder for them to regain stability. 

Reversing the 2021 Thrifty Food Plan Update and Freezing Future Adjustments 

In 2021, SNAP benefits were updated to better reflect the true cost of a nutritious diet. Even after the update, SNAP benefits in Georgia are roughly $6.15 per person per day. If this update is reversed, Sarah’s benefits will shrink, making it even more difficult to buy enough food for her family. Instead of fresh produce, she will be forced to rely on cheaper and less nutritious options to stretch her benefits as far as possible. Sarah knows how to prepare a balanced, healthy meal, but she lacks affordability and access. She makes food choices based on what is available and what will keep her children full the longest. Unfortunately, the only corner store within five miles of her home recently closed due to economic downturns, leaving her with even fewer options. If future SNAP benefit adjustments are limited to inflation alone, the program will continue to fall behind the rising cost of food, making survival even more difficult. 

Restricting Food Choices 

Limiting what kinds of food SNAP recipients can purchase would make grocery shopping even more challenging for Sarah. With few grocery stores in her neighborhood, her primary option was the now-closed corner store, which already had a limited selection of fresh food. If new restrictions prevent her from buying certain items such as “accessory foods”, she may struggle to find eligible foods nearby, creating more stress for Sarah and her family. 

It is important to recognize that restricting food choices is about policing people experiencing poverty, not improving public health. These restrictions contradict the very purpose of SNAP, cutting benefits while simultaneously limiting food options only deepens food insecurity.

Expanding Time Limits and Work Requirements 

As a working mother, Sarah already juggles multiple responsibilities. Expanding strict work requirements would mean that if she ever lost hours to take care of a sick child or deal with an emergency, she could lose her SNAP benefits altogether. These requirements ignore the unpredictable challenges faced by workers earning low wages and push struggling families deeper into hardship. 

Recent proposals extend work requirements for able bodied adults without dependents who have children ages 7–17 and older adults up to age 65. These changes disregard a fundamental reality: the majority of people who rely on public benefits already work, have disabilities, or serve as full-time caregivers. Increasing work requirements exacerbates poverty without addressing its root causes.

Shifting SNAP Costs to States 

If Congress forces states to cover a portion of SNAP benefits, states will be burdened with significant new costs, leading to funding shortfalls and benefit cuts. In times of economic downturn, when more families need assistance, Sarah could see her benefits reduced or face longer wait times for help. In addition, the strain on states has affected other critical programs Sarah utilizes such as Medicaid and child care subsidies. States struggling to fill the funding gap may impose stricter eligibility requirements, shorten benefit periods, or cut the size of individual SNAP allotments, deepening food insecurity for millions. 

Before advocating for this shift, Congress should revisit history. When states were given more responsibility for social safety net programs, such as with “welfare reform” in 1996, caseloads dropped significantly—not because fewer people needed assistance, but because states imposed stricter rules and administrative burdens to limit access. The result? More families going hungry and a weakened safety net that failed to reach families in need. 

Furthermore, giving states flexibility in how they allocate funding for critical programs can be a dangerous game. We see this failure playing out in Mississippi today. Despite having one of the highest poverty rates in the country and a population of 2.9 million residents, only 1,600 families received Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) benefits in 2024. This staggering disparity highlights how states can divert funds away from direct support for families in need, often based on political priorities rather than actual demand. If SNAP follows a similar path, states could spend federal dollars on anything except ensuring people have food. 

We cannot allow basic needs like food to become a political battleground. Shifting SNAP costs to states would repeat these failures, leaving millions at greater risk of hunger simply because of where they live. 

The Bigger Picture 

Sarah’s story is not unique. It reflects the daily struggle of over 42 million individuals who are parents, seniors, and workers that rely on SNAP. The choices Congress makes determine whether a child goes to bed hungry, whether an elderly neighbor skips meals to afford medication, or whether a single mother like Sarah is forced to choose between rent and groceries. SNAP is not just a program. It is a lifeline that allows families to afford food and hold onto hope in the face of hardship. Weakening it would mean more empty refrigerators, more children going to school on empty stomachs, and more families pushed further into crisis. We cannot allow that to happen.