GOP Legislation Threatens to Shift 25% of Food Stamp Costs to Arizona and Other States

The U.S. House Agriculture Committee’s recent proposal has sparked concern regarding the nation’s largest food assistance program. This initiative aims to shift a portion of the costs of the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) from the federal government to individual states. Experts and Democrats warn that this could result in significant cuts to the program, and in some cases, its complete elimination in certain states.

The committee is scheduled to vote on the measure soon, which will then be integrated into a larger reconciliation package alongside ten other bills. The House plans to vote on the entire package before Memorial Day.

Currently, the federal government fully funds SNAP benefits, which provided nearly $100 billion in assistance to about 42 million Americans last year, as reported by the U.S. Department of Agriculture. The proposed changes would transfer between 5% and 25% of SNAP costs to states starting in 2028, contingent upon each state’s error rate in benefit payments.

Ty Jones Cox, vice president for food assistance at the Center for Budget and Policy Priorities, highlighted the potential consequences. “States could opt out of the program, leaving many families struggling to afford groceries,” Cox stated. The uncertainty in the proposal might lead some states to find the new financial requirements unfeasible, resulting in drastic cuts or an end to SNAP entirely.

Republican lawmakers assert the bill aims to refocus SNAP on promoting work instead of welfare. However, critics argue that shifting costs to states undermines the program’s accessibility and effectiveness.

Under the new bill, states with an error rate of 6% or lower would pay 5% of SNAP costs, while those above 10% would bear 25%. Current data reveals that over half of the states exceed a 10% error rate, placing them in a precarious financial position.

This proposed legislation is part of a broader effort to make substantial cuts, totaling $290 billion in federal spending over a decade. While Republicans argue that they are not cutting benefits, critics assert that the reduction in federal contributions will inevitably result in lower assistance for families.

Democrats and advocacy groups have strongly denounced the proposal. On a recent press call, Vermont Senator Peter Welch condemned the bill. “This isn’t about addressing waste or fraud; this is about diminishing basic nutritional security,” he asserted, emphasizing the stakes involved for families across the nation.

Senator Ben Ray Luján from New Mexico echoed these sentiments, warning that the changes could have far-reaching negative effects on hungry families while potentially aiding the wealthy. “This is not fiscally responsible; it’s taking resources from the needy to enrich billionaires,” he argued.