As congressional Republicans mull ways to slash federal spending while offsetting trillions of dollars in tax breaks, key social safety net programs may be on the chopping block. A massive budget proposal approved in the House last week directs the committees that oversee health care spending to cut $880 billion over the next decade, and the Agriculture Committee to cut $230 billion—a blueprint that Democrats warn will kneecap programs relied upon by low-income Americans, namely Medicaid and the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, or SNAP, also known as food stamps.
Nearly 43 million people receive such program benefits annually. Around 80 percent of SNAP households include a child, an elderly adult, or an adult with a disability. Because of its widespread use, any potential future cuts to SNAP would affect constituents of every ideological leaning, including rural Americans who live in Republican areas.
“SNAP is important everywhere. In every state, in every congressional district, it’s really important for our nation,” said Diane Whitmore Schanzenbach, an economist at Northwestern University who studies policies aimed at alleviating childhood poverty.
Strictly by the numbers, there are more SNAP recipients in metropolitan areas than rural ones; however, rural Americans experience disproportionately high rates of food insecurity and nonmetro areas have higher participation rates in SNAP. A 2022 report by Schanzenbach found that SNAP helped lessen rural childhood poverty, reducing the poverty rate by 2.6 percentage points for children in 2020, a greater impact than for children living in SNAP households in metro areas.
Conducting additional research for this story, and using data from states that provide county-level information, Schanzenbach reported that—by the 2023 definitions of “metro” and “nonmetro” counties—SNAP participation rates were consistently slightly higher in nonmetro counties than in metro ones from 2019 through 2023. In January 2023, for example, the SNAP participation rate in nonmetro counties hovered above 15 percent, compared to roughly 12 percent in metro counties.
Salaam Bhatti, the SNAP director at the Food Research and Action Center, noted that “accessibility and affordability” are two of the greatest challenges facing rural Americans. “Grocery stores and convenience stores are few and far between” in rural areas, said Bhatti, “and that’s if you even have transportation.” Public transportation is either unreliable or nonexistent in many parts of the country. Once a SNAP recipient makes it to the grocery store, their tight budget—program benefits amount to roughly $6.20 per day—makes it difficult to buy the most expensive items at the supermarket, such as fresh produce and meat.
“If any part of that benefit is decreased, then that has a ripple effect across the entire supply chain,” said Bhatti.
Representative Glenn “GT” Thompson, the chair of the House Agriculture Committee, has insisted that he does not want to make cuts to SNAP. This message was repeated by a committee staffer, who said that “neither the chairman nor our conference are interested in cutting SNAP benefits.” According to the Republican committee staffer, Thompson’s priorities for SNAP include cutting down on fraud, tightening work requirements for able-bodied adults without dependents, and reevaluating the Thrifty Food Plan, the method by which SNAP benefits are calculated, which was revised by the Biden administration in 2021.
However, analysis by the left-leaning Center for Budget and Policy Priorities, or CBPP, predicts that changes to the Thrifty Food Plan would amount to future cuts to SNAP benefits for recipients. This same report found that efforts to limit states’ abilities to request waivers for the three-month time limit for able-bodied adults without dependents to seek employment could cut hundreds of thousands of people from the SNAP rolls.
Another recent policy brief by CBPP argued that “rural unemployment is often higher, work can be more variable, and work opportunities are often farther away and harder to reach,” which could make it more difficult to meet those work requirements. (House Republicans note that work requirements can be met through volunteering and job training, in addition to direct employment.)
Tightening requirements would not necessarily decrease the number of hungry people in the country—just the number that actually received benefits. “The way to really reduce spending is to reduce the number of people in the program,” said Jonathan Coppess, director of the Gardner Agriculture Policy Program at the University of Illinois Urbana-Champaign. “That doesn’t mean that people aren’t hungry. It doesn’t mean they’re still not trying to put food on the table and struggling to make ends meet. They just can’t get into the program, or they give up because it’s too onerous.”
Then there is the potential impact that cuts to SNAP could have on the local economy. For example, in West Virginia—where a large percentage of the population lives in a rural area—one in five rural households received SNAP benefits, according to a fact sheet by the Food Research and Action Center. The report also found that SNAP supported more than 2,000 retailers in West Virginia, including grocery stores and farmers markets. In Texas, the state with the largest rural population by numbers, one in eight rural households rely on SNAP.
Haley Kottler, who serves as a voter engagement director at the anti-hunger organization Kansas Appleseed, recalled speaking with a grocer in a rural part of Kansas. “I spent around 45 minutes talking to a grocer about how important SNAP is to her community,” said Kottler, adding that “it really highlighted for me how important SNAP is both to folks who need access” and to the producers providing them with food—and benefiting from their business. Kansas is in some ways unique because of limits the state legislature imposed a decade ago restricting access to SNAP; Kottler noted that cuts on the federal level would compound the squeeze felt on the state level.
“The need has always been there, and the need continues to rise,” Kottler said.
Rural communities would also be hit particularly hard by cuts to SNAP because of potential impact on farm producers. Coppess identified three nodes of connection between farmers and SNAP recipients: the political intersection, as major agriculture programs and nutrition benefits are both governed by the massive legislation known as the farm bill; the symbiotic relationship between food consumers and producers, as giving low-income Americans the means to purchase vegetables or meat indirectly helps farmers; and the impact that SNAP recipients and farmers alike have on their local communities.
One report found that, during the recovery period from the Great Recession, SNAP expenditures had a greater impact on rural economies than urban ones, increasing rural output and employment by more than 1 percent between 2009 and 2014.
“Cutting $230 billion from SNAP hurts the farmers who grow our food, the truckers who haul it, the manufacturers that produce its packaging and the grocery stores that sell it,” Representative Angie Craig, the Democratic ranking member of the House Agriculture Committee, said in a statement. “These cuts endanger hundreds of thousands of jobs along a food supply chain that starts in rural America and ends at dinner tables in every community across the country.”
Republicans note that the $230 billion set out in the budget resolution is still a guideline, rather than a directive: Republicans in both the House and the Senate still need to agree on a budget resolution that satisfies both chambers as well as President Donald Trump, and the final numbers of that measure are still to be determined. Senate Republicans passed their own “skinny” budget resolution last week and have expressed serious doubts about the blueprint approved by their colleagues in the House, although the source of those complaints does not necessarily appear to be related to potential cuts to nutrition programs.
Regardless, experts warn that it would be impossible to reduce the cost of SNAP without affecting benefits. “We are going to quickly see that this just can’t all come from waste, fraud, and abuse,” Schanzenbach said. “And so we’re going to cut into muscle, not just fat.”
