A Republican proposal to shift a significant portion of the cost of the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) to state governments has hit a major roadblock. The Senate parliamentarian has determined that the provision violates chamber rules, a decision that could delay the broader tax and spending bill it was part of.
The proposed change, which aimed to reduce federal spending on SNAP, would have required states to cover at least 5% of the benefit costs. With over 40 million Americans relying on food assistance, this move was expected to place a new financial burden on state budgets.
The setback now puts pressure on lawmakers to find alternative methods to fund President Donald Trump’s tax cuts without undermining support for vulnerable Americans.
The Blocked SNAP Cost-Sharing Provision
The Senate parliamentarian’s decision has dealt a significant blow to Republican efforts to reduce federal spending on social safety net programs.
Elizabeth MacDonough, the Senate parliamentarian, ruled that the SNAP cost-sharing proposal violated the Byrd Rule, which prevents certain policy changes from being attached to budget bills through reconciliation. This rule is in place to ensure that budget bills focus solely on fiscal matters rather than implementing sweeping policy changes.
The provision, which was a key part of the Republican plan to offset the costs of Trump’s $4.5 trillion tax and spending legislation, would have shifted billions of dollars in SNAP costs to state governments. This would have been a major change in how the program operates and raised concerns about the financial strain on states, potentially leading to cuts in benefits for low-income families. The provision was projected to save around $128 billion, a figure Republican lawmakers hoped would help balance the cost of tax reductions.
Republican Leaders Scramble to Revise Bill
With the parliamentarian’s ruling, Republicans face the challenge of revising their bill to comply with Senate rules while still delivering the savings needed to finance tax cuts.
Lawmakers, including Senate Agriculture Committee Chairman John Boozman of Arkansas, have stated that they are exploring options to modify or remove the disputed provision. Some analysts have suggested that Republican leaders may need to introduce alternative cost-saving measures to ensure the broader tax and spending package can pass.
Democrats and anti-hunger advocates, however, have warned that any attempt to reduce SNAP funding will disproportionately affect vulnerable populations. In particular, critics point to the expanded work requirements for older adults, which remain part of the bill. According to the Congressional Budget Office, more than 3 million individuals could lose access to food assistance under the proposed changes.
