Earlier this month, states received the bill for last summer’s sweeping cuts to SNAP (the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program): a huge increase in the cost of administering the nation’s largest anti-hunger program.
Under the law known as H.R. 1, states now shoulder a greater share of the cost of keeping SNAP running. For state leaders already facing tight budgets, that means difficult choices about where to find the money — potentially at the expense of other essential services that support children and families.
During last year’s government shutdown, we caught a glimpse of what happens when families suddenly lose food assistance. As SNAP benefits hung in the balance, the public outcry was swift and overwhelming. Families, advocates, governors, and lawmakers raised the alarm about the consequences of interrupting benefits that millions of Americans use to buy groceries.
Today, states are facing a different but potentially far more enduring threat to those same benefits. And this time, the disruption is not the result of a temporary funding lapse. It is built into federal law, with costs and consequences that will continue to unfold over the coming years.
When Congress passed H.R. 1 last summer, lawmakers assured Americans that kids would be protected from the largest cuts to SNAP in program history. Children make up roughly 40 percent of SNAP participants, so child advocates were rightly concerned.
The promises were explicit.
During a House Agriculture Committee markup last May, House Republicans were unequivocal: “If you have young children at home, your benefits are unaffected by this bill.”
Fourteen months later, an estimated 2 million children have lost access to SNAP. And that number will continue to grow.
Some in the administration are refuting these estimates. In June, when asked about early estimates that 700,000 children had already lost access to SNAP benefits, Agriculture Secretary Brooke Rollins dismissed the figures as “not correct.” But ProPublica independently verified the data underlying those estimates. And since then, the estimated number of children affected has nearly tripled.
As candidates crisscross the country making promises to voters ahead of next week’s elections, the gap between lawmakers’ pre-H.R. 1 assurances and the law’s consequences deserves scrutiny.
Behind these numbers are families in the middle of a dual crisis: already stretching grocery budgets to their limits because of rising food costs, now with even fewer resources as they lose SNAP. And for children, the consequences of going without enough food extend far beyond an empty stomach.
Researchers have long documented the lasting effects of childhood hunger on brain development, physical health and educational outcomes. The effects of hunger in early childhood have been likened to a brain injury — a stark reminder that the consequences of these policy decisions can follow children for a lifetime.
Some of the ways H.R. 1 has stripped children of food assistance are direct and measurable. Others are less visible. And their full impact is still unfolding.
Under expanded work requirements, for example, some parents of older teenagers may lose SNAP assistance if they cannot meet new, stricter eligibility rules. Fewer grocery dollars for the entire household often means older children skipping meals, eating less, or taking jobs to help their families afford food - sacrificing time for schoolwork, extracurricular activities, and simply being kids.
The law’s impact on children’s access to food extends beyond SNAP. Changes to SNAP eligibility threaten to disrupt access to free school meals and Summer EBT, the federal grocery benefit that helps families feed their children in the summertime. Meanwhile, state agencies navigating complicated new rules and shrinking resources face additional administrative burdens, potentially making it harder for eligible families to get the help they need.
These are not isolated consequences. They are interconnected pressures on families already struggling with the rising cost of groceries, housing and other essentials.
And the financial pressure on states is about to intensify.
For the first time in SNAP’s history, states will be required beginning next year to cover a portion of the cost of food benefits if their SNAP payment error rates — which reflect administrative inaccuracies, not fraud — exceed certain thresholds. Combined with the administrative costs already taking effect, these changes could force states to make even more difficult decisions - some could even stop operating SNAP altogether, a threat to the program we’ve never seen before.
Congress has an opportunity to revisit these provisions before more families are affected. At a minimum, it must provide a two-year delay as part of any end-of-year spending bill — offering states breathing room to reduce error rates and more certainty ahead of upcoming legislative sessions.
With the midterms less than a week away, candidates are making promises to American families. But millions of kids are still living with the consequences of their last ones. Voters deserve to know what their representatives will do to protect children from further cuts and restore the food assistance families have already lost. Because to have a strong America, we need strong kids.
Billy Shore is founder and executive chair of Share Our Strength.
As expensive as food is this is obscene. If your representative and senator voted for the big ugly bill, then you need to vote them out.