House Republicans on the Rules Committee voted late Monday to advance a budget resolution that threatens to slash funding for Medicaid and the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP), stripping essential benefits from tens of millions of low-income Americans. The proposed cuts would help fund trillions of dollars in tax breaks primarily benefiting the wealthiest individuals and major corporations.
The 9-4 party-line vote sets the stage for a House floor debate and potential vote as soon as Tuesday evening. Despite concerns voiced by some House Republicans over the scale of the cuts, GOP members on the rules panel rejected Democratic amendments aimed at protecting healthcare and food assistance for vulnerable Americans.
Rep. Gabe Amo (D-R.I.) condemned the move, stating: “Republicans can’t have it both ways—they can’t claim to stand up for their constituents on SNAP and Medicaid and then reject amendments that would do just that.” Amo continued, “My common-sense amendments would have supported these two key programs that feed hungry children and care for sick Americans. Democrats provided Republicans with several chances to stand with the many instead of the rich. They declined multiple times. I’ll continue to pull out every stop as I seek to prevent these cuts from becoming reality.”
The budget resolution proposes devastating cuts to both Medicaid and SNAP:
- Medicaid: Proposed reductions could total $880 billion over the next decade. The GOP plan would impose stringent work requirements, potentially putting up to 36 million Americans at risk of losing healthcare coverage, according to the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities (CBPP).
- SNAP: The plan calls for slashing over $230 billion from the federal food assistance program through 2034. These cuts could result in more than 9 million low-income individuals losing access to food aid in an average month, the CBPP found.
The CBPP highlighted the significant consequences of such cuts, stating, “Deep SNAP cuts would worsen food insecurity, hurt local businesses, and weaken SNAP’s ability to boost jobs in every state. SNAP is highly effective at reducing food insecurity and poverty, and research links SNAP participation to better health outcomes and lower healthcare costs.”
The impact of cutting these programs would be felt most acutely by low-income households. The proposed reductions to SNAP would effectively slash more than 20 percent of benefits from a program that helps more than 40 million Americans—including 1 in 5 children—afford basic groceries.
Reversing the 2021 update to the Thrifty Food Plan (TFP), which increased SNAP benefits for the first time in nearly 60 years, would immediately cut benefits for all recipients by an average of $1.40 per person per day. This reduction would leave recipients with an average daily benefit of only $5.00 per person by 2026, worsening food insecurity for millions of families.
The CBPP emphasized that eliminating SNAP benefits for over 9 million low-income individuals would disproportionately affect vulnerable groups, including children, seniors, and individuals with disabilities. Such drastic measures could result in families being forced to choose between food, rent, and other basic necessities.
Rep. Pramila Jayapal (D-Wash.) condemned the resolution, stating: “I will not vote for a budget that gives tax breaks to billionaires and cuts critical programs for working families—including healthcare and education.”
The proposed cuts would not only hurt those directly dependent on Medicaid and SNAP but would also have broader economic consequences. The Economic Policy Institute (EPI) found that reducing Medicaid spending by $880 billion would reduce incomes for the bottom 40 percent of earners more than any tax cuts would benefit them. The wealthiest 1 percent would see significant income gains from the cuts while remaining unaffected by reductions in Medicaid.
Josh Bivens of EPI noted, “This is true even as the full $880 billion in Medicaid cuts would only pay for about 20 percent of the total cost of the [Tax Cuts and Jobs Act].” The remaining costs would likely result in additional cuts targeting non-wealthy households.
Moreover, SNAP benefits play a vital role in stimulating local economies. Every $1 in SNAP spending generates $1.54 in economic activity by supporting local businesses and boosting demand within food supply chains. Reducing these benefits could dampen economic growth, particularly in communities already struggling with poverty.
The GOP budget proposal has drawn sharp criticism from Democratic lawmakers and advocacy organizations alike. Tony Carrk, executive director of Accountable.US, called out the Republicans for prioritizing billionaires over working Americans:
“The bill House Republicans are bringing forward tomorrow is a gift to Trump’s billionaire donors paid for by hard-working Americans who are already feeling the heat from high prices in Donald Trump’s America.”
Carrk continued, “For far too many Americans, this bill will only increase their everyday costs, from their healthcare to their groceries. Put simply: the bill is a betrayal of the promise that every Republican made just months ago to lower costs.”
Despite Trump’s previous claims that he opposed cuts to Medicaid, he has since endorsed the resolution, aligning it with his broader legislative agenda.
Republican lawmakers argue that the cuts are necessary to address the growing federal deficit and claim that programs like Medicaid and SNAP foster dependency. They advocate for stricter work requirements and eligibility restrictions as a means to encourage self-sufficiency.
However, research undermines these claims. Multiple studies have shown that SNAP’s existing work requirements do little to increase employment and often result in eligible individuals losing benefits due to administrative hurdles. Many SNAP recipients already work but struggle to meet documentation requirements due to systemic barriers.
The CBPP found that expanding work requirements would disproportionately affect families with children, veterans, and individuals with disabilities. For example, a proposal from Rep. Dusty Johnson would extend work requirements to adults up to age 65 and parents with children aged 7 and older—policies that could strip food assistance from millions.
The proposed cuts could deepen existing economic inequality by shifting wealth toward the top 1 percent while removing vital resources from low-income households. States forced to bear a greater share of SNAP costs would face additional financial strain, particularly during economic downturns when demand for food assistance typically increases.
Shifting funding responsibilities to states could also lead to significant disparities in benefit distribution, with poorer states—those already grappling with high poverty and food insecurity rates—bearing the brunt of the financial burden.
Passing the GOP budget resolution is far from guaranteed. Speaker Mike Johnson (R-La.) faces narrow margins in the House, and significant opposition remains among Senate Republicans who favor advancing Trump’s legislative agenda through smaller, more targeted bills.
If passed, the resolution could face legal challenges, with opponents arguing that cutting essential services violates federal statutes and undermines the U.S. government’s commitment to providing a basic safety net for vulnerable populations.
COMMENTS