Warning Issued From 23 States Over SNAP Benefit Cuts – Newsweek

Report on Democratic Governors’ Opposition to Proposed SNAP Funding Cuts

Introduction

All 23 Democratic governors have collectively written a letter urging Congress to refrain from reducing funding for the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) or transferring the financial responsibility to state governments. This report highlights the implications of these proposed changes with a focus on the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), particularly those related to zero hunger (SDG 2), poverty reduction (SDG 1), and good health and well-being (SDG 3).

Context and Importance

Republican members of the Senate Agriculture Committee are advancing legislation under the One Big Beautiful Bill Act that aims to implement significant federal cost reductions to SNAP. This program currently assists approximately 40 million low- and no-income Americans by providing monthly grocery benefits.

The proposed legislation includes a shift in funding responsibility, requiring states to cover a larger share of SNAP administrative costs. Presently, states pay 50% of administrative expenses, while the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) funds the entire cost of benefits and the remaining administrative costs.

Potential Impact on States and Beneficiaries

• Many states have expressed concerns about their capacity to absorb increased financial burdens.
• There is a risk that some states may withdraw from SNAP, potentially depriving millions of vulnerable Americans of essential food assistance.
• This shift threatens progress toward SDG 2 (Zero Hunger) by jeopardizing food security for low-income populations.

Governors’ Letter: Key Arguments

The letter addressed to Senate and House leadership emphasizes that the proposed cost-sharing measures would severely undermine SNAP’s effectiveness. Key points include:

1. The risk of states withdrawing from SNAP due to unaffordable financial demands.
2. The likelihood of millions losing access to vital food assistance.
3. States facing an “impossible ultimatum” to either find new funding sources or reduce SNAP access.
4. An unrealistic expectation that states can compensate for federal funding cuts amid strained budgets.
5. Concerns about simultaneous proposed cuts to other federally funded safety net programs such as Medicaid and disaster relief.

Governors Supporting the Letter

• Arizona Governor Katie Hobbs
• California Governor Gavin Newsom
• Connecticut Governor Ned Lamont
• Colorado Governor Jared Polis
• Delaware Governor Matt Meyer
• Hawaii Governor Josh Green
• Illinois Governor JB Pritzker
• Kansas Governor Laura Kelly
• Kentucky Governor Andy Beshear
• Maine Governor Janet Mills
• Maryland Governor Wes Moore
• Massachusetts Governor Maura Healey
• Michigan Governor Gretchen Whitmer
• Minnesota Governor Tim Walz
• New Jersey Governor Phil Murphy
• New Mexico Governor Michelle Lujan Grisham
• New York Governor Kathy Hochul
• North Carolina Governor Josh Stein
• Oregon Governor Tina Kotek
• Pennsylvania Governor Josh Shapiro
• Rhode Island Governor Dan McKee
• Washington Governor Bob Ferguson
• Wisconsin Governor Tony Evers

Revised Senate Proposal Details

The Senate’s revised plan allows states to select their payment error rates from fiscal years 2025 or 2026 to determine cost-sharing obligations starting in fiscal year 2028. From fiscal year 2029 onward, the cost-share will be based on the average error rate over the previous three years.

• States maintaining payment error rates under 6% will not be required to contribute financially.
• The maximum cost-share for other states is capped at 15%.

Stakeholder Perspectives

Statements from Officials

Colorado Governor Jared Polis: “Hundreds of thousands of Coloradans rely on SNAP to access food and we urge Congress not to make these drastic cuts. These cuts would hurt children and families, communities and our economies, while stretching state budgets even further.”

Darcy Milburn, Director of Social Security and Health Care Policy at the Arc of the United States, stated: “Shifting responsibility for funding SNAP onto states would upend state budgets. SNAP is an optional program for states, so state governments may decide to address this fiscal challenge by reducing SNAP benefits, restricting eligibility, or even opting out of SNAP entirely.”

Implications for Sustainable Development Goals

• SDG 1 (No Poverty): Ensuring SNAP funding supports low-income populations is critical to poverty alleviation.
• SDG 2 (Zero Hunger): Maintaining SNAP funding prevents food insecurity among vulnerable groups.
• SDG 3 (Good Health and Well-being): Access to nutritious food through SNAP contributes to improved health outcomes.
• SDG 10 (Reduced Inequalities): Protecting SNAP funding helps reduce inequalities in food access across states.
• SDG 17 (Partnerships for the Goals): Collaboration between federal and state governments is essential to sustain social safety nets.

Next Steps

Following approval by the House of Representatives in May, the SNAP provisions are currently under review by the Senate Agriculture Committee, with the goal of passing the full bill by Independence Day.

Stakeholders and SNAP recipients are encouraged to engage with policymakers to express concerns regarding the proposed funding changes.

1. Which SDGs are addressed or connected to the issues highlighted in the article?

1. SDG 2: Zero Hunger
   • The article focuses on the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP), which provides food assistance to low- and no-income Americans, directly addressing hunger and food security.
2. SDG 1: No Poverty
   • SNAP supports millions of Americans living in poverty by helping them afford groceries, thus alleviating poverty-related food insecurity.
3. SDG 3: Good Health and Well-being
   • Access to adequate nutrition through SNAP contributes to better health outcomes for families, children, and older adults.
4. SDG 10: Reduced Inequalities
   • The program targets vulnerable populations, including children, older adults, and working people with low income, aiming to reduce inequalities in food access.
5. SDG 17: Partnerships for the Goals
   • The article discusses federal and state government roles and cooperation in funding SNAP, highlighting governance and partnership challenges.

2. What specific targets under those SDGs can be identified based on the article’s content?

1. SDG 2: Zero Hunger
   • Target 2.1: By 2030, end hunger and ensure access by all people to safe, nutritious, and sufficient food all year round.
   • Target 2.2: By 2030, end all forms of malnutrition, including achieving targets on stunted and wasted children under 5 years of age.
2. SDG 1: No Poverty
   • Target 1.3: Implement nationally appropriate social protection systems and measures for all, including floors, and achieve substantial coverage of the poor and vulnerable.
3. SDG 3: Good Health and Well-being
   • Target 3.4: Reduce premature mortality from non-communicable diseases through prevention and treatment and promote mental health and well-being.
4. SDG 10: Reduced Inequalities
   • Target 10.2: Empower and promote the social, economic and political inclusion of all, irrespective of age, sex, disability, race, ethnicity, origin, religion or economic or other status.
5. SDG 17: Partnerships for the Goals
   • Target 17.14: Enhance policy coherence for sustainable development.
   • Target 17.19: By 2030, build on existing initiatives to develop measurements of progress on sustainable development that complement GDP.

3. Are there any indicators mentioned or implied in the article that can be used to measure progress towards the identified targets?

1. Indicator related to SDG 2 and SDG 1:
   • Number of people receiving SNAP benefits (about 40 million low- and no-income Americans) – measures coverage and reach of food assistance programs.
   • SNAP payment error rates – used to determine state cost-sharing obligations and program efficiency.
   • State participation rates and potential dropout from SNAP – indicates accessibility and sustainability of food assistance.
2. Indicator related to SDG 3:
   • Access to nutritious food through SNAP and its impact on health outcomes (implied).
3. Indicator related to SDG 10:
   • Number of vulnerable groups (children, older adults, working people) benefiting from SNAP – reflects social inclusion and reduction of inequalities.
4. Indicator related to SDG 17:
   • Cost-sharing rates and funding mechanisms between federal and state governments – reflects policy coherence and partnership effectiveness.

4. Table: SDGs, Targets and Indicators

Source: newsweek.com