The Ugly Side Of The Big Beautiful Bill

Forbes

27-05-2025

Children Going Hungry To Subsidize Gains For The Wealthy
Bilingual sign on door of frozen food aisle, We accept SNAP food stamp cards, Walgreens, Queens, New ... More York. (Photo by: Lindsey Nicholson/UCG/Universal Images Group via Getty Images)
As Congress debates the "One Big Beautiful Bill Act," many headlines focus on tax cuts and deficit projections. However, for millions of families who rely on the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP), the reality is not just ledger sheets, but whether they can afford food for their children. Behind the rhetoric, this bill proposes the largest cuts to SNAP in history, shifting costs to states and tightening eligibility in ways that will leave low-income households, especially those with children, paying more and eating less.
The bill, which passed the House on May 22, includes approximately $267 billion in cuts to SNAP over the next decade, marking the most significant reduction ever to the program. These cuts are not just numbers on a spreadsheet: they translate to real, immediate consequences for families already struggling to put food on the table.
Key provisions include:
SNAP is the nation's most extensive nutrition assistance program, serving more than 42 million Americans. Recipients are among the most vulnerable in our country, with nearly 80% of participating households including a child, elderly adult, or person with a disability. The proposed changes will disproportionately harm families of color, older adults, and parents, especially mothers, who are already balancing work, caregiving, and tight budgets.
Data from Springboard to Opportunities' 2025 white paper, Filling the Gap, shows that food insecurity rates are already alarmingly high among the low-income families who are served by SNAP. The report documents that 72% of surveyed households experienced food insecurity in the past year, with parents frequently skipping meals to ensure their children could eat. The report warns that any reduction in SNAP benefits would exacerbate already precarious household food budgets, leading to increased reliance on food pantries and other emergency resources.
One mother who relies on SNAP says she doesn't know how she'll feed her children if the proposed cuts go through. 'It would definitely create a noticeable strain on my ability to provide food and groceries for my family,' said Makaria Gibson. 'I'd have to buy less food overall or sacrifice healthy options like fresh fruit, vegetables, and different types of meats, which tend to cost more…It'll also increase stress, especially when you're trying to keep meals nutritious for your kids.'
Research consistently shows that SNAP reductions lead to higher rates of food insecurity and poorer health outcomes for children. Families who lose benefits are significantly more likely to report both household and child food insecurity, with ripple effects including increased stress, worse health, and greater developmental risks for children.
While proponents argue that shifting costs to states will improve efficiency and reduce fraud, the reality is that most states cannot absorb these new financial burdens. States facing budget shortfalls will be forced to cut eligibility, reduce benefits, or create waiting lists, leaving families with fewer resources, just as food prices remain high.
Moreover, the bill's cuts to SNAP and Medicaid are being used to fund tax breaks that overwhelmingly benefit higher-income households, while the bill is projected to raise the national debt by an additional $3.8 trillion over the next decade. It is simply fiscally irresponsible.
This isn't just about numbers on a spreadsheet — it's about children going to bed hungry, seniors skipping meals, and working families falling through the cracks. Cutting SNAP at this scale doesn't balance a budget — it breaks our social contract. The question isn't whether we can afford to feed people. It's whether we can afford not to.