Trump moves to cut food stamps for 6.3 million people

The Trump administration moved Tuesday to cut 6.3 million people from the food stamp program, CNBC reported, even as enrollment has already fallen sharply from earlier administration cuts.

A proposed rule from the U.S. Department of Agriculture would end automatic eligibility for the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, known as SNAP, for households receiving cash aid under the Temporary Assistance for Needy Families Program. Currently, TANF recipients qualify for SNAP without meeting federal income thresholds.

Under the USDA’s proposed change, nearly 18% of SNAP recipients would lose benefits, according to an agency analysis. The rule would also strip eligibility for free school lunch from 1.8 million children, because SNAP enrollment automatically confers school meal eligibility.

The changes would make SNAP eligibility more standardized and “preserve benefits for the truly needy,” the rule said.

More than 5.5 million people have already lost SNAP benefits since President Donald Trump enacted cuts to the program in his July 2025 tax law, bringing enrollment to about 36 million people, according to USDA data. The enrollment decline is partly due to struggles by states to implement administrative changes and absorb significant new costs from the law.

The proposed rule comes one week after a midterm election in which voters cited the cost of living as a top concern and handed Democrats control of both chambers of Congress. The administration is moving forward with a cut to food assistance in that political environment.

Rep. Angie Craig of Minnesota, the ranking Democrat on the House Agriculture Committee, called the rule “heartless and cruel” in a statement. “The proposed rule would make it harder to meet basic needs and roll back efforts to simplify federal programs,” she said.

The public will have 30 days to comment on the proposed rule before the USDA can finalize it. Given the incoming Democratic majority in the House, the rule could face congressional review under the Congressional Review Act, which allows lawmakers to overturn agency rules with a simple majority.

The cut would land on a population already under pressure. Credit card debt hit a record $1.29 trillion in the third quarter, the New York Fed reported Tuesday. Inflation rose more than expected in October, with food costs accelerating 0.5%. Food banks across the country have reported record demand for the past two years, and the USDA’s own data shows that SNAP reduces food insecurity by roughly 30%.

The administration has argued that the current system allows states to game eligibility rules, letting people who do not need assistance qualify for benefits. The proposed rule would tighten the connection between SNAP and actual need, the USDA said, by requiring all recipients to meet federal income thresholds rather than using TANF enrollment as a shortcut.

Critics say the change ignores why states created the connection in the first place. TANF eligibility is already restricted to very low-income households, typically at or below 130% to 200% of the federal poverty level. Removing the link between TANF and SNAP means those households would have to apply separately for each program, increasing administrative costs for states and reducing participation among eligible families.

The proposed rule is part of a broader pattern. The Trump administration has cut housing assistance, proposed work requirements for Medicaid, and reduced unemployment benefits. Each cut individually affects a specific population. Together, they reduce the safety net at a moment when food banks are reporting record demand and when the economic data shows households under strain. The administration’s argument is that work requirements and tighter eligibility encourage employment and reduce dependency. The evidence is mixed. Studies of SNAP work requirements show that they reduce enrollment but do not increase employment, and that the people who lose benefits are not the people who find jobs, according to research from the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities.

What I think

The timing is the thing. One week after voters said the economy is failing them, the administration proposes cutting food assistance for 6.3 million people. The political malpractice is staggering. The policy might be defensible on its own terms, in a different context, with a different constituency. But this is not that context, and those are not those constituents.

The 1.8 million children losing school lunch is the number that will stick. School lunch is not a welfare program. It is an educational program. Children who are hungry do not learn. The USDA knows this, which is why it has spent decades expanding school meal access. Reversing that progress to save money on a program that costs less than 1% of the federal budget is a choice, and it is a choice about priorities.

The 30-day comment period is a formality. The administration will finalize the rule before the Democratic House takes over in January, and the Congressional Review Act may or may not be used to overturn it. The real question is whether the 5.5 million people who already lost benefits, and the 6.3 million who are about to, show up in the economic data in a way that changes the political conversation. Food insecurity does not show up in GDP. It shows up in emergency room visits, in school performance, in infant mortality, in the long-term health outcomes of children who do not get enough to eat. It shows up slowly, and by the time it does, the policy that caused it has been forgotten. That is the cost, and it is a cost that does not appear in any budget.