Millions of American families could lose access to food assistance if funds are diverted to pay for tax cuts from the wealthy and increased farm subsidies, leading to a funding loss for more than three-quarters of counties, a new EWG analysis finds.
The House Republicans’ proposed budget could result in net loss of funding in nearly 80 percent of U.S. counties, deepening poverty and inequality. It would particularly harm rural areas, especially in the very places whose voters – many of them recipients of food assistance – would be hardest hit.
Under one scenario, Congress might cut $300 billion in food assistance from SNAP, the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, and use part of it to fund higher price guarantees for major crops. EWG’s new analysis finds that such cuts would cause a net loss in federal assistance to 78 percent of counties. The tradeoff would come at a high human cost, stripping vital food assistance from millions of families.
The increase in farm price guarantees funded by the SNAP cuts would be a windfall for the largest and most successful farms in a handful of states and counties.
Taking food off the table
EWG’s analysis aims to better understand the impact of potential budget changes. It looks at what would happen if House Republicans cut SNAP by $300 billion over the next 10 years to deliver $230 billion in savings, as required by the House budget resolution, and redirected $35 billion of the savings to increase crop price guarantees.
EWG found that 78 percent of counties could see a net reduction in federal support for residents. Additionally, 90 percent of counties could see fewer people receiving benefits. This plan would take food off the tables for millions of families, just to increase subsidies to major crop producers.
Many counties that backed President Donald Trump in the 2024 election, including counties in Arizona, California, Florida, Pennsylvania and Texas, stand to lose billions in federal funding. The change would hurt not only people living in cities, but also those in farm country – the very communities that helped elect Republican leaders.
Losses in farm country
The analysis of this scenario shows that more than 1,217 rural counties that supported Trump in 2024 could have a net loss in federal funding. That’s even after accounting for farm subsidies that would go up in those counties. Farm country would still lose more than it would gain.
Florida, a stronghold of Trump support, would be among the hardest hit. Nearly every county in the state would lose funding, with EWG’s analysis projecting Hillsborough, Miami-Dade and Polk counties to each lose more than $1 billion in spending across 10 years.
In Pennsylvania, every county would lose funding, including those represented by Republican House Agriculture Committee Chair G.T. Thompson and Republican Reps. Ryan Mackenzie, Scott Perry and Rob Bresnahan. The state as a whole, under this scenario, would lose nearly $13 billion in federal spending over the next decade, EWG finds.
All of California’s counties would lose funding, including those represented by Republican Reps. David Valadao, Young Kim and Ken Calvert. These cuts would leave countless families in one of the most expensive states in the country struggling to put meals on the table.
Michigan would fare no better. Every county would see reductions in federal support, including all of those represented by Republican Rep. Tom Barrett.
Meanwhile, in New Jersey and New York, every county would lose funding, hitting working-class households in districts represented by Republican Reps. Tom Kean (N.J.), and Mike Lawler (N.Y.).
Proposals for reducing SNAP spending
SNAP is widely recognized as one of the most effective anti-poverty programs in the U.S. A 2021 update to SNAP was the first of its kind in nearly 60 years and lifted more than 2 million people out of poverty, including more than 1 million children.
To reduce SNAP spending, policymakers are considering options that would take food assistance away from millions of Americans. That could mean slashing recent benefit increases, changing eligibility requirements to cut millions of people from the SNAP program, or shifting more of the cost burden to already strained state budgets.
Rolling back the 2021 update to SNAP benefits and slowing the growth of future benefits could help meet the House budget resolution’s savings target, according to the Congressional Budget Office. Some lawmakers also want to expand existing work requirements, a change the CBO says could reduce SNAP spending by as much as $120 billion.
But cuts to SNAP spending would do real harm: Weakening local economies, driving up hunger, and hitting children and seniors the hardest, studies show.
Meanwhile, increasing farm subsidies does little to reduce poverty or strengthen rural economies. Unlike SNAP, these payments are not based on need and rarely reach the Americans most in need of support.
Unlike SNAP, farm subsidies are not subject to any work requirements. They overwhelmingly benefit the largest and most successful operations. EWG recently found that nearly 80,000 people living in cities collected $2.3 billion in farm subsidies between 2019 and 2023. These “city slickers” often do not contribute to on-the-farm labor. Further, about one-third of all crop insurance spending never reaches farmers at all. Instead it goes to major corporations and insurance agents.
Increasing price guarantees for crops does not benefit most farmers. Only 40 percent of farmers grow crops eligible for payments linked to reference prices. The top 10 percent of those farmers collected nearly three-quarters – 73 percent – of all payments linked to reference prices in 2023.
The amounts of these subsidies are based on how much limited and highly coveted land and crop production a farmer has. As a result, the biggest payouts go to the biggest operations.
Very few farmers would benefit significantly from higher reference prices. In 2023, fewer than 200 farms received more than $10,000 from the main federal program that uses reference prices. The bottom 80 percent of program recipients received just $513 on average. This means the majority of farms will continue to not receive meaningful support and instead the largest, most successful farms would reap the benefits.
Net farm income is expected to increase in 2025, thanks to lower production costs and higher market prices. Cuts to SNAP to fund bigger subsidies for the largest farms is not just unfair – it’s a net loss for the entire country. The budget proposal would deepen poverty and inequality while weakening rural economies, especially in the very places whose voters would be hardest hit.
This article has been updated to correct the list of House GOP representatives in Pennsylvania.
