As the U.S. House Agriculture Committee targets May 8 to move forward with its share of President Donald Trump’s expansive domestic agenda, tensions are mounting over proposed deep cuts — especially those impacting nutrition programs and farm-related provisions.
House Republicans are working to finalize $230 billion in spending cuts as part of a broader legislative package, which stands in stark contrast to the Senate Agriculture Committee’s goal of just $1 billion in savings. The discrepancy is setting the stage for a heated political battle over funding priorities.
One of the most contentious issues centers around the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP), formerly known as food stamps. More than 40 million low-income Americans rely on SNAP, and Republican proposals to tighten work requirements and reduce future program flexibility have drawn criticism, even from members of their own party. Several GOP lawmakers from competitive districts are voicing concern that such drastic cuts could shrink food aid benefits for vulnerable constituents.
Simultaneously, lawmakers representing agricultural states are pushing to attach new farm bill-related spending to the reconciliation package — including increases to crop reference prices. Their efforts highlight the slim odds of a standalone, bipartisan farm bill passing this year and a desire to secure wins for rural America through alternative legislative means.
However, the aggressive pursuit of SNAP cuts may put broader agricultural negotiations at risk. Democrats warn that slashing nutrition benefits would fracture the bipartisan coalition typically needed to pass a farm bill. Rep. Angie Craig (D-MN) stressed that cutting $230 billion from the nutrition title jeopardizes the entire farm bill’s prospects, urging Democrats to oppose the GOP plan firmly.
Rep. Nikki Budzinski (D-IL) echoed the alarm, noting her opposition to last year’s farm bill due to $30 billion in proposed SNAP cuts. With the current figure ballooning to $230 billion over a decade, she called the reductions “drastic,” emphasizing their potential harm to working families struggling to feed their children.
Rep. Eric Sorensen (D-IL) added that local economies would also suffer if SNAP funding is slashed. “If there’s a cut in SNAP, that means that my local grocery store closes,” he said, emphasizing the ripple effect on food producers and communities across the Midwest.
As May 8 approaches, agriculture stakeholders are bracing for what could become a defining political battle — one that may determine the future of both farm support and food aid programs in the United States.
