Military Families Could Go Hungry Due to Food Assistance Cuts in GOP's 'Big Beautiful Bill'

Volunteering soldiers and members of the Central Texas Food Bank package assorted goods to give to families attending the drive-thru pantry event at the Phantom Warrior Stadium parking lot. (U.S. Army photo by Shawn Davis, Fort Cavazos Public Affairs)

Posted: May 17, 2025 --- Military.com | By Rebecca Kheel

Published May 16, 2025 at 3:23pm ET

Military families struggling with food insecurity could be among the potentially millions of people who lose food assistance under sweeping cuts to the benefits being advanced by House Republicans, advocates are warning. The One Big Beautiful Bill Act, as Republicans are now calling their wide-ranging legislation to enact Trump's agenda, would cut federal funding for the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP).

States would be tasked with making up the difference in funding, but states with budget constraints could need to make drastic cuts to the program that leave millions without benefits. Republicans maintain the changes are necessary to put SNAP more in line with other benefits programs and ensure states aren't giving out benefits to people who shouldn't be eligible. But anti-hunger advocates say the changes would devastate the program, and military family advocates say that service members are sure to be among those hurt.

"I don't think military families have been specifically singled out in [the bill], but we are concerned about the impact this will have both on those families who are currently receiving SNAP benefits and on the larger effort to expand benefits so more families who are struggling can get help," said Eileen Huck, acting director of government relations at the National Military Family Association.

"We've had so much conversation, at least last year, about food insecurity among military families, and the fact that up to 25% of military families report having experienced food insecurity, so to be having that conversation and then see a potential reduction in the nutrition assistance program is very jarring and very concerning," she added. Active-duty service members face food insecurity at higher rates than the civilian population. While about 25% of service members were considered food insecure in 2018 and 2020, just about 10% of civilian adults were food insecure in the same time period, according to a 2024 study from the U.S. Department of Agriculture.

Congress has taken steps in recent years to alleviate food insecurity in the military, including approving a massive pay raise for junior enlisted troops that took effect in April and creating a new benefit called the Basic Needs Allowance for service members near the federal poverty line. But many military families rely on SNAP, more colloquially known as food stamps. Data on the exact number of service members on SNAP is limited and varies widely.

In 2020, the Defense Department estimated that somewhere between 880 and 4,620 service members were using SNAP, while a 2015 report from the department found that as many as 22,000 service members were receiving SNAP benefits. Service members have already faced difficulties accessing SNAP. In addition to service members not applying for the benefit because of fears about the stigma of food insecurity, many food-insecure troops can't qualify because the Basic Allowance for Housing is counted as income for calculating eligibility for SNAP.

Congressional efforts in recent years to exclude BAH from income for SNAP have stalled. Now, advocates who have been pushing for that fix fear it could be even harder for service members to get the food benefits under the GOP's Trump agenda bill. "While military and veteran hunger present an urgent threat to our national defense, Congress has opted to risk worsening the issue," more than a dozen military, veteran and anti-hunger advocacy groups wrote in a letter to Congress last month.

"The federal budget reflects our nation's highest priorities, and making sure our military and veteran families have enough to eat should not be a question." Since SNAP was created, the federal government has covered the full costs of the benefit, while states and the federal government have split administrative costs 50/50.

The One Big Beautiful Bill Act would, for the first time, require states to shoulder some of the costs of the benefits themselves. The cost-sharing for the administrative costs would also be shifted, with states having to carry 75% of the burden. The amount of funding states would have to contribute to the benefits would range from 5% to 25% depending on the state's so-called "error rate," which is how often states make overpayments or underpayments.

"Unlike every other state-administered entitlement program, the SNAP benefit is 100% funded by the federal government, resulting in minimal incentive for states to control costs, enhance efficiencies and improve outcomes for recipients," House Agriculture Committee Chairman Glenn Thompson, R-Pa., said at the committee's debate on the bill this week.

"We must ensure the proper incentives are in place for states to administer the program more effectively for those it serves, and this measure does just that by aligning SNAP with other state-administered programs and requiring a minimal benefit cost share on the states," he added. But cost-sharing could overwhelm state budgets, forcing them to cut benefits, restrict eligibility or even stop offering SNAP in the state altogether, said Liza Lieberman, vice president of public affairs at MAZON: A Jewish Response to Hunger.