Why Every SNAP ‘Cut’ Sparks the Same Headlines

If the headlines feel familiar, it’s because they are.

From Clinton’s 1996 welfare reforms to Biden’s COVID-era boosts, and now Trump’s proposed rollback, every adjustment to the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) sparks the same warnings: millions will go hungry, families will starve, and the program will be gutted beyond recognition.

The first big SNAP panic came in 1996, when President Bill Clinton signed the Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act (PRWORA). This landmark welfare reform required “able-bodied adults without dependents” (later shortened to ABAWDs) to work, train, or volunteer at least 20 hours a week to keep receiving benefits beyond three months. It was pitched as a way to encourage self-sufficiency, but critics warned it would push millions into poverty and hunger. Sound familiar?

But step back. Look at the numbers. And you’ll see a different story.

Headlines on Repeat: Nothing New Under the Sun

If you’re experiencing déjà vu, you’re not alone. Every proposed change to SNAP triggers a cascade of headlines warning of catastrophe.

Take a look at just a few from the past decade:

“The End of Welfare As We Know It: America’s once-robust safety net is no more.” (1996 Clinton)
“With cuts to SNAP benefits on horizon, state figures out ways to cope” (2014 Obama)
“‘That would actually hurt me’: Vermonters voice opposition to proposed SNAP cuts” (2019 Trump)
“SNAP: Removing financial benefits added during COVID-19 pandemic” (2023 Biden)
“Potential cuts to SNAP if federal budget bill passes; local organizations are preparing” (2025 Trump)

Each headline follows a familiar pattern: cuts are coming, communities brace, and advocates warn of widespread suffering. Yet, despite these repeated alarms, SNAP’s budget has trended upward over time.

It’s a reminder that while the details of policy shifts change, the narrative rarely does.

A Program That Only Seems to Shrink

SNAP spending has grown from ~$57 billion (inflation-adjusted to 2025 dollars) in 1996 to over $110 billion at its COVID peak in 2021. Even with Biden’s COVID-era emergency allotments expiring and Trump proposing expanded work requirements, SNAP is projected to hover around $95 billion in 2025.

That’s not a cut to pre-Clinton levels. It’s not even a return to early-Obama levels. It’s a recalibration—bringing spending back closer to 2012–2013 levels, when participation peaked after the Great Recession.

Our chart shows it clearly: a steady rise under Clinton and Bush, a sharp jump under Obama during the recession, a leveling and slight decline under Trump pre-COVID, and then the pandemic spike. Post-COVID, the program has begun easing downward—not plummeting.

So What About Starvation?

Another familiar talking point: that any SNAP reduction leads directly to malnutrition deaths. But CDC data tell a more complicated story.

Malnutrition-related deaths in the U.S. declined from ~4,000/year in the early 2000s to a low in 2006, then began rising—long before Trump’s first cuts. The steepest rise coincided with the opioid epidemic and aging Baby Boomers in nursing homes, not SNAP policy changes.

SNAP may have been adjusted countless times, but the data shows no link between those tweaks and starvation deaths. The post-2013 spike owes more to opioids and aging demographics than grocery budgets.

🍁 Make a One-Time Contribution — Stand Up for Accountability in Vermont 🍁

Clinton’s Legacy and Trump’s Update

The current uproar focuses on Trump’s plan to extend work requirements for “able-bodied adults without dependents” (ABAWDs) from age 49 to 64 and include parents of children aged 14 and older.

But let’s be clear:

Clinton’s 1996 reforms first tied food benefits to work for ABAWDs.
Obama temporarily loosened these rules during the recession.
Trump’s first term tightened them again.
Biden undid that in 2021, expanding benefits by 15–27% during the pandemic.

This new proposal isn’t “draconian” in historical context—it’s a modest expansion of requirements that already existed.

Here’s how Clinton’s 1996 reforms compare to Trump’s latest plan:

Policy	Clinton (1996)	Trump (2025 proposal)
Work Requirement Age	18–49 (ABAWDs)	18–64 (ABAWDs + parents of teens)
Children Exemption	Parents of children <18 exempt	Parents of children <14 exempt
Time Limits	3 months in 36 without work	Same
State Waivers	Broad waivers allowed	Restricts waivers to high-unemp areas
Implementation	Part of PRWORA welfare reform	Expands existing ABAWD rules

The bottom line? These are tweaks to long-standing rules, not some radical new regime.

Are We Cutting SNAP—or Just Rolling Back Pandemic Growth?

Biden’s COVID measures expanded SNAP by roughly $250–300 billion over four years. Trump’s plan would claw back about 20–22%, which still leaves total SNAP spending 5–7% higher than pre-pandemic levels.

In other words: SNAP isn’t shrinking. It’s deflating from its pandemic balloon.

The Real Takeaway

So maybe the only thing truly cut over the decades is the credibility of the headlines. SNAP has grown dramatically over 30 years—even through supposed “cuts.” Each round of headlines claims the program is being slashed to the bone. Yet federal outlays keep climbing.

The Trump proposal may sound severe in a vacuum, but in context it’s a rollback of extraordinary COVID spending. SNAP’s baseline will likely remain higher than pre-pandemic levels—and far above the Clinton/Bush era.

If history is any guide, the next administration (whoever it is) will tweak SNAP again. And the cycle of outrage and growth will continue.

If you found this information valuable and want to support independent journalism in Vermont, become a supporter for just $5/month today!

Dave Soulia | FYIVT

#fyivt #SNAPBenefits #FoodPolicy #VermontNews

Support Us for as Little as $5 – Get In The Fight!!

Make a Big Impact with $25/month—Become a Premium Supporter!

Join the Top Tier of Supporters with $50/month—Become a SUPER Supporter!