As congressional Republicans scramble to approve a massive reconciliation package, Donald Trump traveled to Capitol Hill the day before the expected floor vote, hoping some last-minute presidential lobbying would help give the controversial legislation a boost. After addressing the GOP conference behind closed doors, a reporter asked Trump a good question in a congressional hallway.
“You campaigned on lowering the price of groceries. How can you justify cutting food assistance in this [budget] bill?” the journalist asked. Trump’s response was, among other things, odd.
“Let me just tell you, the cut is going to give everybody much more food because prices are coming way down. Groceries are down,” the president replied.
It’s difficult to say with confidence exactly what he was even trying to say. If Republicans successfully cut food assistance to low-income Americans, everyone will have more food? Because grocery prices have gone down?
If I had to guess, I think Trump intended to argue that the GOP’s cuts to food assistance wouldn’t matter, because low-income families will find it easier to afford groceries because of some kind of deflationary trend the president believes is underway.
But this is bizarre on multiple levels. For one thing, grocery prices aren’t going down, no matter how many times the president claims otherwise.
For another, if Trump and his party assume that struggling families won’t be seriously affected by their proposed cuts to food assistance, they’re not paying close enough attention. The New York Times reported on the GOP’s reconciliation package and its provisions related to slashing food stamps.
In a bid to save money and restrict benefits, the bill would make a series of changes to scale back the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, or SNAP, which provides monthly aid known as food stamps to about 42 million low-income people. Under the proposal, food stamp recipients between the ages of 18 and 64 would have to obtain work in order to receive federal aid. That mandate would also apply to parents with children 7 and older. Current law subjects only beneficiaries up to age 54 to work requirements, and carves out parents with dependents.
The Times’ report added that the same Republican plan would create new pressure on cash-strapped states to pick up the slack on SNAP costs, while restricting the ability of future administrations to increase food-assistance benefits.
When the Congressional Budget Office concluded that the so-called “One Big Beautiful Bill Act” would make the poor poorer, this was a key piece of the larger puzzle.
New York magazine’s Ed Kilgore recently made the case that the Republicans’ regressive plans for Medicaid are “egregious,” but the same legislation’s approach to food security is “even more drastic.”
Those who trust Trump’s word that GOP-imposed cuts will “give everybody much more food” are in for a dramatic surprise.
