Proposed cuts to Medicaid, SNAP and WIC will hurt lower-income families.
Congress sidetracks MAHA agenda and risks voter outrage by cutting SNAP, WIC and Medicaid.
While its opinions on vaccines may be controversial, a big part of the Make Americans Healthy Again (MAHA) Commission’s mission is noble: improve the health of Americans, especially children, by steering diets more toward whole grains, fruits, vegetables, and lean proteins. But as they prepare to tell Americans what they should eat, Congress is simultaneously throwing health out the window and guaranteeing that millions of lower-income families – those who have the most health issues – won’t be able to afford to eat healthier.
The so-called “One Big Beautiful Bill” now moving through the Senate proposes sharp cuts to SNAP (food stamps), WIC (Women, Infants, and Children) and Medicaid—programs that are lifelines for low-income families. The contradiction is glaring: How can one branch of government promote healthier eating while another branch strips away the supports that make that possible?
The Bill Handicaps MAHA’s Goals
SNAP, WIC and Medicaid are foundational pillars of nutritional and health security for lower-income families. SNAP helps households stretch limited budgets to afford groceries, especially fruits, vegetables, dairy, and protein-rich foods recommended in the Dietary Guidelines. The House Republican bill would cut benefits by almost $300 billion through 2034, or roughly 30% according to the Congressional Budget Office (CBO). More than 2 million children will lose some or all of the food assistance necessary to help their families buy groceries.
WIC provides food and nutritional assistance for pregnant women, infants, and young children at crucial stages of growth and development. Georgia Machell, president and CEO of the National WIC Association, noted that by cutting WIC’s Cash Value Benefits (CVB) for fruits and vegetables by two-thirds, healthy food becomes out of reach for low-income moms and young children who face nutritional risk. “Under this proposal, breastfeeding mothers would see their monthly benefits plummet from $54 to just $13, while young children’s benefits would drop from $27 to $10,” she stated.
Medicaid ensures access to preventive care, pediatric services, and nutrition counseling that helps families make healthier choices and manage chronic conditions. The CBO estimates that the bill would cut federal Medicaid spending by almost $800 billion over ten years and 10.3 million fewer people would be enrolled in Medicaid by 2034. The Senate version of the bill is expected to be even more draconian, potentially leading to increased numbers of uninsured Americans. These reductions can increase food insecurity, making it more difficult for people to afford nutritious food and sustain their health.
Hamstringing MAHA Is A Political Miscalculation
This is more than a moral paradox. It’s a political blunder that risks alienating the very voters both parties claim to champion. I wrote an article in Forbes.com not long ago about how affordable food has more power to sway voters than tariffs or slogans. Food security is tangible. It hits home at every meal. Voters may tolerate gridlock in Washington, but when their grocery bills rise or their ability to feed their kids is threatened, the political consequences can be swift. Witness how the price of eggs became a rallying cry in the 2024 election.
The new Dietary Guidelines coming out of MAHA will likely emphasize reducing childhood obesity, which disproportionately affects lower-income families. These same families also have the highest rates of food insecurity. SNAP and WIC are not luxuries: they’re the only way these families can afford milk, eggs, whole grains, and fresh produce in the first place. Medicaid provides the preventive care and nutrition counseling that could turn those guidelines from aspiration into action. Cut these programs, and we widen the gap between what families should eat and what they can eat.
The economic logic is flawed as well. Food insecurity is linked to higher rates of chronic disease, developmental delays in children, and greater reliance on emergency health services. Medicaid and SNAP aren’t just social programs—they’re long-term investments in public health and economic stability. Gutting them might reduce immediate federal spending, but it guarantees ballooning healthcare costs and reduced workforce productivity in the years to come. For example, obesity costs about $173 billion per year today according to the CDC. It will only get worse.
Here are three ways to make MAHA a reality:
- Expand SNAP eligibility to include struggling working families just above the poverty line. These are the Americans who earn too much to qualify for assistance but too little to consistently afford nutritious foods. They often work multiple jobs, live paycheck to paycheck, and face the same barriers to healthy eating as those officially below the poverty threshold. Expanding SNAP would help these families bridge the gap between dietary guidelines and actual eating patterns.
- Recognize food policy as a voter issue, not just a health issue. Affordable food is political currency. When families see that government policies help them feed their children better, they reward that leadership. When they see those policies fail, or worse, make their lives more difficult, they respond at the ballot box.
- Lawmakers should stop pretending nutrition policy can succeed without social policy alignment. We can’t ask families to feed their kids whole grains and fresh fruit while stripping away the programs that put those foods within reach. It’s a hollow promise that is likely to backfire.
If government is serious about MAHA, it must align its policies with its stated aspirations. Health & Human Services’ Dietary Guidelines are important, but they can’t work in isolation. It’s time for lawmakers to match nutrition goals with real-world supports – and to recognize that the health of our nation and the political health of our democracy may depend on it.
