Nevada braces for more SNAP cuts proposed by Trump administration

The Trump administration moved on Tuesday to cut millions of Americans from the nation’s largest food assistance program even after voters signaled grocery costs were a major concern during the midterm elections.

The Department of Agriculture (USDA) published a proposed rule that would end provisions that automatically make households eligible for the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) if they also meet requirements for the Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF).

According to an analysis posted by the USDA, the proposed changes would cut SNAP benefits by more than $45 billion over five years and remove about 17% of SNAP beneficiaries from the program — or 6.3 million people — beginning in 2029, the first year the rule takes full effect. 

Under the rule, about 1.8 million children would no longer be automatically eligible for free school meals, and 5,500 households would lose access to TANF, the agency estimated.

In addition, the agency estimates that about 42,000 children nationally could potentially lose Summer EBT beginning in 2029.

It’s unclear how many Nevadans would be affected by the rule, if implemented. 

“The Division of Social Services was recently made aware of this matter and will need additional time to thoroughly review the information, evaluate any potential impacts, and gather the necessary details,” said a spokesperson for the Nevada Department of Human Services Division of Social Services. 

The proposed rule would end a policy known as “broad-based categorical eligibility,” which allows states to expand SNAP access to households that receive aid from TANF but have assets above the normal SNAP threshold. 

“Broad-based categorical eligibility has bloated the welfare rolls for decades,” a USDA spokesperson said in a statement. “It has allowed States to take short cuts, error rates to balloon, and those with income and assets far above federal limits access to a benefit meant for the neediest among us. Correcting this loophole is long overdue.”

Advocates argue the rule allows states to streamline SNAP applications for households already deemed eligible for other assistance programs, reducing administrative costs and improving efficiency.

USDA estimates the rule would increase state administrative costs by nearly $930 million.

“Eliminating [broad-based categorical eligibility] does nothing to reduce hunger, and it doesn’t improve program integrity,” said Crystal FitzSimons, president of the Food Research & Action Center in a statement.

Thousands of Nevadans have already been removed from SNAP since the passage of the Republicans One Big Beautiful Bill Act last summer, which enacted stricter work requirements. 

Since the law took effect in July 2025, Nevada has seen a 23% reduction in SNAP participants, or more than 100,000 Nevadans. 

States have also faced rising administrative costs under the bill. In Nevada, administrative costs associated with implementing the new federal requirements are estimated at $19 million for the 2025–26 biennium and approximately $50 million for each future biennium, according to the Nevada Division of Social Services. 

“It is unconscionable that the Trump administration would attempt to issue this proposed rule again now given the harm that the budget reconciliation law, H.R. 1, has already unleashed,” said FitzSimons. 

The Trump administration proposed a similar rule in 2019, during the president’s first term, but never finalized the regulation. The Biden administration withdrew the proposal in 2021.

Food banks in the state raised concerns about the proposed rule, noting that for every meal food banks distribute, SNAP provides nine.

“Food banks will do everything we can, and we already are, but the charitable food system was built to supplement SNAP, not replace it,”  said KC Kappen, a spokesperson for Three Square. “When thousands of people lose benefits at once, it creates immediate pressure on food banks and nonprofit partners. Every family that loses SNAP becomes another family in line at a pantry that’s already stretched.”

It’s unclear whether the proposed rule will ultimately be finalized following changes in leadership after the midterms. Democrats, who took control of both houses of Congress last week, have vowed to roll back SNAP cuts.

But “broad-based categorical eligibility” has long been a target of Republicans. The Heritage Foundation’s Project 2025 policy blueprint, which the Trump administration has closely followed, targets the policy.

Retail groups in Nevada also called out the proposed rule change. Bryan Wachter, the president of the Retail Association of Nevada, urged federal lawmakers to assess the potential impacts on Nevada’s retail sector, noting that every dollar in SNAP benefits directly benefits the local economy. 

“This proposed rule will have the exact opposite effect that the administration seeks to accomplish. This rule will create more government as families and businesses try to navigate an already complex system. The negative effects go far beyond those who will be removed from the program, and we urge the next Congress to examine this issue closely,” said Wachter.