Cuts to Health & Nutrition Programs Will Harm Millions of Americans and, Once Again, Imperil State Higher Education Affordability for a Generation of Students

Congress is advancing a policy framework that would cut trillions of dollars from critical health and nutrition programs to offset tax cuts for the wealthy—with disastrous implications for individuals with lower incomes and higher education. These proposed cuts will reduce funding for essential support programs and attempt to shift more responsibility to states at a time when many states are already facing budget shortfalls.  

These cuts would decimate state budgets, erode critical supports, and harm higher education at a time when research shows that demand for workers with more education is predicted to grow. Affording both education and living expenses is already out of reach for many, which helps explain why only 64% of students in four-year programs graduate within six years—and why nearly 37 million adults have some college education but no degree or credential. 

Our nation cannot afford for states to sacrifice a healthy population or an educated workforce in exchange for tax cuts projected to add nearly $5 trillion to the federal deficit over the next decade, even after accounting for the proposed spending reductions. It is imperative that members of Congress protect their states and their constituents by rejecting the deep budget cuts proposed in reconciliation.  

The Impact of Cost-Shifting to States 

Unlike the federal government, states must balance their budgets annually. In these budgets, healthcare and education are the largest expenses, and currently comprise over 30 percent of state spending, with higher education specifically comprising 15 percent of state budgets. Spending cuts or cost shifts from federal to state responsibility would necessitate either increases in state tax revenue or spending cuts. In fiscal year 2024, 40 states saw declining tax revenues, and many are already projecting short- and long-term fiscal shortfalls. Proposed cuts to the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) and Medicaid at the federal level would deepen these pressures and create a domino effect of cuts to other critical services, including higher education.  

The House reconciliation framework instructs Congressional committees to identify $330 billion in cuts to education and workforce programs, $230 billion to agriculture, and $880 billion from the House Energy and Commerce Committee, which oversees Medicaid. While full details have not yet been released, the direction has been clear. Proposed cuts to Medicaid and SNAP will impact millions of low- and moderate-income Americans that utilize them to work, pursue education, and better afford food and healthcare. 

We have evidence from the Great Recession of what happens when states face budget constraints: deep cuts to education, health, and social services programs, from which higher education has only recently recovered. The consequences are clear: states will be expected to do more with fewer resources and everyday Americans will ultimately pay the immediate and long-term price.  

Cuts to SNAP: Implications for Higher Education 

SNAP is currently administered through a partnership between the federal government and states, but SNAP benefits are fully funded by the federal government. One of the proposed cuts would shift benefit cost to states, which would be devastating for both individuals and state budgets, especially in states with large populations of people with low incomes.   

States would face stark choices: reduce SNAP benefits, cut eligibility, or find other ways to limit access. But the effects wouldn’t stop there. Because higher education is primarily funded by state tax dollars, federal cuts to SNAP will reverberate through education budgets as well, where higher education remains the largest source of discretionary spending that can be cut.   

If SNAP cost-sharing proposals are enacted, current and future students, some of whom are also experiencing food insecurity, would experience a double blow when states are forced to choose between ensuring residents don’t starve or funding public colleges and keeping tuition affordable.  

State Budget Impact Example: SNAP Benefit Cost-Sharing  

To contextualize how federal cuts to SNAP would put downstream pressure on state budgets, we used the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities (CBPP) recent cost-sharing analysis (Table 2). We assessed what shifting just 10% of the cost of SNAP benefits from federal to state responsibility would mean in the context of a state’s FY 2023 state and local higher education spending (Table 1.4) and found that: 

• California would be forced to come up with $1.23 billion—which accounts for over 5% of its higher education budget. 
• Iowa would have to find $53 million—almost 6% of its higher education budget. 
• Michigan would need to reallocate $304 million—over 10% of its higher education budget. 
• New York would need more than $731 million—almost 10% of its higher education budget. 
• Pennsylvania would need an additional $424 million—just over 19% of its higher education budget. 

Why It Matters 

Cuts to SNAP will harm people’s ability to meet their basic need for food and limit their ability to work and pursue education. Raising the costs for education or reducing spending on instruction will create additional barriers to completing a credential or degree, especially for those from nontraditional backgrounds such as adult learners, parenting students, and students with low incomes.  

The implications for the economy could be staggering. Research shows that demand for workers with more education is expected to rise and that education beyond high school produces better economic outcomes and results in less use of public programs, like SNAP. State leaders should not be forced to wrangle with whether the individuals in their state can eat or be prepared for the jobs of the future. Congress should reject proposed shifts to state cost sharing for SNAP and continue to federally fund the program to keep state budgets whole.  

Cuts to Medicaid: Implications for Higher Education  

Medicaid is the country’s largest federal-state partnership. The federal government provides about two-thirds of the funding for the program to states. Medicaid provides coverage to 72 million individuals nationwide, which improves access to healthcare, positively impacts health outcomes, and stabilizes families financially by reducing out of pocket costs. Medicaid also improves outcomes for children, reducing childhood poverty by 5.3 percent.  

Recent proposals to cut Medicaid involve a variety of approaches, including imposing work requirements, reducing federal match rates and capping federal funding. All of these proposals would have the effect of harming access to affordable health care for everyone, though Medicaid expansion states (41 states and the District of Columbia) would see the greatest impact. For example, the proposal to reduce the federal match rate could terminate or decrease coverage for over 20 million individuals who have received Medicaid through expansion. 

State Budget Impact Example: Medicaid Expansion Match Rate Reduction 

To contextualize how federal cuts to Medicaid would put downstream pressure on state budgets, we used recent state by state analyses from the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities (CBPP). We assessed what reducing the current 90 percent federal match rate to a state’s regular match rate (which varies by state) would mean in the context of a state’s FY 2023 state and local higher education spending (Table 1.4) and found that: 

• California would be forced to come up with an additional $12.46 billion—which represents over 51% of its higher education budget. 

• Iowa would be required to spend an additional $434 million—which represents 47% of its higher education budget. 

• Michigan would have to find an additional $1.73 billion—which represents almost 58% of its higher education budget. 

• New York would be required to reallocate about $4.43 billion—which represents almost 60% of its higher education budget. 

• Pennsylvania would need to secure about $2.56 billion—representing a staggering 116% of its higher education budget. 

Why It Matters 

The proposed $880 billion in cuts from Medicaid represent an 11 percent reduction in federal funding over ten years, leaving states scrambling to cover the gap. Each of the options proposed would ultimately cut Medicaid funding for at-risk populations, forcing states to make impossible decisions about how to supplant federal funding that has served their residents for years. 

States spend on average over 30 percent of their budgets funding healthcare and higher education, which means if healthcare spending rises, states will likely be forced to cut their education spending. With reduced state investment, institutions will have to be creative to account for their own budget gaps, as was done during the 2001 and 2008 recessions. When states decrease higher education spending, research shows that institutions pass on funding gaps to students by increasing tuition. Ultimately, this makes college less accessible and affordable for everyone, but people with lower incomes would be hit hardest.  

Conclusion 

If Congress moves forward with cuts to essential programs like Medicaid and SNAP, the impact will be immediate and far reaching. Millions of Americans across every state and territory will lose access to critical food assistance and healthcare—programs that keep people stable, healthy, and able to work or pursue education.  

History shows that when the federal government withdraws support from states, they fill the gap by slashing higher education budgets. This means fewer resources for colleges, higher tuition for students, and reduced access to postsecondary education. These efforts stand in stark contrast to policymakers’ stated goals of improving people’s ability to be self-sufficient as credentials and degrees result in less use of public programs and greater economic mobility. These short-sighted cuts will hurt people immediately and cost constituents far more than dollars for years to come.  

If we truly want to grow a resilient economy and help more Americans move from poverty-sustaining jobs to family-sustaining careers, Congress must strengthen—not sabotage—the foundation. That starts with protecting SNAP, Medicaid, and other basic needs programs that make education possible and success attainable.