Proposals advancing in Congress to cut over $1 trillion in funding for critical health, nutrition, education, and environmental programs could have significant consequences for Floridians.
With millions relying on Medicaid, Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) benefits, and other essential services, these cuts could threaten health care access, increase food insecurity, and strain local economies. From seniors and children to working families, the impacts would be felt across the state.
On Thursday, February 13, Congressional House Budget Committee Republicans advanced their budget resolution, a blueprint for major spending cuts and even larger tax cuts for the wealthiest 1 percent of the population. The resolution instructs other committees to find at least $1.5 trillion in spending cuts, which will largely target social programs like Medicaid and SNAP. The House Budget Committee’s approval of the resolution starts a longer process wherein committees take the instructions in the resolution and decide which cuts to make within the programs that they oversee. The resolution instructs committees to make deep cuts, including:
- At least $880 billion (over nine years) in cuts for the Energy and Commerce Committee, the committee with jurisdiction over Medicaid and the Affordable Care Act Marketplace tax credits, among other programs
- At least $238 billion (over nine years) in cuts for the House Committee on Agriculture, which oversees SNAP, among other programs
- At least $330 billion in cuts for the House Education and Workforce Committee, which oversees child nutrition and education
In comparison, the House’s budget resolution permits the Ways and Means Committee to extend all of the expiring tax cuts from the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act of 2017, including $1.1 trillion in tax cuts for the wealthiest 1 percent of the population.
The U.S. Senate will advance its own budget in a separate process, and while the two bodies must come together on the final package, the stark cuts outlined by the House are cause for alarm. There have been documents floated in January and February 2025 by House Republicans outlining a “menu” of potential options for severe cuts, which are probable guides for committee chairs as they come up with ways to satisfy the budget resolution.
Below, Florida Policy Institute breaks down five significant ways that the House’s budget plan — with an emphasis on the leaked menu of cuts floated by the House Ways and Means Committee — could affect Florida’s communities and what is at stake for those who depend on these vital programs.
1. Dramatic cuts to the Medicaid program would threaten access to lifesaving health care for millions of Floridians.
The deepest proposed cut with the biggest impact would stem from proposed changes to how the federal government pays for states’ Medicaid costs. Rather than basing the funding on historical costs and projected future population growth, the Ways and Means Committee, in its menu of potential cuts, suggests providing a fixed amount of funding per Medicaid recipient, no matter how much the program actually costs. This would result in approximately $900 billion in cuts via per-capita caps — the largest impact on Floridians among all of the floated proposed cuts to Medicaid.
Not only would per-capita caps worsen access to adequate health care in Florida — especially for growing populations that require more costly services to remain healthy, such as older residents and those with disabilities — it would also require that state revenue makes up the funding gap to cover the full cost of the program.
Florida already has one of the most meager Medicaid programs in the nation, spending only $6,465 on average per recipient, compared to the national average of $9,361. Florida’s Medicaid program has among the most restrictive eligibility criteria, meaning that there are many Floridians who are unable to qualify for Medicaid, despite having low income. Not only would per-capita caps worsen access to adequate health care in Florida — especially for growing populations that require more costly services to remain healthy, such as older residents and those with disabilities — it would also require that state revenue makes up the funding gap to cover the full cost of the program. A Medicaid per capita cap proposal was included in the Better Care Reconciliation Act (BCRA), Congressional Republicans’ health care reform bill that stalled in 2017. An estimate by Manatt Health at the time projected that under BCRA’s per capita caps proposal, Florida would have lost $8.6 billion from its Medicaid program in the years between FY 2020 and FY 2026. It is reasonable to assume a similarly significant amount would be cut in Florida if per capita caps were imposed.
The menu of potential cuts to Medicaid floated by the Ways and Means Committee also includes rolling back rules intended to improve enrollment and eligibility outcomes for individuals in Medicaid and the Children’s Health Insurance Program (CHIP); repealing funding for call centers that help people get and stay enrolled in Medicaid; and cutting funding for Home and Community Based Services for seniors and individuals living with disabilities.
2. Severe cuts to critical safety net programs like SNAP and TANF would entrench families in economic hardship and food insecurity.
Safety net programs provide critical assistance to help keep children and families out of poverty. Across key programs that provide a range of services, the budget resolution’s call for deep cuts — over $238 billion — would entrench families in economic hardship.
Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program
Anti-hunger advocates worry that the bulk of required cuts for the House Committee on Agriculture will come from SNAP. The floated menu of cuts from the Ways and Means Committee earlier in 2025 included $316 billion in potential cuts to SNAP over a 10-year period. The program provides monthly grocery assistance to households with low income who cannot afford necessities because they live on fixed incomes or low wages, have lost jobs, or are unable to work due to a health crisis. In Florida, 3 million people of all ages, ethnicities, and races rely on SNAP to put food on the table, receiving on average a modest $6.12 a day in benefits to purchase groceries at local stores, farm stands, and farmers markets.
Elimination of BBCE would put a cap on total family assets and reduce the monthly gross income limit from 200 percent of FPL (or $4,304) to 130 percent of FPL (or $2,798) in Florida’s SNAP program. This would have a devastating impact on Floridians facing higher than normal costs of living, as well as families trying to save for college or unexpected financial setbacks.
The menu of potential cuts also includes an elimination of broad-based categorical eligibility (BBCE), a federal law that permits states, at their option, to set eligibility income limits in SNAP at a higher level than 130 percent of the federal poverty level, which is the current standard. This law also gives states the flexibility to either waive or use a less restrictive asset test for SNAP, which allows families to save money for things like their children’s education, a car to get to and from work, unforeseen medical expenses, or an unexpected crisis (such as being laid off from their job) without losing benefits. This flexibility is important because it allows many working families with significant housing or child care costs to qualify for food assistance and save for the future. Florida exercises its flexibility under BBCE in two ways: 1) for most participants, Florida uses a SNAP gross income limit of 200 percent of the Federal Poverty Level (FPL) and 2) it also allows participants to have assets without jeopardizing their eligibility.
Elimination of BBCE would put a cap on total family assets and reduce the monthly gross income limit from 200 percent of FPL (or $4,304) to 130 percent of FPL (or $2,798) in Florida’s SNAP program. This would have a devasting impact on Floridians facing higher than normal costs of living, as well as families trying to save for college or unexpected financial setbacks. When a similar proposal was considered in 2019, studies suggested that over 328,000 households with children, low-wage workers, seniors, and people with disabilities in Florida would lose SNAP benefits.
In addition to eliminating BBCE, the Ways and Means Committee also floats a $5 billion cut over 10 years by taking SNAP benefits away from particularly vulnerable people, such as older adults up to age 65 and veterans, who do not show that they have met work requirements. This suggested cut ignores the reality that most SNAP recipients in Florida who can work, already do work, or are likely to find jobs soon, and it fails to consider the hardship on Floridians who are removed from the SNAP program as a work sanction. The Ways and Means Committee also floated a $2 billion cut over 10 years by capping the maximum household benefit to the amount equal to a household of six — an idea likely motivated, in part, by the false stereotype that people participating in SNAP have large families, when the average household size in SNAP in Florida is 1.8. People in large households should not be penalized by having their food assistance reduced. Such a cap would make it difficult for Floridians with low income to feed their families and have enough resources to purchase healthy food.
Temporary Assistance for Needy Families
Another recommendation included in the Ways and Means Committee’s menu would cut $21 billion over 10 years to Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF), which provides benefits and services — including monthly cash benefits, child care, and training and work-related services — to help families with very low income meet the needs of their children. First, the menu proposes reducing the TANF block grant, which is provided to states to operate TANF, by 10 percent over 10 years. Florida’s allocation is $560 million per year, and the state’s TANF benefit level, at a maximum of $303 for a family, is among the lowest in the nation. The menu also floats eliminating the TANF contingency fund, which provides additional relief to states during economic downturns such as natural disasters or financial crises. Cutting the TANF block grant would have a devasting impact on children in Florida families who are struggling to make ends meet, and would make it difficult, if not impossible, for the state to revamp its outdated TANF benefit payments provided for these children. Furthermore, eliminating the contingency fund would be short-sighted, especially in a state like Florida, which is susceptible to severe weather events that have deep and lasting impacts.
3. Reinstating the “public charge” rule would deter immigrants from accessing critical safety net programs.
The Ways and Means Committee’s floated menu of cuts includes reinstating the “public charge” rule that was instituted under the first Trump administration. This would result in an estimated $15 billion cut over a 10-year period, due, in large part, by deterring people from accessing safety net benefits. In a public charge determination, if the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) determines that an immigrant is likely at any time to become a “public charge,” or someone who is likely to become dependent on certain government benefits in the future, the department can deny them admission to the United States or lawful permanent residence (“green card” status). As part of that determination, officials consider whether a person could become primarily dependent on governmental assistance for support in the future. This includes programs such as TANF, Medicaid, SNAP, Federal Public Housing and Section 8 housing vouchers and rental assistance, and Supplemental Social Security Income (SSI). Although few categories of immigrants qualify for safety net programs, studies suggest that the Trump administration’s short-lived changes to the country’s public charge policy in 2019 increased fear and deterred participation in TANF, SNAP, and Medicaid among eligible immigrant families in Florida who desperately needed safety net services.
4. Rolling back transformational investments in clean energy and climate resilience would imperil coastal communities.
The Inflation Reduction Act (IRA) and Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act (IIJA) programs are designed to reduce energy costs, promote cleaner transportation, and improve communities’ resilience to climate change-driven extreme weather. The IRA and IIJA programs on the chopping block have already invested at least $3.6 billion in Florida to generate cleaner, cheaper, and more reliable energy. This is particularly important in Florida, a state that does not have natural gas resources and relies on natural gas via imports to meet 74 percent of its total energy needs. The Rocky Mountain Institute projects that Florida’s electricity sector alone stands to receive $33 billion in funding from the IRA. Cutting these programs now would eliminate at least $29 billion in projected federal investment in Florida.
The floated menu of cuts from the Ways and Means Committee includes eliminating the tax credits, loans, and grant programs focused on increasing in-state clean energy production and reducing energy costs, which would impact both households that receive tax credits and the potential for increasing solar production and related jobs in Florida. In 2023, 306,470 Florida households received $846.5 million in clean energy and energy efficiency tax credits — the third highest investment behind Texas and California — and another 31,500 received $201.4 million in tax credits to purchase or lease new electric or previously-owned electric vehicles. Additionally, 2,603 Florida facilities received the IRC 48(e) Low-Income Communities Bonus Credit, subsidizing 30,515 kilowatts of new clean energy in low-income communities. All of these tax credits are on the chopping block.
The Rocky Mountain Institute projects that Florida’s electricity sector alone stands to receive $33 billion in funding from the IRA. Cutting these programs now would eliminate at least $29 billion in projected federal investment in Florida.
Several high-profile statewide initiatives are on hold and in jeopardy of closing should these cuts go ahead. This includes $156 million for the Florida Solar For All Coalition's low-income solar program, $346 million for the Florida Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services' (FDACS) low-income energy efficiency rebate program, $209 million for three Florida cities and one Tribal government to reconnect communities and upgrade transit infrastructure, and $106.1 million in Clean School Bus Program grants and rebates.
The floated menu of potential cuts also calls for eliminating grant funding to promote coastal and community resilience and improve weather forecasting. The most significant proposed cut would be $1.3 billion to the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Association’s (NOAA) Coastal Communities and Climate Resilience program. This program has invested at least $26.6 million in eight Florida projects designed to “make America’s coasts more resilient to climate change and other coastal hazards through natural infrastructure projects.” With the second-largest coastline among U.S. states, Florida would undoubtedly lose out. Florida experienced 25 billion-dollar disaster events from 2020-2024. The state experienced only five in the 40 years prior to 2020. As Florida’s coastal communities face greater threats from extreme weather, losing out on critically needed investment to upgrade coastal resilience will worsen the impacts of future storms.
5. Taking away free or reduced-price school meals for hundreds of thousands of children would increase childhood hunger.
The leaked menu of cuts proposes two changes to the eligibility and application processes for free and reduced price school lunch. As of 2024, 1.4 million students in Florida received free or reduced-price school meals. The changes proposed would reduce the number of eligible children.
Schools that currently have 40 percent to 59 percent of eligible students would lose their CEP, meaning that 351,600 Florida students would be at risk of losing access to free or reduced-price school meals. Thousands would lose eligibility, schools would have higher administrative burdens, and food insecurity would increase at a time when families are already pinched by inflation.
First, the menu considers changing the Community Eligibility Provision (CEP), which allows schools in which 40 percent of students qualify for free or reduced meals to receive reimbursement for meals for all students. The proposed change would increase the CEP percentage threshold so that 60 percent of students would have to qualify for free or reduced meals for schools to receive the CEP. Increasing the threshold would result in a $3 billion cut over 10 years and would have widespread impacts. Schools that currently have 40 percent to 59 percent of eligible students would lose their CEP, meaning that 351,600 Florida students would be at risk of losing access to free or reduced-price school meals. Thousands would lose eligibility, schools would have higher administrative burdens, and food insecurity would increase at a time when families are already pinched by inflation.
The second related proposed change would impact students who are not enrolled in schools that meet the CEP threshold. At these schools, students can still apply for and receive free or reduced school meals individually. Currently, parents or guardians attest to their household income; however, under a recommendation floated in the menu of potential cuts, parents/guardians would have to provide income verification documentation to determine eligibility. Studies have shown that increasing enrollment requirements, referred to as administrative burden, decreases participation in safety net programs. One survey showed that, among people who were eligible for SNAP, 40 percent were not enrolled because of the paperwork requirements. Another survey of SNAP participants by the Urban Institute revealed that 40 percent of people applying for safety net programs, including SNAP, had difficulty with the enrollment process – in particular, determining eligibility and providing required documentation.
