SNAP Cuts: Gender-Based Violence Survivors Pay the Price
- 6 days ago
- 4 min read
May 7, 2026
By Carolina Perez, Avery Friedman, and Abigail Matherne, Interns, University of Miami School of Law, Human Rights Clinic
As 2025 ended, the United States—the world’s largest economic power—slashed food assistance for thousands and eliminated it entirely for many more. The new year brought a new reality: elected leaders had quite literally taken food off American tables.
Hunger is only one danger of the cuts and eligibility restrictions introduced by H.R.1. Consider this example: A mom of three has recently left an abusive relationship. She hasn't worked outside of the home since her children were born, and it took her many months to secretly save enough to leave. They moved into the only apartment she could afford, and she has just enough saved to cover the bills. She can barely make ends meet, but with the help of the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP), she can afford some food essentials. SNAP, formerly known as food stamps, is the largest U.S. federal anti-hunger program, providing monthly funds to low-income individuals and households. The access to food this mom has through SNAP prevents her and her children from going hungry, and allows them to live free from the violence of her abusive partner. However, as the new SNAP rules begin to trickle down,, she may become ineligible or face additional administrative hoops to continue to receive SNAP. She must choose: buy food for her children or pay rent. Safety or Survival.
How Gender-Based Violence is Connected to the Right to Food
As the National Resource Center on Domestic Violence and others have documented, when food is scarce, survivors of gender-based violence (GBV)—which refers to violence inflicted because of gender or sexual orientation, like domestic violence, intimate partner violence, sexual violence, stalking, and human trafficking—are at risk. If a survivor chooses to buy groceries, she may be unable to pay rent and will face re-entry into violent situations. Alternatively, if a survivor chooses rent over food, she and her children go hungry.
Violence is tied to inconsistent food access because it disrupts the conditions required for safety: employment, housing, and access to household resources. Separation from an abusive partner often means facing a loss of shared income and increased caregiving responsibilities for survivors, creating financial strain and making food less accessible. The correlation between violence and food access causes GBV survivors to experience food insecurity at higher rates than the general population. For survivors, food insecurity is routine.
The SNAP program was designed to eliminate these concerns—not create them. For decades, SNAP has served more than 40 million people per month, allowing low-income households dignified and consistent access to food. Prior to 2025, eligibility was determined by income and household need. Importantly, it was accessible to survivors because it did not require continuous employment, which is a struggle for survivors navigating job loss, reduced working hours, court proceedings, medical recovery, and housing transitions after violence. In this way, SNAP has been a bridge offering survivors stability while they worked to stabilize other areas of their lives. With the passing of House Bill-1, commonly referred to as “the One Big Beautiful Bill” (the Bill, or OB3), parents of children aged 14 and up are no longer entitled to the work-requirement exemption.
How HR1 Poses Specific Risks to Immigrant Survivors
HR1 largely transfers financial responsibility for SNAP to the states, leaving SNAP without requisite funding and under the vulnerability of already-thin state budgets. Even before the Bill, undocumented immigrants were excluded from coverage, leaving immigrant survivors especially vulnerable. Barriers like administrative complexity and concerns of exposure to Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) when applications are filed discourage survivors from relying on programs like SNAP or the Women, Infants, and Children (WIC) program. The resulting deterrence from seeking support is crippling, particularly in immigrant and mixed-status households, even when children may independently qualify for assistance. This is ironic considering that undocumented migrants made up 42% of crop farmworkers nationwide, meaning the backbone of the American food industry is excluded from reaping the benefits of their labor. Under the Bill’s changes to SNAP eligibility, even immigrant survivors with green cards are ineligible, leaving another 19% of the crop farmworkers nationwide excluded from food assistance. Estimates suggest that 120,000 to 250,000 people nationwide are affected.
Human Rights Implications of SNAP Cuts
Cuts to SNAP directly violate human rights principles like the right to adequate food under Article 11 of the International Covenant on Economic, Social, and Cultural Rights (ICESCR). While the United States has not ratified ICESCR, it has signed the treaty and therefore pledged not to act in ways that undermine its object and purpose. By restricting nutrition assistance, the United States has made access to adequate food more precarious for thousands of Americans, undermining a respect of the right to food under ICESCR. The consequences are critical; survivors are left without access to more than just calories. Read more here about how SNAP legislation is a right to food policy.
A survey of survivor advocates found that 88% of domestic violence survivors rely on food assistance when fleeing abuse. When food is inaccessible, pressure to remain in or return to abusive households increases. Without SNAP, food-insecure survivors may become dependent on their abusers to meet this basic need. To date, SNAP participation has declined by approximately 3.3 million people; meanwhile food insecurity has increased to a record high of 14% of the population, including 1 in 5 children While the exact number of people predicted to lose food assistance as the cuts and restrictions move forward is currently unknown, estimates suggest that the resulting food instability will be grave.
Food access is safety. Nutrition assistance is violence prevention. Policies that restrict access to food do not reduce dependency—they deepen vulnerability. If we want to address gender-based violence, we must protect and strengthen the systems that allow survivors to escape, heal, and rebuild. The federal government should reinstate funding for SNAP and reassume the administrative costs of the program. Take action now!
