¶ Overview
Hyde-Smith backed the GOP’s Big Beautiful Bill and downplayed the legislation’s cuts to nutritional assistance programs.
The Big Beautiful Bill slashed Mississippians’ Supplemental Nutrition Assistance and threatened Mississippi children with food insecurity.
Message: Hyde-Smith prioritized tax cuts for wealthy donors over nutrition assistance for Mississippi children.
¶ Hyde-Smith Slashed Mississippians’ Supplemental Nutrition Assistance And Threatened Mississippi Children With Food Insecurity
¶ Hyde-Smith Backed The Big Beautiful Bill’s SNAP Cuts
¶ Hyde-Smith Voted For The Big Beautiful Bill And Opposed A Delay On Supplemental Nutrition Cuts
2025: Hyde-Smith Voted For The Senate FY 2025 Budget Reconciliation Bill That Extended $4 Trillion In Expiring Tax Cuts, Added New Tax Breaks, Appropriated $448 Billion In Defense, Border, And Immigration Enforcement Funding, Increased The SALT Deduction To $40,000, And Cut Medicaid And Other Social Programs To Offset The Costs. In July 2025, Hyde-Smith voted for, according to Congressional Quarterly, “the bill, as amended, that would permanently extend nearly $4 trillion in expiring individual and business tax cuts, create several new tax breaks and fund border and immigration enforcement and air traffic control upgrades. It would cut Medicaid and other safety net programs to partly offset the cost. Among other provisions, it would raise the statutory debt ceiling by $5 trillion and appropriate more than $448 billion in mandatory funding for Trump administration priorities and other needs, including $153 billion for defense, $89 billion for immigration enforcement, and $89.5 billion for border control and security. It also would increase the state and local tax deduction cap to $40,000 annually for five years for households making up to $500,000 a year until 2030, when it would permanently revert to $10,000.” The Senate passed the bill by a vote of 50 to 50 with Vice President Vance casting the tie-breaking vote. [Senate Vote 372, 7/1/25; Congressional Quarterly, 7/1/25; Congressional Actions, H.R. 1]
- 22.3 Million Families Would Lose Some Or All Of Their SNAP Benefits, With 5.3 Million Families Losing Over $25 In Benefits A Month And Of Those Families, The Average Loss In Benefits Would Be $146. According to the Urban Institute, “Our preliminary estimates of the SNAP policies in the Senate bill show the following: 22.3 million US families would be affected, losing some or all of their SNAP benefits. Of the total affected families, 5.3 million would lose at least $25 in SNAP benefits per month. Among these families, 3.3 million are families with children, 3.5 million are working families, and 1.7 million are families with a full-time full-year worker. Families losing at least $25 per month would lose $146 per month on average ($1,752 for a full-year recipient). At the state level, average monthly benefit losses for families losing at least $25 per month would range from $72 in Kansas ($864 annually) to $231 in the District of Columbia ($2,772 annually).” [Urban Institute, 7/2/25]
- Research Suggested The SNAP Cuts Would Result In 93,000 Premature Deaths. According to the Leonard Davis Institute Of Health Economics, “Peer-reviewed research from other investigators has quantified the mortality rate of individuals under age 65 with SNAP as compared to a similar group without SNAP over a fourteen-year period.4 Assuming a similar risk profile as prior SNAP participants, if we apply that estimate to the 3.2 million Americans projected to lose SNAP benefits under the bill, that would result in 93,000 premature deaths due to the loss of SNAP between now and 2039.” [Leonard Davis Institute Of Health Economics, 7/3/25]
2025: Hyde-Smith Voted Against Striking A Provision That Would Delay The Implementation Of The Matching Funds Requirement For The Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program. In July 2025, Hyde-Smith voted against, according to Congressional Quarterly, the “amendment no. 2849 to the Graham, R-S.C., amendment no. 2848 to the Thune, R-S.D. for Graham substitute amendment no. 2360 that would strike a provision relating to delayed implementation of the supplemental nutrition assistance program matching funds requirements.” The vote was on the amendment. The underlying bill was the FY 2025 reconciliation bill. The Senate rejected the amendment by a vote of 45 to 55. [Senate Vote 369, 7/1/25; Congressional Quarterly, 7/1/25; Congressional Actions, S.Amdt. 2849; Congressional Actions, H.R. 1]
¶ Hyde-Smith Praised The Big Beautiful Bill And Downplayed The GOP’s Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program Cuts
Hyde-Smith Claimed The Big Beautiful Bill’s SNAP Cuts Promoted “State Accountability” And Helped “SNAP Recipients Move Toward Greater Independence.” According to a press release from Senator Cindy Hyde-Smith, “It also reduces waste, promotes state accountability, and helps Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) recipients move toward greater independence through work, education, and training opportunities. [...] The Working Families Tax Cut Act promotes state accountability and helps those who receive Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) benefits move toward greater independence through work, education, and training opportunities.” [Press Release – Senator Cindy Hyde-Smith, 7/26/25]
Hyde-Smith Claimed The Big Beautiful Bill Created A “Stronger, Safer, And More Prosperous Mississippi” Through “Policies To Help Families” And “Economic Opportunity.” Senator Cindy Hyde-Smith tweeted, “Learn more about the law on my website: https://hydesmith.senate.gov/one-big-beautiful-bill [GRAPHIC]: ‘On the Twelfth Day of Christmas the Working Families Tax Cut Act gave Mississippi… A stronger, safer, and more prosperous Mississippi and America. The law strengthens communities, grows economic opportunity, and reinforces policies to help families, grow small businesses, boost farmers, and ensure national security.’” [Twitter, @SenHydeSmith, 12/21/25]
¶ The Big Beautiful Bill Slashed Mississippians’ Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Threatened Mississippi Children With Food Insecurity
The Big Beautiful Bill’s SNAP Cuts Threatened Mississippi’s Funding For Public School Meals. According to Mississippi Today, “Trump’s legislation will create more work requirements for parents to qualify for the SNAP program, which may decrease the number of students getting free school meals. That could have a domino effect on how many schools meet the federal threshold to provide free meals for all students. While parents can still fill out paperwork at their child’s school for free meals if they are removed from SNAP rolls, it’s sometimes difficult to get them to do so, according to Amanda Williams, the incoming president for the Mississippi School Nutrition Association.” [Mississippi Today, 7/24/25]
- One In Four Mississippi Children Struggled With Food Insecurity And Mississippi Schools Faced A Greater Burden To Feed Rural Children. According to Mississippi Today, “About one in four children in Mississippi face food insecurity. And because the state is so rural, Williams said, there’s a greater burden on schools to feed children. ‘Our students are not able to just walk down the street around the corner to a local restaurant or cafeteria or fast food,’ she said.” [Mississippi Today, 7/24/25]
- Mississippi Public Schools Already Faced Lunch Debt Burdens And Were Now Forced To Cover The Big Beautiful Bill’s Cuts. According to Mississippi Today, “‘We’re going to feed our babies anyway at the school, but those students will accumulate a bill that just gets higher and higher.’ Williams said she knows of schools in south Mississippi with upwards of $30,000 in school lunch debt.” [Mississippi Today, 7/24/25]
The Big Beautiful Bill Increased Mississippi’s SNAP Burden By $140 Million And Saddled The State With 75% Of The Program’s Administrative Costs. According to Mississippi Today, “According to health policy expert John Dillon Harris, who also studies nutrition, the state could be paying approximately $140 million more annually on SNAP, thanks to changes in the federal spending package. The legislation makes states responsible for 75% of the administrative costs associated with SNAP instead of half, and the state could also be picking up millions in SNAP benefit costs.” [Mississippi Today, 7/24/25]