By John Q. Hosedrinker 
In July 2025, House Speaker Mike Johnson voted in favor of a budget bill that would cut approximately $186 billion from the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP), which provides food benefits to around 42 million Americans. This claim emerged online in late October 2025, amid a government shutdown that brought uncertainty regarding continued SNAP benefits. The nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office projected these cuts, with the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities reporting the cuts to be the largest ever for SNAP. Johnson’s office has been contacted for comment.
Read the original article here
House Speaker Mike Johnson signed a bill in July 2025, a move that sparked considerable outrage, slashing a staggering $186 billion from the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, or SNAP. This decision, as you can imagine, is not sitting well with a lot of people. The immediate impact of this cut, which targets food assistance for low-income individuals and families, is a stark reminder of the difficult choices being made and the values being prioritized in the political arena.
The reaction to this bill has been incredibly strong. It’s hard to ignore the sentiment that this action reflects a deep disconnect from the needs of ordinary Americans. There is a palpable sense of anger and frustration, with many feeling that the focus is on enriching a select few rather than addressing the basic needs of a significant portion of the population. The cutting of SNAP is seen by many as a direct attack on those who are most vulnerable, like children who rely on school meals and families struggling to make ends meet.
It seems like there’s a recurring theme in the criticisms – the idea that certain political figures, and in this case, Speaker Johnson, are not acting in good faith. The accusations range from being a “scumbag” to worse. The juxtaposition of the Speaker’s actions with his proclaimed Christian values has been repeatedly noted, with many finding a significant contradiction in these two aspects. The emphasis on aiding the wealthy while simultaneously reducing aid for the poor is a consistent point of contention.
One of the points that kept coming up is the feeling of a lack of representation. There’s a prevailing sense that the voices of the common people are being ignored and that the government is more responsive to the needs of the wealthy. Some people have mentioned that they feel the country isn’t going in the direction they want and that they no longer recognize the values and principles they once held dear. This feeling of disconnect fuels a lot of the anger surrounding the SNAP cuts.
The impact of this decision extends beyond the immediate reduction in food assistance. The article also points out that the cuts to SNAP are part of a larger pattern of austerity measures, including drastic reductions to Medicaid. This broader context helps frame the SNAP cuts as part of a more significant and potentially troubling shift in priorities. These combined cuts have fueled the sense that these actions are deliberate, almost like a form of “warfare” against the poor.
And the narrative is that Republicans will blame the Democrats, no matter what happens, adding to the frustration. There’s a strong belief that the GOP is solely focused on enriching themselves and their donors, while neglecting the needs of the majority of Americans. This has made some question if Americans will ever wake up to the truth.
The fact that these cuts were made by an official who claims to hold Christian values seems to be a particularly sore point. The contrast between these actions and the core tenets of the Christian faith, which emphasize helping the poor and the marginalized, is a key element of the criticism. The quotes from the Bible about judging the people based on their acts against the hungry and the poor is also another point that has been brought up.
The anger is aimed at the perceived hypocrisy and the disconnect between the professed values and the actions taken. The overall tone is one of profound disappointment and a growing sense of frustration with the direction of the country.