Nearly 400,000 older and disabled low-income Americans could lose SSI support under a proposed Trump Administration rule.
The plan targets recipients living in SNAP-dependent households, undoing a recent rule.
Critics say the move will devastate vulnerable families while saving less than a day’s worth of recent tax breaks for the wealthy.
The Trump Administration is preparing to propose a sweeping rollback of protections for low-income seniors and people with disabilities who receive Supplemental Security Income (SSI), potentially cutting benefits or stripping eligibility for nearly 400,000 Americans, according to a report from the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities. The new rule would disproportionately affect recipients who live with family or friends—often in homes that rely on food assistance programs like SNAP to make ends meet.
According to a 2024 Social Security Administration analysis, more than 275,000 people could see their benefits reduced—often by around $300 a month—while another 100,000 could lose eligibility entirely. This comes as part of a broader Republican-backed legislative push that includes deep cuts to Medicaid and SNAP, raising alarms among social policy experts and disability advocates.
Reversing a safety net
At the heart of the controversy is a rule finalized just last year that updated how the Social Security Administration defines a “public assistance household.” This rule allowed SNAP participation—a widely used and rigorously means-tested benefit—to qualify a household as financially unable to support an SSI recipient. It reflected modern economic conditions: while far fewer families receive cash welfare today than in 1980, many more now rely on SNAP as their primary safety net.
The Trump Administration’s new proposal would roll back that change, reviving outdated 1980 standards and once again disqualifying SNAP as evidence of financial need. That move would subject recipients who live in households receiving SNAP to benefit cuts under what’s known as the "in-kind support and maintenance" (ISM) rule—essentially penalizing them for receiving non-cash help like shelter or food.
Advocates warn this would force families to make heartbreaking choices: provide housing for a disabled or elderly loved one and risk slashing their only income, or force them to seek institutional care or homelessness.
The effects of the rule would be immediate.. Take the case of a disabled adult with Down Syndrome living with her low-income parents who receive SNAP. Currently, she receives the full federal SSI benefit of $967 per month—already below the poverty line. Under the proposed rule, her benefits could be cut by a third simply because her parents provide her a bedroom. That would leave her with less than $700 a month.
On top of the financial toll, families would face a labyrinth of paperwork. Recipients would be required to report any changes in household composition, living arrangements, or shared expenses—creating more red tape for the Social Security Administration’s already overstretched staff and increasing the likelihood of over- and underpayments.
Administrative nightmare, minimal savings
The Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, which published the report, points out that the expected savings from this rule change would barely cover the cost of a single day of the Trump Administration’s 2025 tax cuts for the wealthy. Meanwhile, the administrative burden of implementing the rollback—including tracking complex living arrangements and verifying household incomes—would cost the SSA time and resources it cannot spare.
"This rule isn’t just cruel—it’s inefficient and wasteful," the report states. "It targets some of the country’s most vulnerable people to save a rounding error in the federal budget."
Advocates are urging the administration to reconsider. "The SSA should build on its recent progress, not regress to standards from a time when today’s safety net didn’t exist," the report concludes. "Families who are struggling to care for disabled or elderly relatives need more support—not more penalties and red tape."