New York Times’ Editorial Board published the opinion article just last week, “Donald Trump Raids the Pantry of Poor Americans”, expressing an opinion on Mr. Trumps budget proposal that would “slash an essential antipoverty program” by 30% over the next decade. This budget proposal explains that cutting the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) includes the redesigning “to improve nutrition and target benefits to those who need them, while ensuring careful stewardship of taxpayers’ money.” The Editorial Board explains what this entails of, such as less fresh-food access to low-income Americans and more non-perishable items. Through this, families who use SNAP are less likely to be able to shop according to their families’ diets. The author expresses that this will affect “46 million low-income people, or one in seven Americans”, even though the benefits of the SNAP program are available and expressed. The author of this article concludes that Mr. Trump should be growing the size of SNAP if he actually cared about the well-being and nutrition of America’s low-income population. Much evidence is show through this article which gives credible insight towards the author’s claim of the importance of keeping SNAP available for the right reasons. SNAP works and maintains families’ needs appropriately because of the access to nutritional items essential for growth and overall health of families. The Editorial Board brings light to their audience, most likely those of low-income or those involved in the SNAP program, through evidence and a thorough argument that STEM must be maintained with the nutrition of low-income families in mind and excluding this would bring to light Mr. Trump’s values about America’s health.