The Trump administration’s changes to the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) are set to impact millions, strain state budgets, and challenge the nation’s food supply chain.
The Trump administration’s overhaul of the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP), the largest food assistance initiative in the United States, is poised to result in significant cuts that could affect millions of beneficiaries. These changes are expected to strain state budgets and pressure the nation’s food supply chain, all while potentially undermining the administration’s health initiatives, according to researchers and former federal officials.
Permanent modifications to SNAP are anticipated regardless of the outcomes of ongoing federal lawsuits aimed at preventing the government from terminating benefits scheduled for November. These lawsuits challenge the administration’s refusal to release emergency funds necessary for the program’s continued operation during the government shutdown.
A federal judge in Rhode Island has mandated that the government utilize these funds to sustain SNAP, while a Massachusetts judge has similarly ruled that the administration must tap into its food aid contingency funds to support the program, giving officials until November 3 to devise a plan.
In light of this uncertainty, food banks across the country are preparing for a surge in demand, anticipating that millions may soon be cut off from the vital food assistance that helps them purchase groceries.
On October 28, a delivery of groceries, including SpaghettiOs and tuna, arrived at the Gateway Food Pantry in Arnold, Missouri. This may be one of the pantry’s last shipments for the foreseeable future. Executive Director Patrick McKelvey noted that the pantry primarily serves families with school-age children and has already exhausted its annual food budget due to increased demand.
In response to the looming cuts, New Disabled South, a Georgia-based nonprofit that advocates for individuals with disabilities, announced it would provide one-time payments ranging from $100 to $250 to families and individuals expected to lose SNAP benefits in the 14 states it serves. Within 48 hours, the organization received over 16,000 requests totaling $3.6 million, predominantly from families, far exceeding its available funding.
The impending SNAP funding lapse serves as a precursor to the changes outlined in the One Big Beautiful Bill Act, signed by President Trump in July. This legislation is set to cut $187 billion from SNAP over the next decade, representing nearly a 20% reduction in current funding levels, according to the Congressional Budget Office (CBO).
These new regulations will shift many food and administrative costs to the states, potentially leading some to consider withdrawing from the program that assisted approximately 42 million individuals in purchasing groceries last year. Additionally, the administration is advocating for states to impose restrictions on SNAP purchases, such as banning items like candy and soda.
Cindy Long, a former deputy undersecretary at the Department of Agriculture and now a national adviser at the law firm Manatt, Phelps & Phillips, remarked that these developments place SNAP in “uncharted territory.”
SNAP, which originated during the Great Depression to help impoverished populations afford food, has evolved from food stamps to a modern debit card system. The program continues to support farmers and food retailers while combating hunger during economic downturns.
The CBO estimates that approximately 3 million individuals will lose food assistance due to several provisions in the budget law, including expanded work requirements and increased costs shifted to states. Administration leaders have justified these changes as a means to reduce waste, encourage employment, and promote health.
This represents the most significant cut to SNAP in its history, coinciding with rising food prices and a fragile labor market. The precise impact of these cuts remains difficult to gauge, especially following the administration’s termination of an annual report that tracked food insecurity.
Several major changes are on the horizon for SNAP, each with implications for the health and wellbeing of Americans.
First, accessing food benefits will become more challenging. The new law requires recipients to complete additional paperwork to obtain SNAP benefits. Many recipients are already obligated to work, volunteer, or engage in other qualifying activities for 80 hours per month to receive assistance. The new regulations will extend these requirements to previously exempt groups, including homeless individuals, veterans, and young adults who aged out of foster care. Parents with children aged 14 and older, as well as adults aged 55 to 64, will also be subject to these expanded work requirements. Starting November 1, recipients who fail to document compliance will be limited to just three months of benefits within a three-year period.
Second, states will be required to contribute more funds and resources to maintain the program. Previously, states were responsible for only half of the administrative costs and none of the food costs. Under the new law, states will be liable for 75% of administrative costs and a portion of food costs, potentially leading to a median cost increase of over 200%, according to a report by the Georgetown Center on Poverty and Inequality. A KFF Health News analysis suggests that one funding shift related to food costs could place an additional $11 billion burden on states.
While all states participate in SNAP, some may opt out due to financial constraints. In June, nearly two dozen Democratic governors warned congressional leaders that some states might not be able to sustain their SNAP programs. They cautioned that ending these programs would exacerbate hunger and poverty, negatively impacting health, grocery stores in rural areas, and jobs in agriculture and the food industry.
Third, the administration’s health initiatives may not yield the intended results. Secretary of Health and Human Services Robert F. Kennedy Jr. has promoted restrictions on the purchase of soda and candy through SNAP. Currently, 12 states have received approval to limit eligible purchases. However, previous federal officials had blocked such restrictions due to implementation challenges and the stigma they create around SNAP. Research indicates that individuals receiving SNAP benefits are not more likely to purchase sweets or salty snacks compared to those without benefits. Encouraging healthy food choices has proven to be a more effective strategy than imposing purchase restrictions.
Fourth, the health implications of SNAP cuts could be severe. Advocacy organizations highlight that food insecurity is linked to various health issues, including mental disorders in children and chronic diseases in working-age adults. Low-income adults not on SNAP typically incur higher healthcare costs compared to those who receive benefits.
Lastly, the cuts to SNAP will have repercussions for the nation’s food supply chain. SNAP spending directly supports grocery stores, suppliers, and the transportation and farming sectors. When low-income households receive assistance, they are more likely to allocate funds to other essential needs. Each dollar spent through SNAP generates at least $1.50 in economic activity, according to the USDA. However, compliance with the new SNAP restrictions could cost grocers an estimated $1.6 billion, potentially leading to increased prices for consumers or store closures.
As the nation braces for these significant changes to SNAP, the implications for food security, health, and the economy remain a pressing concern.
Source: Original article