SNAP in the Big Beautiful Bill

How much would SNAP benefits cost state governments under the new regime? It’s hard to say. That’s because, under the proposal, each state’s share of the cost will be calculated according to its error rate – how often it overpays or underpays program participants. All states would have to shoulder at least 5% of the SNAP bill, while the most error-prone states would have to pay for a staggering one-quarter. States would also have to foot the bill for three-quarters of the cost related to administering the program, up from their current share of just half.

The cost-shifting could cost states hundreds of millions of dollars each year. [...] That’s a problem, Bergh says, because most states are required to balance their budgets down to the penny – leaving little room for extra SNAP spending.

  US News

Leading to states dropping people from SNAP benefits.

Underfunded SNAP offices may make more payment errors, which will, in turn, jack up states’ share of the costs even more.

[...]

A diminished SNAP program would be less prepared to insulate people from hunger during a recession, experts say. A report by another nonpartisan think tank, the Urban Institute, projects that without the benefits they need, close to 900,000 more Americans could fall into poverty during an economic downturn.

Weakening SNAP could also have ripple effects beyond food insecurity. Elaine Waxman, a coauthor on the Urban Institute report, calls the program an “economic multiplier” because it keeps grocery stores and food suppliers open even when people don’t have much to spend on food. The less money for SNAP, the less support for the broader food system during difficult times.

“It’s a job generator and a way to quickly help stabilize” a rocky economy, Waxman adds. “SNAP is exactly the kind of thing you want people to have when food prices are persistently high, when people feel a great deal of economic uncertainty.”

[...]

The proposed SNAP reforms also include an expansion of the program’s existing work requirement, which limits most nondisabled adults to just three months of benefits unless they clock in for at least 80 hours per month. Currently, people caring for children, people over 55 and some people in areas with particularly poor job markets are exempt from the limit. But the changes pitched by the GOP would make it so these groups, too, would max out at three months of benefits unless they meet the work requirement threshold. Only parents with children under 7 and a small handful of extremely high-unemployment counties would be exempt under the new regime.

[...]

The affected families would include over 1 million households where at least one member works, the analysis shows. The majority of SNAP recipients who can work, do work, another report by the CBPP found. But intermittent employment, like seasonal jobs and gig-economy work, may not meet the threshold required to maintain benefits.

[...]

A third report, also by the Urban Institute, calculated that the work requirement changes would kick 1.5 million families out of the program entirely. And an additional 1.2 million families would receive less grocery money than they currently do.

[...]

“It’s very draconian,” she says. “These [requirements] don’t actually increase work efforts or income and result in a lot of people leaving the program.”

MAGA!

UPDATE 10/28/2025:  Oh, well.  Under the GOP shutdown, the administration is taking this opportunity to simply cut off SNAP altogether.