How are SNAP administrative costs split between federal and state governments in 2025?
This fact-check may be outdated. Consider refreshing it to get the most current information.
Executive summary
In 2025 the long-standing split for SNAP administrative costs — roughly 50% federal and 50% state — is the baseline in federal materials, but the FY2025 reconciliation law (P.L. 119‑21 / “OBBBA”) reassigns much more administrative burden to states over coming years, phasing federal share down to 25% and state share up to 75% beginning in or by FY2027–FY2028 according to multiple policy analyses and federal summaries [1] [2] [3]. Advocacy groups, congressional offices, and state officials warn this is an unprecedented cost‑shift that will raise state budgets and could force program changes [4] [5] [6].
1. The status quo and what “50/50” has meant
Federal guidance and explanatory material describe SNAP as a federal–state partnership: the federal government pays 100% of benefit payments and — historically — administrative expenses have been shared roughly equally between the Food and Nutrition Service (FNS) and state agencies, with each footing about half of administrative costs [1]. News reporting and public explanations continue to repeat that even in 2025 the operational understanding among many officials and advocates is an even split for administration [7] [8].
2. The law that changes the split: what Congress did in 2025
P.L. 119‑21 (the FY2025 reconciliation package sometimes called OBBBA), enacted July 4, 2025, contains nutrition provisions that were explicitly designed to reduce federal SNAP spending by changing how benefits and administrative costs are funded. The Congressional Research Service notes the law will “significantly change” funding for benefits and administrative costs, and implementation choices affect timing and magnitude [2].
3. The new shares on paper: 75% state, 25% federal
Analyses from policy organizations and think tanks summarize the statutory shift: administrative cost‑sharing moves from roughly 50/50 to a split where states bear about 75% of administrative costs and the federal government covers about 25%, with the transition beginning in the later 2020s — multiple sources cite FY2027 or FY2028 as key implementation years [3] [4]. These summaries are consistent with advocacy fact sheets that call out a move to 75% state responsibility [9].
4. How advocates and members of Congress frame the change
Advocates and some members of Congress characterize the change as an “unprecedented cost‑shift” that will strain state budgets and could force cuts to services, eligibility, or administration — or even compel some states to consider leaving the program — if they cannot absorb the added costs [4] [5]. Congressman Dan Goldman’s office quantified potential state impacts in press material, arguing the provision would increase New York’s SNAP administrative burden compared with the prior 50/50 split [5].
5. State officials’ immediate concerns and fiscal math
State budget offices and local governments are already sounding alarms. Maryland officials briefed lawmakers that under HR1 changes, states could face both new administrative obligations and benefit cost‑sharing tied to error rates; Maryland’s example illustrates how higher error rates can translate into substantial new state payments under the law [6]. Congressional and advocacy analyses emphasize that rising administrative needs (e.g., staffing, IT) coincide with a reduction in federal support, amplifying fiscal stress [10] [4].
6. Political and enforcement flashpoints now shaping the dispute
Beyond budget math, the politics matter. The USDA in late 2025 threatened withholding administrative funds from states it said weren’t sharing data — a move reported as part of broader administration pressure following enactment of the reconciliation changes — and news outlets reiterated the historical 50/50 framing while reporting on potential fund actions [11] [8]. That dispute illustrates how implementation and enforcement decisions will materially affect whether the statutory changes translate into immediate cash flows to states.
7. Limits of the available reporting and outstanding questions
Sources are consistent that the pre‑reconciliation baseline was about a 50/50 administrative split and that the new law moves toward 75% state / 25% federal in the later 2020s, but implementation details — exact phase‑in years for specific payments, waivers or transition rules for high‑error states, and judicial or administrative interruptions — depend on forthcoming agency rules and litigation not fully detailed in the materials provided [2] [3]. Available sources do not mention precise line‑item appropriation language for every fiscal year transition or specific state‑by‑state fiscal impact beyond examples cited [2] [6].
8. Bottom line for readers and policymakers
If you are tracking SNAP administration costs in 2025: the conventional operating assumption until the reconciliation law takes effect was an approximately equal federal/state administrative split [1]. The FY2025 law, however, rewrites that formula to push most administrative costs onto states (about 75% state responsibility), a shift that analysts, advocacy organizations, and some state officials say will materially increase state budget pressure and complicate program delivery absent mitigation or legislative reversal [2] [3] [4].