Snap benefits cut
Executive summary
A sweeping 2025 federal reconciliation law—dubbed the One Big Beautiful Bill Act (OBBBA)—and subsequent USDA rules have set in motion a series of changes that will reduce SNAP’s reach and alter how benefits are administered, including cuts in federal funding, expanded work rules, new state cost‑sharing tied to error rates, and limits on what can be bought with EBT cards [1] [2] [3]. Those shifts are already producing state policy responses and legal challenges that could determine who actually loses benefits and when [4] [5].
1. What was cut: the federal funding and the headline $186 billion reduction
Congress’ 2025 bill reduces federal funding for SNAP by roughly $186 billion through 2034, a figure the Congressional Budget Office provided and policy groups have cited as the largest cut to food assistance in history; analysts say that reduction underpins many of the downstream rules that will shrink assistance for households [1] [3].
2. New work requirements and immediate enrollment impacts
Expanded work rules for able‑bodied adults without dependents (ABAWDs) require 80 hours per month of work or approved training for continued eligibility beyond a three‑month limit in a three‑year period; federal guidance took effect in early 2026 with states like Illinois enforcing loss of benefits for noncompliant recipients beginning May 1, 2026 [6] [7]. The Center on Budget and Policy Priorities projects these tightened rules could push more than one million older adults aged 55–64 off the rolls, highlighting demographic groups at particular risk [1].
3. Cost‑shifting to states and the “error‑rate” penalty that can cut benefits
The law shifts administrative and, potentially, benefit costs to states: federal coverage of administrative expenses drops from roughly half to 25 percent in coming years, meaning states will shoulder 75 percent of administrative costs beginning in fiscal year 2027 under the new schedule; additionally, states with payment error rates at or above 6 percent face phased‑in requirements to pay a portion of benefits, with higher penalties if error rates exceed 10 percent—changes that could force states to reduce caseloads or cut individual benefits to balance budgets [2] [5] [3] [8].
4. Limits on purchases and operational changes that effectively reduce food access
The USDA has approved state waivers to restrict purchases of “non‑nutritious” items—sodas, candy and similar products—and by 2026 at least 18 states are expected to impose such limits, which advocates say narrows dietary choice for recipients while proponents argue it steers benefits toward healthier food [9] [10] [11]. States are also testing stricter recertification pilots and other administrative reforms that can delay or deny access during renewals [11].
5. Enforcement rationale, political aims, and pushback
The USDA and supporters frame these changes as anti‑fraud and pro‑work reforms intended to restore program integrity and limit misuse [3] [6]. Critics and many state officials counter that the timelines and cost shifts impose political and fiscal pressure that will compel cuts to benefits or eligibility—an outcome some interpret as a de‑facto retrenchment of the safety net—and several state attorneys general have sued the USDA over narrowed eligibility for certain immigrant groups, alleging unlawful guidance that excludes refugees and other humanitarian entrants [5] [4].
6. Who is most likely to lose benefits and the uncertain legal and state responses
Analysts identify ABAWDs, older adults aged 55–64, noncitizen populations targeted by new eligibility guidance, and residents of states with higher administrative error rates as most exposed to benefit loss; yet outcomes will vary by state as governors and legislatures choose whether to absorb new costs, tighten administration, or seek federal waivers, and pending lawsuits could alter implementation timelines for vulnerable groups [1] [2] [4] [5].