Keep Factually independent
Whether you agree or disagree with our analysis, these conversations matter for democracy. We don't take money from political groups - even a $5 donation helps us keep it that way.
How has the COVID-19 pandemic affected SNAP benefits enrollment in the US?
Executive Summary
The COVID-19 pandemic drove a substantial expansion and policy experimentation in SNAP enrollment and benefits: emergency allotments, a temporary 15% benefit increase, and waivers changed both who received assistance and how much households could spend on food, with studies finding measurable declines in food insufficiency and household financial strain during the peak response [1] [2]. After emergency allotments ended in early 2023 and with later federal disruptions in 2025, enrollment dynamics shifted again, producing state-level stopgaps and renewed concerns about benefit continuity for the more than 40 million people who relied on SNAP at pandemic heights [3] [4] [5].
1. Why enrollment surged: pandemic shocks plus policy levers pushed millions into SNAP
The pandemic combined large-scale job losses and income shocks with deliberate federal and state policy changes that made SNAP both more necessary and, in many cases, easier to access. Research and program data show that a significant number of households with children and newly financially vulnerable households joined SNAP during COVID-era unemployment spikes and program adjustments; changes to eligibility administration, emergency allotments, and expanded maximum benefits under pandemic guidance increased the program’s reach [6] [2] [7]. Enrollment increases reflected both the economic need produced by lockdowns and policy signals that states could use waivers to streamline application processes. The public-health and economic rationale for expansion aimed to reduce immediate food insufficiency and stabilize household finances while broader recovery unfolded [8] [1].
2. The 15% boost: measurable reductions in hunger and stress among recipients
A quasi-experimental analysis using national survey data tied the January 2021 15% SNAP benefit increase to statistically significant declines in food insufficiency, reported anxiety symptoms, and difficulty paying other household expenses among SNAP-eligible recipients. Multiple studies reported that the additional benefit translated into increased food and beverage expenditures—especially among newly enrolled households—and improved material well-being markers for subgroups including Hispanic and Asian households [1] [6]. This body of evidence establishes that temporary benefit increases had concrete, short-term public-health and economic effects, validating policy arguments that higher SNAP benefits can reduce hardship rapidly, though the studies also reveal heterogeneity in impact across demographic groups [1].
3. Emergency allotments and waivers: how states altered the program’s rules
USDA waivers and Emergency Allotments (EAs) allowed states to boost monthly SNAP benefits beyond statutory levels, and program data up through 2024 document widespread adoption of such measures. These waivers adjusted verification, recertification, and benefit calculation processes and were central to the program’s pandemic responsiveness [2] [3]. The Consolidated Appropriations Act of 2023 terminated EAs after February 2023, removing a key policy lever that had been sustaining higher benefit levels. That policy rollback coincided with a policy environment where states confronted trade-offs between federal guidance, budget constraints, and continuing household need, leading some states to seek their own emergency supports [3] [2].
4. Post-EA rollback and the 2025 federal disruption: states scramble, clients face cliff effects
After the end of federal emergency allotments there was a notable recalibration in enrollment and benefit levels; millions saw benefit reductions or more stringent reporting requirements. By late 2025, a federal government shutdown created an immediate threat to SNAP issuance timelines, prompting several states to adopt emergency measures to bridge gaps for recipients who faced interrupted benefits. Reporting in late October 2025 documented that over 40 million people had relied on SNAP during pandemic-era peaks and that the recent federal disruption exposed the program’s vulnerability to appropriations gridlock, producing sharp concerns about continuity for low-income families and older adults dependent on the program [4] [5].
5. Evidentiary consensus, contested trade-offs, and policy levers going forward
The evidence from multiple analyses is consistent: pandemic-era benefit increases and administrative flexibilities reduced food insufficiency and financial stress, and they increased food expenditures among participants—particularly new enrollees—supporting the argument that benefit boosts have rapid, measurable effects [1] [6]. Policy debates now center on permanence versus transience: proponents stress sustained benefits to reduce chronic hardship, while fiscal critics point to costs and advocate targeted or temporary measures. States’ emergency responses during federal interruptions reveal political and administrative tensions about responsibility for social safety nets. Any durable change to enrollment or adequacy will depend on federal choices about re-establishing or redesigning allotments, waiver authorities, and routine administrative simplifications that proved effective during the pandemic [8] [2] [3].