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.
Fact check: Which states were most affected by the changes to food stamp eligibility under Trump's administration?
Executive Summary
The available analyses show the Trump administration's SNAP changes most directly affected states that either relied heavily on Broad-Based Categorical Eligibility (BBCE) or had large populations of able-bodied adults without dependents; prominent mentions include California, Colorado, New Jersey, Illinois, Nevada, and several Southern states such as Mississippi and Arkansas [1] [2] [3] [4]. Estimates of people affected vary across sources from roughly 688,000–700,000 for tightened work requirements to approximately 3–4 million if BBCE restrictions were fully implemented and waiver rules tightened — the difference reflects whether analyses count only immediate ABAWD impacts or the broader eligibility frameworks in multiple states [5] [6] [2]. These discrepancies underscore that state exposure depended on which USDA policy change was enforced and on how many states used BBCE or relied on waivers [7] [1].
1. Which states surface repeatedly as ground zero for SNAP changes?
Across the analyses, California and Colorado appear most frequently, with California noted for having counties that previously used waivers and broad eligibility approaches and Colorado singled out for large estimated losses in benefits and participants [2] [3]. Several other states—New Jersey, Illinois, Nevada, Mississippi, Arkansas, Indiana, Hawaii, Minnesota, New York, North Carolina, North Dakota, Ohio, Virginia, Wisconsin—are named in various contexts: either as users of BBCE, as places with counties that would be affected, or as states that planned cuts or had waivers that previously shielded residents [1] [2] [4] [7]. Different analyses spotlight different states because some focus on ABAWD work requirements (which hit smaller adult cohorts), while others focus on broad categorical policy shifts that would alter eligibility for families and vulnerable groups.
2. Why do the state lists diverge — two competing impact narratives
The divergence in state lists traces to two distinct policy mechanisms described across sources: the 2019 final rule tightening ABAWD work requirements and a proposed/withdrawn rule limiting BBCE flexibility. The ABAWD rule and related estimates targeted about 688,000 to 700,000 individuals and were often framed as concentrated impacts in rural pockets and specific counties — for example, the Colorado DHS projected tens of thousands and a withdrawal of roughly $60 million in federal benefits annually [5] [3] [8]. By contrast, analyses that count potential changes to BBCE and waiver use estimate 3 to 4 million people could lose some or all SNAP benefits if broader eligibility pathways or state waivers were curtailed, thus implicating many more states such as California, Illinois, and Nevada [4] [2] [1]. Which narrative dominates depends on whether one counts narrowly defined ABAWD impacts or the wider eligibility architecture.
3. Timeline and administrative actions that mattered most
The timeline matters: the 2019 finalized ABAWD rule tightened work requirements and was implemented with estimated losses near 700,000; this rule is repeatedly cited as an immediate source of cuts [5] [6]. Subsequent proposals or changes to BBCE — which would have constrained states’ ability to use broader categorical rules — surfaced later and generated larger estimates of affected people [4] [7]. Some analyses reference actions during the Trump administration and note that certain rulings were later withdrawn or altered (notably under the succeeding administration), which explains why some high-end estimates did not fully materialize as permanent nationwide losses [4]. Timing of implementation, waivers granted, and later reversals shaped which states ultimately saw benefit reductions.
4. Who bears the burden — demographics and state-level budgets
The studies converge on who would be disproportionately harmed: families with children, older adults, people with disabilities, veterans, and low-income households in high-cost states were repeatedly named in impact estimates [2] [3]. States where SNAP enrollment and federal benefit flows are large — for instance California and Illinois — would see greater absolute numbers of residents affected and higher dollar-value impacts to federal benefits flowing through state budgets [2] [3]. Rural counties with small labor markets and limited jobs would see concentrated ABAWD losses, while urban and suburban counties in high-population states could lose more households through BBCE changes. The fiscal and human impacts therefore split along both demographic and geographic lines, magnifying effects in states that combined high enrollment with policy reliance on categorical eligibility.
5. Reconciling estimates: practical takeaways for readers
To reconcile the numbers, treat the ~700,000 figure as the more narrowly defined, ABAWD-specific impact tied to work rules and enforcement [5] [6], while the multi-million estimates reflect broader hypothetical rollbacks of state flexibility under BBCE and limits on waivers [4] [2]. States repeatedly identified as most affected because they both used BBCE broadly and had large SNAP rolls include California, Colorado, New Jersey, Illinois, and Nevada, with a secondary group of states noted for specific county-level vulnerability [1] [2] [3] [4]. Policymakers and analysts should therefore be precise about which policy change they reference: the scope of impact is policy-specific, and the state list expands when counting eligibility architecture changes rather than only ABAWD work-rule enforcement.