Fact check: How many immigrant households receive SNAP benefits compared to native-born households?

1. Why the numbers look higher for immigrant households — a data snapshot that wakes you up

Multiple reports converge on the fact that immigrant-headed households participate in major welfare programs at higher rates than households headed by the U.S.-born, with figures clustered around 53–54 percent for immigrant households versus 39 percent for native-born households ^{[1] [2]}. These analyses attribute the gap to structural factors: lower average incomes, lower educational attainment among some immigrant groups, and the presence of U.S.-born children who are eligible for benefits regardless of parental status. The consistency across studies strengthens the claim that higher participation is a broad pattern rather than an isolated finding ^{[1] [6]}.

2. SNAP-specific participation: what the pieces say and where they differ

Several sources indicate SNAP participation is elevated in immigrant communities, with sanctuary jurisdictions showing even higher odds of enrollment (about 21 percent higher) compared to non-sanctuary areas, suggesting local policy environments matter ^[7]. Other analyses emphasize that immigrant households exhibit higher use for food-related programs alongside Medicaid. While precise SNAP-only percentages are not uniform across the provided reports, the collective evidence paints a consistent picture: immigrant-headed households are more likely than native-headed households to receive SNAP or related food assistance ^{[2] [1]}.

3. Policy shifts in 2025 that redraw the eligibility map overnight

A set of federal rule changes issued in 2025 narrowed SNAP eligibility to U.S. citizens, green card holders who have completed a five-year waiting period, and narrowly defined exempt categories, triggering immediate program losses for many immigrants and refugees. Local reports documented concrete impacts — for example, more than 4,000 Franklin County residents, primarily refugees, were set to lose food assistance under the new rules ^{[3] [4]}. Advocacy groups serving immigrant families reported that over 90 percent of the families they assist rely on food assistance, flagging both the depth of need and the magnitude of the policy shock ^[5].

4. Different immigrant groups, different exposures — the nuanced reality

The reports make clear not all immigrants are affected equally. Noncitizens generally face greater ineligibility for federally funded programs except for certain exceptions like refugees and some lawfully present immigrants; naturalized citizens retain access comparable to U.S.-born citizens ^{[8] [3]}. Studies further separate legal immigrants, noncitizens, and undocumented households, finding variation: non-citizen households and households headed by unauthorized immigrants with U.S.-born children show among the highest welfare use rates (around 59 percent in some analyses), underscoring the heterogeneity within the umbrella term “immigrant” ^{[1] [6]}.

5. Local policy environments wield measurable influence on participation

Research shows jurisdictional choices — like sanctuary policies — change SNAP participation: living in a sanctuary jurisdiction was associated with roughly 21 percent higher odds of participating in SNAP in one study, indicating state and county programs, outreach, and local enforcement climates affect take-up ^[7]. These local differences complicate national headline rates because areas with concentrated immigrant populations and supportive local policies will show higher program utilization, while restrictive local environments may depress enrollment despite need.

6. Reconciling advocacy reports and empirical studies — different lenses, same trend

Advocacy groups and local news pieces emphasize immediate human impacts and county-level counts of beneficiaries losing benefits, often reporting stark figures like the claim that more than 90 percent of clients rely on food assistance ^{[5] [4]}. Academic and policy reports provide broader rates and explanatory factors—household income, education, child eligibility rules—repeatedly showing higher welfare use among immigrant-headed households ^[1]. Together these perspectives show both the macro pattern and the micro human consequences of shifting eligibility rules.

7. What’s missing from the current picture and why it matters

The supplied analyses lack a single, up-to-date national SNAP-only percentage disaggregated by immigration status after the 2025 rule changes, leaving uncertainty about the exact current counts of immigrant households actively receiving SNAP versus those newly ineligible ^{[3] [1]}. There is also limited longitudinal follow-up in these pieces to show whether affected households obtain alternative support or face sustained food insecurity. The absence of these data points means projections of net program enrollment and downstream health or fiscal impacts remain incomplete.

8. Bottom line: established pattern and immediate policy shock

Across the sources, the established fact is higher welfare and SNAP participation among immigrant-headed households (roughly 50–54 percent vs. 39 percent for native-headed households), driven by income, education, and child eligibility, with local policies modulating take-up ^{[1] [2] [7]}. The 2025 federal rules created an abrupt reduction in eligibility that is already producing documented losses for refugees and certain immigrant groups in specific counties, though a full national recalculation of SNAP receipt by immigration status post-rule remains absent from the provided materials ^{[3] [4]}.