Fact check: How does the 2025 SNAP benefits enrollment rate for immigrant households compare to native-born households?

1. What advocates and articles are claiming — the headline assertions that matter

News coverage and fact checks advance a few recurring claims: that non-citizens are a small slice of SNAP recipients, that take-up among immigrants lags behind U.S.-born households, and that some viral visuals exaggerate immigrant share. Newsweek and related reporting summarize official numbers and expert commentary indicating non-citizens account for a small portion of recipients and consume fewer welfare dollars per person than U.S.-born citizens, reporting a 2019 snapshot of 47% SNAP participation among poor immigrant households versus 50% for poor households with U.S.-born members ^[2]. Migration Policy Institute research frames the same dynamic through an eligibility lens, emphasizing a native–immigrant participation gap that is especially pronounced in households with children ^[3]. A separate fact-check highlighted USDA data showing 89.4% of SNAP recipients were US-born citizens, undercutting claims that noncitizens dominate program rolls ^[1].

2. The hard numbers and how recent datasets line up

Federal data and independent analyses converge around the core finding that foreign-born individuals are a minority of SNAP participants and that immigrant take-up is lower among those eligible. USDA figures from 2023 show about 89.4% of SNAP recipients were US-born, leaving under 11% foreign-born, which aligns with summaries that roughly 1.7 million non-citizens received benefits in FY2023, representing about 4.8% of spending by one estimate ^{[1] [2]}. The Migration Policy Institute’s work and Newsweek’s reporting reference the 2019-2023 period to show participation rates near parity but slightly lower for immigrants—for the poor, 47% vs. 50%—and consistently lower take-up among eligible immigrant households, notably those with children ^{[3] [2]}. These figures are recent to 2023 and were cited in October 2025 coverage, showing stability in the pattern.

3. Why the immigrant participation gap exists — legal and practical explanations

Multiple analyses attribute the lower immigrant take-up to legal restrictions, eligibility rules, state policy variation, and fear or administrative barriers, rather than simple lack of need. Federal law excludes many categories of noncitizens from SNAP, and states vary in how they augment or substitute benefits for federally ineligible immigrants, which affects observed participation rates ^[3]. Migration Policy Institute researchers emphasize that among those actually eligible, take-up rates remain lower for immigrant households, a pattern tied to language barriers, complexity of enrollment, and concerns about data-sharing or immigration consequences—issues underscored by reporting that at least 27 states have shared sensitive SNAP data with federal agencies ^{[3] [4]}. These structural and behavioral factors together explain why eligible immigrant households enroll at lower rates even where need exists.

4. Disputes, misinformation, and what to watch in public debate

Misinformation has circulated claiming that non-white and noncitizens form the majority of beneficiaries; fact-checks relying on USDA data refute that, finding white people are the largest racial group among SNAP recipients and 89.4% are U.S.-born citizens, which contradicts viral charts that misrepresent the composition of the program ^[1]. News outlets and policy groups have different emphases—some highlight fiscal shares and per-person spending while others stress access barriers and human impact—so selective presentation can create misleading impressions about immigrant use of SNAP ^[2]. Watch for cherry-picked timeframes, conflation of foreign-born with undocumented status, and misuse of eligibility-versus-participation statistics in policy debates and media claims.

5. Bottom line for policymakers, researchers, and readers seeking clarity

The consolidated evidence is clear: immigrant households enroll in SNAP at modestly lower rates than native-born households, foreign-born people comprise a small share of total SNAP recipients, and the gap is explained by policy eligibility, state variation, and enrollment obstacles rather than an overwhelming fiscal burden from immigrants alone ^{[1] [3] [2]}. For policy or advocacy work, the relevant distinctions are between eligibility and participation, immigrant legal status categories, and state-level program differences; addressing administrative barriers and protection-of-data concerns would likely raise participation among eligible immigrant households. Readers should rely on USDA reporting for baseline composition, use MPI analysis for eligibility-adjusted take-up comparisons, and treat sensational viral graphics with skepticism ^{[1] [3]}.