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 did SNAP enrollment change by state between 2020 and 2025?
Executive Summary
SNAP enrollment across states between 2020 and 2025 shows a mixed picture: modest national change but substantial variation by state, with some states gaining double-digit percentage increases while others lost participation. Public reports differ on magnitudes and baselines because agencies use different fiscal-year cutoffs, emergency allotment effects, and reporting formats — requiring careful comparison of like-for-like months and definitions before drawing firm conclusions.
1. Bold claims singled out — what the analyses assert and where they disagree
The assembled analyses make several clear, specific claims about SNAP participation changes between 2020 and 2025. One analysis reports the national number of persons participating in SNAP in April 2025 as 42,022,990, and a year-over-year national increase of 1.0% from April 2024 to April 2025, while calling out state-level changes such as +10.2% in Texas, +11.9% in Georgia, and +15.1% in North Dakota, and declines like −19.5% in Alaska and −6.7% in Wyoming [1]. Another source frames the trend differently by reporting fiscal-year averages — for example, roughly 39.9 million in FY2020 versus 41.7 million in FY2024 — and highlights large-state counts (California, Texas, Florida) without giving the same state-by-state percent changes [2]. A third set of materials emphasizes that published reports cover FY2022–FY2023 benefits and household averages but do not directly tabulate a 2020-to-2025 state-by-state comparison, noting emergency allotment impacts and that FY2023 included about 42.0 million people served and $16.6 billion in emergency allotments [3]. These claims differ by months vs. fiscal years, by whether they include emergency allotments, and by whether they present absolute counts or percent changes, creating apparent contradictions that reflect differing measurement choices rather than mutually exclusive facts [4] [5].
2. State-by-state headlines — where numbers point to meaningful wins and losses
State-level snapshots reported by these analyses highlight that some states saw double-digit increases in participation over the five-year window while others declined, suggesting localized drivers such as economic shifts, policy changes, or administrative practices. The April 2025 month-to-month snapshot shows Texas, Georgia, and North Dakota with notable percentage gains and Alaska and Wyoming among the larger declines [1]. Fiscal-year aggregate data presents different emphases: the work that reports FY2024 counts flags that states like California, Texas, and Florida have the highest average monthly participation in absolute terms, while states with smaller populations such as Wyoming, Vermont, and North Dakota show lower absolute counts though not necessarily uniform percentage trends [2]. These contrasts underscore that percentage change and absolute participant counts tell different stories — a small state can show a large percentage swing from a small base, while big states can shift hundreds of thousands of participants with smaller percentage changes [2] [1].
3. National totals and the role of emergency allotments — an inconsistent measuring stick
Analysts emphasize that national totals between 2020 and 2025 are sensitive to whether emergency allotments and program-waiver periods are included. A FY-based report notes that State agencies issued roughly $90 billion in regular benefits to a monthly average of 22.2 million households (about 42.0 million people) in FY2023, and that emergency allotments added about $16.6 billion that year [3]. The month-specific April 2025 figure of 42,022,990 participants and the reported 1.0% rise from April 2024 sit alongside FY averages showing 39.9 million in FY2020 and 41.7 million in FY2024, indicating a modest net national increase over the period but masking volatility tied to pandemic-era policy actions [1] [2] [3]. Analysts also dispute dramatic-sounding claims: one review concluded that average monthly participation rose only marginally from 41.6 million in 2021 to 41.7 million in 2024, disputing assertions of large percentage jumps [6].
4. Data gaps, methodological caveats, and why direct 2020→2025 comparisons are tricky
Multiple analyses caution that direct 2020-to-2025 comparisons require aligning reporting periods, definitions, and emergency benefit treatments. The official SNAP data tables and reports include multiple formats (PDF, XLS, ZIP) and cover different fiscal-year and monthly intervals, and some 2020 data reflect only pre-pandemic months and face collection limitations during the COVID-19 emergency [4] [5]. Fiscal-year summaries, monthly snapshots, and household versus person counts are used interchangeably across sources; without harmonizing these elements, percentage changes can be misleading. Additionally, emergency allotments and policy waivers produced temporary enrollment and benefit distortions that complicate trend interpretation. The analyses therefore recommend caution and standardization before producing definitive state-by-state change estimates [4] [3].
5. Competing narratives and possible agendas — what to watch when sources make claims
Claims of large SNAP growth or sharp declines carry normative implications that can align with political narratives about program expansion, economic distress, or administrative access. One analysis directly challenges claims of a major enrollment surge under a particular administration by showing only fractional changes in average monthly participation between 2021 and 2024 [6]. Conversely, state-highlighted percentage increases are sometimes presented without noting base sizes or emergency allotments, which can amplify perceived change [1]. Observers should therefore examine whether presentations emphasize absolute counts, percentage changes, inclusion of emergency allotments, or fiscal-year versus monthly metrics, because these choices can reflect advocacy aims or editorial framing rather than new factual inconsistencies [2] [1] [6].
6. Bottom line and practical next steps for a robust comparison
The available analyses together show a modest national increase in SNAP participation between 2020 and 2025 but wide state-level variation, with both sizable percentage gains and losses depending on the state and metric used [1] [2] [3]. To produce an authoritative state-by-state 2020→2025 comparison, analysts must select consistent monthly or fiscal anchors, decide whether to include emergency allotments, and use population-adjusted rates as well as absolute counts; the underlying USDA data tables provide raw inputs but require harmonization [4] [5]. Policymakers and journalists should request or compute standardized, footnoted tables that specify months, inclusion rules, and whether figures are household or person counts before citing state-level change figures [3] [2].