Payments through SNAP, the federal food assistance program, have been delayed during the government shutdown, but program cuts in this summer’s budget bill already put vulnerable families at long-term risk of going hungry.
SNAP cuts of $186 billion over the next decade were part of an overall $1.1 trillion spending cut that partially offset the $4.5 trillion in revenue lost to tax cuts in the “One Big Beautiful Bill Act”. The bill’s overall changes to SNAP, which includes a requirement that some states pay a share of benefit costs for the first time, could lead to more families going hungry.
SNAP is a federal program that primarily gives families at or below 130% of the poverty line, just $34,645 a year for a household of three people, funds to buy food with Electronic Benefits Cards, or EBTs. In 2023, about 42 million people received an average of $400 monthly SNAP food assistance benefits. Of households who received SNAP benefits, 34% included children and teens.
The “One Big Beautiful Bill Act” requires states to pay a larger share of SNAP costs. In 2027 this will include, for the first time in the program’s history, a share of the program benefits paid to recipients based on a state’s benefit error rate.
The error rate is the average of overpayments and underpayments for individual SNAP benefits. States with at or above 6% must contribute from 5% to as much as 15%. This graph shows each state’s error rates would have affected their mandatory contributions in 2024.
“States are not exactly rolling in funds, so they can make their systems more efficient and cut error rates,” said Bitler, who is a faculty affiliate of the UC Davis Center for Poverty and Inequality Research. “One approach some states may take is to change processes to be more stringent in checking eligibility for groups of people with high error rates, possibly reducing participation.”
SNAP funding changed
Research in economics has documented the impacts of SNAP and its predecessor the Food Stamp Program, which began in 1939. While many studies have confirmed that it does reduce food insecurity, as the program is intended to do, it also improves babies’ birth weights, improves how kids perform in math and drives health benefits that continue later in life.
The program also increases lifetime earnings. In a recent NBER working paper, Bitler reports that women born in counties with the SNAP predecessor Food Stamp Program available in early life had 3% higher earnings, roughly $800 annually in 2019 dollars, at age 32.
In addition to direct program cuts, the One Big Beautiful Bill Act added work requirements that the Congressional Budget Office estimated could mean 2.4 million fewer people qualifying for SNAP each month.
A Congressional Budget Office analysis estimated that after “big beautiful bill” SNAP cuts, states will reduce or eliminate SNAP benefits for about 300,000 people each month. It also estimated that subsidies provided through child nutrition programs will decrease monthly for about 96,000 children.
Cuts to SNAP could also affect grocers and other stores that accept EBT because the benefits can’t be used to buy anything other than food. The total monetary value of benefits paid through SNAP, which was $93.6 billion in 2024, go directly to food retailers.
Bitler’s research shows that SNAP funds drive both retail sales and jobs. In a Center for Poverty and Inequality Research policy brief, Bitler and her co-authors summarized their findings which showed SNAP adoption increased retail sales by as much as 1.6 percentage points. SNAP adoption also increased real payrolls by 4.2% for both food stores and grocery stores.
Citation:
Beyond the shutdown: How SNAP budget cuts threaten families’ access to food (2025, November 11)
retrieved 11 November 2025
from https://medicalxpress.com/news/2025-11-shutdown-snap-threaten-families-access.html
This document is subject to copyright. Apart from any fair dealing for the purpose of private study or research, no
part may be reproduced without the written permission. The content is provided for information purposes only.
Payments through SNAP, the federal food assistance program, have been delayed during the government shutdown, but program cuts in this summer’s budget bill already put vulnerable families at long-term risk of going hungry.
SNAP cuts of $186 billion over the next decade were part of an overall $1.1 trillion spending cut that partially offset the $4.5 trillion in revenue lost to tax cuts in the “One Big Beautiful Bill Act”. The bill’s overall changes to SNAP, which includes a requirement that some states pay a share of benefit costs for the first time, could lead to more families going hungry.
SNAP is a federal program that primarily gives families at or below 130% of the poverty line, just $34,645 a year for a household of three people, funds to buy food with Electronic Benefits Cards, or EBTs. In 2023, about 42 million people received an average of $400 monthly SNAP food assistance benefits. Of households who received SNAP benefits, 34% included children and teens.
The “One Big Beautiful Bill Act” requires states to pay a larger share of SNAP costs. In 2027 this will include, for the first time in the program’s history, a share of the program benefits paid to recipients based on a state’s benefit error rate.
The error rate is the average of overpayments and underpayments for individual SNAP benefits. States with at or above 6% must contribute from 5% to as much as 15%. This graph shows each state’s error rates would have affected their mandatory contributions in 2024.
“States are not exactly rolling in funds, so they can make their systems more efficient and cut error rates,” said Bitler, who is a faculty affiliate of the UC Davis Center for Poverty and Inequality Research. “One approach some states may take is to change processes to be more stringent in checking eligibility for groups of people with high error rates, possibly reducing participation.”
SNAP funding changed
Research in economics has documented the impacts of SNAP and its predecessor the Food Stamp Program, which began in 1939. While many studies have confirmed that it does reduce food insecurity, as the program is intended to do, it also improves babies’ birth weights, improves how kids perform in math and drives health benefits that continue later in life.
The program also increases lifetime earnings. In a recent NBER working paper, Bitler reports that women born in counties with the SNAP predecessor Food Stamp Program available in early life had 3% higher earnings, roughly $800 annually in 2019 dollars, at age 32.
In addition to direct program cuts, the One Big Beautiful Bill Act added work requirements that the Congressional Budget Office estimated could mean 2.4 million fewer people qualifying for SNAP each month.
A Congressional Budget Office analysis estimated that after “big beautiful bill” SNAP cuts, states will reduce or eliminate SNAP benefits for about 300,000 people each month. It also estimated that subsidies provided through child nutrition programs will decrease monthly for about 96,000 children.
Cuts to SNAP could also affect grocers and other stores that accept EBT because the benefits can’t be used to buy anything other than food. The total monetary value of benefits paid through SNAP, which was $93.6 billion in 2024, go directly to food retailers.
Bitler’s research shows that SNAP funds drive both retail sales and jobs. In a Center for Poverty and Inequality Research policy brief, Bitler and her co-authors summarized their findings which showed SNAP adoption increased retail sales by as much as 1.6 percentage points. SNAP adoption also increased real payrolls by 4.2% for both food stores and grocery stores.
Citation:
Beyond the shutdown: How SNAP budget cuts threaten families’ access to food (2025, November 11)
retrieved 11 November 2025
from https://medicalxpress.com/news/2025-11-shutdown-snap-threaten-families-access.html
This document is subject to copyright. Apart from any fair dealing for the purpose of private study or research, no
part may be reproduced without the written permission. The content is provided for information purposes only.
