Between the government shutdown and the One Big Beautiful Bill Act, the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP, formerly called Food Stamps) is undergoing significant cuts. This 60-year program provides support to feed tens of millions of Americans.
Professor Sara Bleich spoke with HKS about the significance of SNAP benefits and what federal cuts may mean. Bleich is professor of public health policy at the Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health, the Carol K. Pforzheimer Professor at the Radcliffe Institute for Advanced Study, and a faculty member at the Kennedy School. She served in the Biden administration as the director of nutrition security and health equity at the U.S. Department of Agriculture’s (USDA) Food and Nutrition Service. During the Obama administration, she worked at USDA as a senior policy adviser for Food, Nutrition and Consumer Services.
Q: What exactly is SNAP?
The SNAP program helps more than 42 million Americans buy food each month. That’s one in eight Americans, and 70% of those participants are the elderly, disabled, or children. So, the programs is reaching vulnerable populations. When we look at levels of participation by state, we see that there tends to be a higher percentage of participants in the Southern and Southwest parts of the country, largely due to larger populations of families that have lower income.
SNAP is federally funded and state administered, and it is designed to be countercyclical, which means that as the economy worsens—think the COVID-19 pandemic, the Great Recession—SNAP enrollment increases. Extensive evidence shows that SNAP has a positive impact on families. It reduces food insecurity, lifts families out of poverty, lowers health care costs, and boosts local economies.
Q: Can you explain the resources that keep SNAP going in emergencies?
The U.S. Department of Agriculture, which administers the SNAP program, maintains a contingency fund, intended to provide resources during emergencies or natural disasters. During the current shutdown, these funds are being used to cover a portion of benefits, as they have been used in the past by various administrations to ensure that SNAP benefits continue without interruption.
The Trump administration initially announced that it would not tap into the contingency funds to support continued SNAP benefits during the shutdown, even though those funds could have covered about half of the $8 billion needed for November benefits. In response, about two dozen states sued the federal government. On October 31st, two federal judges ruled that the administration had to provide SNAP benefits during the shutdown, prompting the Trump administration to agree to partial payments. A week later, another federal judge ordered that the full November benefit be paid. The Trump administration then appealed resulting in a Supreme Court stay that requires states to revert to partial payments—although some states had already issued full benefits before the stay took effect. This tumultuous series of events has created enormous uncertainty for SNAP participants—a situation that, as of now, remains unresolved.
Importantly, resources are available to cover the full amount of SNAP benefits for November during the shutdown. The federal government has the legal authority to transfer funds across accounts within an agency, and money could easily be pulled from the Child Nutrition account, which supports programs like school meals, without disrupting regular operations.
“There is strong evidence that SNAP lifts families out of poverty, reduces food insecurity, and lowers health care costs.”
Q: Has the disruption of food assistance programs been a problem in previous shutdowns? What are the implications of SNAP being used as a bargaining chip in the current shutdown?
In previous shutdowns, SNAP benefits have never been disrupted. In fact, the program has been ongoing for 60 years. If full benefits are not provided for November, it will mark the first time in the history of the program that partial benefits have been issued.
SNAP is a lifeline for tens of millions of Americans. Rolling back this program means many families will struggle to afford food. We are coming up on the Thanksgiving holiday, which makes it even worse. Families will have to make difficult decisions. Do I pay my rent? Do I pay for food? Do I pay my medical bills?
It is also putting enormous strain on the charitable food sector and the emergency food sector. We are seeing that lines for food banks are getting incredibly long as demand goes up, and the charitable food sector does not have the capacity to fill the hole that is being left by the federal government. For every meal that food banks provide, SNAP provides nine. Charities do not have the capacity to make up for the shortfall.
Q: What, if anything, can states and local governments do to mitigate this disruption? Are they equipped to fill this funding gap?
States are in a tough spot. They simply do not have the same level of resources as the federal government. When the Trump administration originally said it would not fund SNAP benefits for the month of November, states stepped up to help. California, for example, said it would put $80 million towards food banks. Massachusetts said it would put $4 million towards food banks. Those are important efforts, but they are not going to make SNAP participants whole. Moreover, much of the state funding is directed to the charitable food sector, which may force families to wait in long lines due to increased demand—an experience that can be both stigmatizing and demoralizing.
Q: The Trump administration seems to be reducing support of food assistance programs. What are the actions that they have taken, and what are their implications?
One of the most significant changes to the SNAP program is the One Big Beautiful Bill Act, which passed earlier this year. This legislation will reduce SNAP funding by approximately $186 billion over 10 years—a 20% cut that marks the largest reduction in the history of the program.
The One Big Beautiful Bill Act also imposes stricter work requirements on SNAP participants. For the first time, adults between the ages of 55 and 64, as well as adults with children over the age of 14, are subject to these rules. They must work a minimum of 20 hours a week or only get benefits for a maximum of three months over three years. Preciously, such requirements applied only to able-bodied adults without dependents aged 18 to 54. These expanded work requirements create a significant paperwork burden, as affected individuals must submit monthly documentation to the state, which must then review and process that information.
Under the One Big Beautiful Bill Act, costs are also shifting from the federal government to the states. States are required to cover a higher share of administrative costs beginning in fiscal year 2027—rising from 50% to 75%—and, for the very first time—must also pay a percentage of benefit costs based on their SNAP payment error rate beginning in fiscal year 2028 (for example, if the error rate is 10% or higher, the state pays 15% of the benefit costs). This amounts to millions and millions of dollars in new state obligations.
Taken together, these changes will result in millions of people losing access to SNAP, eliminating a vital lifeline for many families.
Q: Can you talk about the economic impact of the program?
There is strong evidence that SNAP not only lifts families out of poverty, reduces food insecurity, and lowers health care costs, but also significantly bolsters local economies. Every dollar distributed through SNAP generates about $1.50 to $1.80 in economic activity by supporting jobs in grocery stores and providing income to local farmers. This economic stimulus is especially critical during downturns, as SNAP dollars are quickly spent in local grocery stores, directly benefiting the community. For example, during the 2008 recession, Congress was looking for ways to stimulate local economies and provided a temporary boost to SNAP benefits through the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act.
Q: Beyond the economic impact of losing SNAP benefits, what else is at stake?
For the very first time in SNAP’s history, participants may receive only a partial benefit for the month of November and—for many—even the full benefit, if eventually provided, will arrive several weeks late. Now, imagine that you’ve been relying on this program month after month: you go to the grocery store, fill the conveyor belt with groceries, swipe your card—and discover there are no benefits or are not enough benefits to cover your groceries. Imagine how that must feel for an individual. Now, multiply that by tens of millions of Americans.
One of the reasons why I care so much about the SNAP program is that I grew up in inner-city Baltimore, and my family received SNAP benefits. It has been a huge privilege for me professionally to be able to work on the programs that benefited me when I was a young child, both from an academic standpoint and as someone who has worked in the Obama and Biden administrations. SNAP matters—it impacts real families in real ways.
—
Photography by Brandon Bell/Getty Images