The Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) provides reliable access to food for millions of people. However, the integrity of the program is at risk after substantial cuts were made to it via the “One Big Beautiful Bill,” which was passed by Congress and subsequently signed into law this July.
According to the Congressional Budget Office, through 2034, SNAP will have a reduction of $187 billion in funding—or about 20% of the entire program. Cuts of this magnitude could cause about 4 million people, including 1 million children, to lose all or part of their food assistance, according to the Center for Budget and Policy Priorities.
The most substantial cuts are marked by an unprecedented cost-shift to the states. Changes to SNAP will roll out in stages over the next two years. To avoid budget shortfalls, states must plan accordingly. If states are faced with difficult budget decisions, SNAP recipients may have reduced benefits or experience changes to how those benefits are accessed, increasing barriers to purchasing essential groceries. Furthermore, these additional administrative costs, coupled with expanded work requirements will be put on states to approve qualifying individuals and families.
Historically, administration has been split 50/50 between states and the federal government. Administration costs include staffing agencies and their time spent reviewing applications and verifying eligibility for those already enrolled. Beginning next year, however, all states will be required to take on 75% of administration costs. In Nebraska, at least an additional $17 million in administrative costs will be placed on the budget, effective Oct. 1, 2026. This comes at a time when the state budget is already in a precarious position.
The benefits used by low-income individuals and families to purchase groceries have remained fully funded by the federal government since the program began in 1964. States will also be responsible for covering a share of food benefits beginning in 2027, depending on payment error rates, which are calculated based on over and under payments. If a states’ error rate is below 6%, they will not be required to cover any food benefits, but if the states’ error rate exceeds 6%, incremental increases ranging from 5 to 15% of SNAP benefits will be triggered. These shifts in cost-sharing will result in substantial service disruptions and stresses to states’ budgets, according to the Food Research & Action Center.
Though the error rate in Nebraska currently falls below the 6% threshold that triggers the incremental increase of food benefits, this could change as it’s reviewed on an annual basis. In 2024, Nebraska SNAP participants received $332 million in food benefits—if the error rate rises above 6%, the state would be responsible for an additional $16.6 to $49.8 million.
The federal changes to SNAP may also affect staff who assist applicants and others who work with the program by increasing their workload. SNAP is an optional program, but the added pressure on state departments that are already understaffed and underfunded could lead to some states ultimately deciding the program is not cost-effective, and choose to discontinue SNAP entirely.
Additionally, changes from the states to SNAP have ramifications that extend beyond low-income individuals and families who qualify for benefits. SNAP retailers, such as rural, independent grocery stores, face significant pressure from SNAP waivers that limit which foods can be purchased with benefits. Small grocery stores have limited staff hours and funds to update their technology to ensure inventory is in compliance with state requirements. Some retailers may choose to stop offering SNAP altogether for fear of falling out of compliance. In rural areas, this greatly reduces the availability of places where SNAP recipients can use their benefits.
A majority of SNAP participants are children, senior citizens, and those with disabilities, according to the House Agriculture Committee. SNAP contributes to better health outcomes and economic well-being for both participants and their communities. SNAP has well-documented short- and long-term benefits for those enrolled in the program and has proven especially effective at reducing food insecurity among children. Additionally, it allows low-income families and individuals the ability to purchase healthier food, which improves diet and overall health, ultimately leading to decreased medical spending.
These cuts will push more people toward food insecurity and persistent poverty as grocery prices remain high and SNAP benefits are being pushed to their limits, according to the Urban Institute. Food banks have also faced cuts to their funding at a time when demand for their services are growing, widening the gap to food access.
Instead of viewing SNAP cuts as a reduction in federal spending, it is instead a historic cost-shift placed on millions of people who are already struggling to adequately feed themselves and their families.
