SNAP enrollment falls almost 13% as new federal requirements take hold

States now pay 75% of SNAP administrative costs

The number of Americans enrolled in the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program fell by almost 13% between 2025 and June 2026, bringing total enrollment to about 36.4 million people, down from roughly 42 million the prior year, according to Tracy Roof, an associate professor of political science at the University of Richmond who has studied the history of SNAP. An estimated 1.5 million children are among those who no longer receive benefits. In her research, Roof has found that “changes in the way states run their programs have a big impact on who can get help.”

President Donald Trump has attributed the decline to a strong economy reducing demand for the program. But the enrollment drop largely reflects provisions of the tax-and-spending package Trump signed into law in July 2025, according to Roof. The law made some legally residing immigrants, including refugees and those seeking asylum, ineligible for SNAP benefits.

The law also expanded work requirements. Adults without dependents can now receive up to three months of benefits unless they work, participate in training programs, or volunteer at least 80 hours per month. The age ceiling for those requirements rose from 54 to 64, and parents of children ages 14 to 17 must now meet the requirements as well. All states are phasing in the new restrictions, but the rate of decline has been uneven.

The impact varies sharply by state. Arizona’s enrollment has fallen by almost half, while Louisiana and Illinois have seen declines of about one-fifth. State-level variation in how the program is administered has amplified the effect in some places, Roof wrote.

SNAP is federally funded but state-administered. Starting Oct. 1, 2026, states must pay 75% of the program’s administrative costs, including staff salaries and the computer systems that manage enrollment, up from 50% previously. The federal government estimates that states and local governments will pay roughly $17 billion more in administrative costs over the next five years. California, the most populous state, will be responsible for roughly $670 million more in fiscal year 2027, while Wyoming, the least populous, will pay about $3 million more. In nine of the 10 states where SNAP is administered by counties, costs will shift to local governments.

States are also preparing for a second shift scheduled for October 2027, when many states will for the first time have to cover a portion of benefit costs, up to 15%, based on their “payment error rate.” The error rate measures how much in benefits is paid above or below what families are actually entitled to, based on household size, income, and expenses. The rate is calculated from an in-depth review of a small sample of each state’s benefits payments each year. Inaccurate payments are generally the result of mistakes by applicants or caseworkers and rarely result from fraud, according to Roof.

The error rate provision includes only benefits paid to ineligible participants; it does not capture benefits denied to eligible applicants or paid to those wrongly dropped from the program. Supporters of SNAP argue this structure pushes states to err on the side of denying benefits.

Only nine states had payment error rates below 6% in 2025, the threshold below which states would face no new benefit costs. States with rates between 6% and 8% would pay 5% of benefit costs; those between 8% and 10% would pay 10%; and states with rates above 10% would pay 15%. A state with an error rate above 13.32% would not have to pay a share of benefit costs for up to two years, though it would still face the higher administrative burden.

To reduce their error rates, states are adding staff, training, and verification procedures, but they have had little time to do so. The states’ share of benefits costs scheduled for October 2027 will be based on error rates from the fiscal year that ended in September 2026. Caseworkers in states such as Arizona have reportedly been overwhelmed with paperwork, and applicants have faced hours-long phone waits and monthslong delays.

State agencies and some state legislatures are also imposing stricter rules and requiring applicants to provide more paperwork documenting their income, expenses, and household size, according to Roof. Organizations representing state and local governments and social workers are pushing for an across-the-board two-year delay in the cost-sharing changes.

The new requirements are now entangled in the debate over the farm bill, the multi-year legislation that sets policy for agriculture, conservation, and food assistance including SNAP. The most recent farm bill was finalized in 2018 and has expired. Democrats, whose support is needed to pass the legislation in the Senate, want to see most of the new SNAP changes repealed, and many have refused to vote for a new farm bill without a two-year delay in the new cost-sharing requirements. The Republican version of the farm bill pending in the Senate includes a one-year delay in the benefits-funding changes but would increase the states’ burden beyond what the October 2027 schedule calls for, a structure Democrats have rejected.

The 2026 midterm elections could shift the balance of leverage in those negotiations. If Democrats hold a majority in one or both chambers, their position in the farm bill talks could strengthen.

The enrollment decline is already showing up at food banks and pantries, which are reporting rising demand and fear they will not be able to keep up. Officials in some states have said they may need to drop the program altogether. Roof wrote that SNAP’s higher costs could force states and counties to raise taxes, cut spending on other programs, or find ways to reduce spending on SNAP. Because states lack the authority to change benefit amounts or do much to directly limit who qualifies for the program, Roof expects “more states will be tempted to add red tape to lower their error rates, reduce the number of people getting benefits, or both.”

This article was originally published in The Conversation and republished by United Press International under a Creative Commons license.