Republicans Plan to Shift SNAP Costs to States: Key Details You Need

House Republicans are backing a proposal that could shift a significant portion of the cost for the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program , widely recognized as food stamps, to the states as part of expenditure reductions to fund President Donald Trump ’s legislative agenda, a move that conservatives say could become a model for other federal social safety net programs.

If Trump’s “one big, beautiful bill” makes it through the legislative process, the food stamps proposal could save the federal government $192 billion over the next 10 years, according to the Congressional Budget Office.

Republicans have incorporated a multitude of changes to social safety net programs in the legislation they are advancing through budget reconciliation, a legislative process that allows for bills to bypass filibusters and pass with a simple majority once they reach the Senate.

SNAP, the largest anti-hunger program nationwide, has traditionally been solely federally funded, and state leaders have expressed concerns that introducing cost-sharing will harm state budgets.

Matt Weidinger, a senior fellow focusing on safety-net policies at the American Enterprise Institute, informed the Washington Examiner that alterations in state-federal cost sharing may become the primary strategy for Republicans aiming to revamp welfare systems as they seek solutions to escalating national debt.

How much burden should federal taxpayers shoulder for these benefits? In the long term, I believe the response will inevitably involve reducing their contribution," argued Weidinger. "State governments currently possess stronger fiscal health compared to the federal government, and this serves as an approach for the federal administration to bolster its own financial standing.

The bill stalled During a Friday afternoon meeting of the House Budget Committee, voting took place following objections from fiscal conservatives. These critics argue that the proposed spending reductions fail to sufficiently tackle the continuously expanding national debt.

Here are four points to understand regarding SNAP and how the suggested modifications could impact states.

SNAP supports over 42 million individuals.

By fiscal year 2023, the average was 42.1 million people Across the nation, participants engaged with SNAP monthly as reported by the Department of Agriculture. The initiative incurred about $113 billion in federal expenditures, and recipients obtained roughly $212 per month.

Nearly two-thirds In fiscal year 2023, approximately 74% of SNAP households received some type of unearned income from various social safety net programs like Social Security, Supplemental Security Income, or others. About 26% of these households reported having earned income.

Over twenty percent of residents in Washington, D.C., utilize SNAP benefits, placing the city at the second-highest level nationally.

New Mexico leads in SNAP participation with a rate of 23%. It is followed by Louisiana in third place with 19.6% and West Virginia in fourth position with 17.4%.

States would incur greater expenses due to inefficiency.

Under the proposed policy, states would be obligated to cover a minimum of 5% of the expenses related to SNAP benefits. However, this contribution could vary according to a sliding scale which takes into account the rate of incorrect payments made in the previous year.

In the context of the legislation, improper payments encompass both over-payments and under-payments made due to mistakes. However, as per USDA documentation, instances of over-payment errors occur significantly more frequently compared to under-payment errors.

Beginning in fiscal year 2028, states having improper payment rates ranging from 6% to 8% will be responsible for covering 15% of the expenses related to the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP). For states where the improper payment rate falls between 8% and 10%, they must shoulder 20% of the program’s financial burden. In cases where the error percentage is even greater, these states will have to fund up to 25% of the benefit distribution costs.

We're suggesting that every state should contribute to the expenses associated with SNAP benefits," explained Weidinger. "However, if states fail to maintain strict control over incorrect payments within the SNAP program, they would be required to cover substantially increased portions of these costs.

The current rate of improper payments for SNAP is quite elevated.

According to the Center for Budget and Policy Studies South Dakota remains the sole state that hasn’t exceeded the 6% threshold for improper payments since 2003.

In 2023, Alaska's rate of incorrect payments was nearly 61% , with most of these being overpayments. New Jersey’s was nearly 36%.

In 2023, only seven states—Idaho, Iowa, South Dakota, Utah, Vermont, Wisconsin, and Wyoming—had improper payment rates beneath the 6% limit. More than half of all states reported improper payment rates exceeding the 10% benchmark.

Weidinger stated that stringent consequences for incorrect payments will motivate states to create a more effective and precise system.

The way the policy is designed “sends a signal to states that you will bear some of the costs of having more people on benefits than is necessary,” he said.

"I believe it would be beneficial if states were more attuned to larger workloads, allowing them to proactively assist individuals in progressing and becoming less reliant on SNAP and reducing prolonged dependency," Weidinger stated.

State governments are concerned

State government organizations have been the most vocal opponents of the cost-sharing measure, arguing that it could jeopardize the program.

Timothy Storey, the CEO at National Assembly of State Governments wrote to the House Agriculture Committee on Thursday stating that while significant improvements can be made regarding program integrity, they do not endorse an overly harsh method for cost-sharing.

Storey stated that the NCSL instead backed "federal incentives that shift focus away from a system reliant on error rates towards one that provides bonuses for precision and allocates resources to pinpoint and rectify issues within SNAP administration."

DEMONSTRATORS CRITICIZE REPUBLIcANS ON WORK MANDATES FOR MEDICAID AND SNAP

“NCSL urges a carrot rather than stick approach to quality control,” wrote Storey. “State legislators are committed to improving program integrity but cannot do so effectively if their hands are tied by unfunded federal mandates."

Critics of the cost-sharing proposal argue that enhancing work demands for SNAP assistance introduces extra administrative hurdles for state governments, thereby raising the chances of mistakes.