Critics of last year’s “One Big Beautiful Bill Act” (OBBBA) argue that the Trump administration is stripping vulnerable households of crucial benefits, citing a $187 billion reduction in Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) funding over the next decade. Since the OBBBA’s passage last summer, the number of food-stamp recipients has declined by over 4.1 million while food prices have risen. But there is much more to this story.
First, these headline numbers lack historical context. COVID-era emergency measures expanded SNAP far beyond its previous intent and baseline. Congress let states issue every household the maximum benefit regardless of income, and later layered on a 15% increase through the American Rescue Plan. Both changes were explicitly temporary and expired by mid-2023, but another did not: the 2021 Thrifty Food Plan reevaluation, which permanently raised benefits by roughly 21%.
Recommended Stories
This reflects a pattern we see all too often in government, where the temporary becomes the entrenched. It happened with earned income tax credits, New Deal farm subsidies, Medicare “doc fix” and most recently, SNAP.
SNAP is cyclical by nature and expansions are expected in times of crisis, so it’s no surprise that benefits surged from $55.6 billion in 2019 to $107.9 billion in 2021. The troubling part is that they remained at $95 billion in 2025 despite a recovered labor market. Even after the OBBBA’s adjustments, roughly 1 million more people are receiving benefits than prior to the pandemic. This past February, benefits per person were also about 47% higher than the pre-pandemic level, while the overall cost of living has increased by about 28%.
It’s one thing to argue for SNAP to be expanded; it’s another to frame the OBBBA’s corrections as “cuts.” Characterizing a return to the status quo this way is misleading.
Second, over this same period, improper SNAP payments have been ballooning. Some of the so-called cuts will be recouped from the states, which is where the problem lies. The rate of improper payments went from roughly 7% before the pandemic to around 11% in recent years. This amounts to about $10-12 billion each year, with overpayments accounting for about 90% of the total.
SNAP benefits are administered by states but fully funded by the federal government. So, while states play with house money, they lack meaningful incentives to police overpayments or other issues. When was the last time you heard about a private entity overpaying nearly 1-in-10 of its bills?
The OBBBA takes steps toward addressing this issue by requiring states with improper payment rates above 6% to cover 5% to 15% of benefit costs, a figure that increases based on a state’s error rate. This framework finally provides consequences for preventable failures to take care of taxpayer dollars. Of the CBO’s $187 billion estimate in headline savings, $35 billion comes directly from costs shifted onto states through this provision.
Skin in the game is the right idea, but it relies on a mechanism with a history of being manipulated. A 2014 USDA review found widespread quality control issues in state SNAP agencies. States have also exploited waivers that exempt able-bodied adults from work requirements, issuing them retroactively to paper over improper payments. Even the OBBBA delays cost-sharing requirements for states with payment error rates over 13.3%, rewarding the worst performers and undermining the accountability it was supposed to create.
Unsurprisingly, states are resisting cost-sharing requirements. In a January 2026 letter to congressional leaders, a coalition of state and local government organizations urged Congress to delay the requirements until 2030, arguing that shutdown-related disruptions and delayed federal guidance make previous error data a poor basis for penalties. Democrats on the Senate Agriculture Committee have taken up the cause, committing to delaying the reform in the upcoming farm bill.
Their argument includes some valid points about the timing and methodology of the penalty calculation. It does not challenge the principle of cost sharing. Modest and temporary adjustments may be reasonable, but troublingly high error rates predate any reporting disruptions. Pushing cost-sharing beyond the next presidential election and two full congressional cycles is akin to quietly repealing it.
THE WORKING FAMILIES TAX CUTS STRENGTHEN SNAP. DON’T LET THE SENATE UNDO PROGRESS
SNAP is a safety net for vulnerable households. Upholding that mission is not just about the overall amount of funding; it’s about whether money is going where it’s truly needed. After the pandemic, SNAP outgrew its original intention. Congress, for once, decided not to let an emergency become an entitlement, and it took on waste and abuse.
In this case, the word “cut” doesn’t cut it.
Joshua Pauze is a researcher with the Mercatus Center at George Mason University.
