Congress Declines to Halt Major SNAP Cost Shifts to States

Congressional Inaction on SNAP Funding Sparks Concern

The United States Congress has concluded its recent appropriations process without taking action to halt the impending shift of Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) costs to individual states. This decision leaves in place provisions from the 2025 federal reconciliation law, also known as H.R. 1 or the One Big Beautiful Bill Act of 2025, which mandates significant new financial responsibilities for states regarding the nation's primary anti-hunger program.

Critics, including the Food Research & Action Center (FRAC), have voiced strong concerns, warning that this failure to act will exacerbate hunger, place immense strain on already fragile state budgets, negatively impact farmers and food retailers, and weaken local economies across the country.

New Financial Burdens for States

The structural changes to SNAP funding represent the most significant alteration to the program since its inception over 60 years ago under President Lyndon B. Johnson. These changes introduce two primary financial burdens for states:

• Increased Administrative Costs: Beginning in Fiscal Year (FY) 2027, which starts in October 2026, states will see their share of SNAP administrative costs rise from the long-standing 50 percent to 75 percent.
• Direct Benefit Cost-Sharing: For the first time in SNAP's history, states will be required to contribute to the cost of food benefits themselves. Starting in FY 2028 (October 2027), this contribution will be tied to a state's payment error rate, with states exhibiting error rates of 6 percent or higher facing a share ranging from 0 to 15 percent of benefit costs.

The U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) reportedly delayed issuing implementation guidance for H.R. 1's changes until October 31, 2025, without providing states a grace period. This, coupled with a federal government shutdown in November 2025, further complicated states' ability to prepare for the new requirements.

Projected Impacts on Budgets and Food Security

The financial implications for states are substantial. One study estimates that states' collective SNAP costs could surge to $15 billion annually once the provisions are fully phased in. Individual states face significant new expenditures; for instance, Oregon anticipates needing an additional $54 million for administrative costs and $39 million for benefit costs in its 2025-27 budget cycle. Larger states like California could face penalties of up to $1.8 billion, and Florida $963 million, if their payment error rates are not reduced.

State officials and advocacy groups warn that these unfunded mandates will force states to make difficult choices, potentially leading to cuts in eligibility for vulnerable populations, tax increases, or reductions in other vital public services. The Congressional Budget Office (CBO) estimated that states might respond by collectively reducing or eliminating SNAP benefits for approximately 300,000 people in a typical month. This could lead to increased demand on food pantries, even as the federal law eliminated a program that previously supported food banks.

Unheeded Calls for a 'SNAP Fix'

Despite widespread appeals from a coalition of organizations, state and local leaders, and state agencies, Congress did not include provisions in the recent appropriations bill to mitigate these cost shifts. Groups such as the National Governors Association (NGA) and the American Public Human Services Association (APHSA) had urged Congress to approve a bipartisan 'SNAP fix' in a January congressional resolution, arguing that states need more time and resources to adapt to the new requirements and update their systems. Critics argue that demanding higher accuracy from states while simultaneously reducing federal support for administration will ultimately undermine the program's integrity.