States will soon have to pay millions of dollars more for the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, or SNAP, under the GOP’s “One Big, Beautiful Bill Act” that President Donald Trump signed into law last week.
The act makes states responsible for a larger portion of SNAP administrative costs. And states might have to cover a percentage of benefit costs for the first time, depending on their program’s payment error rate. The error rate refers to both over and under payments made to SNAP recipients, not fraud, according to the U.S. Department of Agriculture.
Lawmakers and Trump administration officials in support of the measure say the changes will cut down waste and fraud in the assistance program.
“The bill holds states accountable for their error rates, strengthens work requirements, and prevents illegal aliens from receiving SNAP,” Agriculture Secretary Brooke Rollins said in a statement applauding the legislation.
But others are worried about how the legislation will impact the program and the people who rely on it.
In June, 23 governors sent a letter to Congress saying the shifting costs would hurt states’ ability to administer SNAP benefits. Food advocates say that likely means fewer people will have access to food.
“At a time when food insecurity is rising nationwide, this legislation threatens to worsen the crisis, taking away access to food and health care from millions of people, including children, seniors, veterans and people with disabilities,” Feeding America CEO Claire Babineaux-Fotenot said in a statement.
Luke Elzinga is the policy and advocacy manager at the Des Moines Area Religious Council’s Food Pantry Network in Iowa. He said the concern is that shifting costs to states could lead to eligibility cuts or impacts to the budgets of other programs or services. In the worst-case scenario, he said SNAP would become unaffordable for some states, which would then choose to drop the program. He does not foresee that happening in Iowa.
“[States] are going to be having to do more with less resources,” Elzinga said. “And I think that's a real concern of, what are the unintended consequences of states putting so much focus on this payment error rate? Because they could be on the hook for tens if not hundreds of millions of dollars.”
A larger weight on error rate
SNAP is the nation’s biggest food assistance program, serving more than 42 million people, including millions of people in the Midwest and Great Plains. For years, the federal government has funded all of the program’s benefit costs, and split the program’s administrative costs with states.
Starting next fall, states will have to pay for 75% of the administrative costs, up from the current 50%. And states could be responsible for a portion of benefit costs beginning in fall 2027, which will be determined by their payment error rates:
- States with error rates below 6% will have no benefit cost-share requirement
- States with an error rate between 6-8% must pay for 5% of the SNAP benefit cost
- States with an error rate between 8-10% must pay 10% of the SNAP benefit cost
- States with an error rate of 10% or more must pay 15% of the SNAP benefit cost
For the first two years, the benefit cost that states owe will be based on the payment error rates reported in fiscal year 2025 or 2026. After that, it will be based on the error rate of the prior three years.
But if states have the same percentages as the most recently released payment error rates from fiscal year 2024, all but eight states would be paying benefit costs.
Millions of dollars more
In Iowa, the state’s most recent error rate is 6.14%. Elzinga said state lawmakers will have some difficult decisions to weigh.
“Combining the additional administrative costs and if we were on the hook for a 5% cost share, that's an additional $40 million that the State of Iowa would need to come up with,” Elzinga said, citing an Iowa Hunger Coalition report. “I think that we've seen a lot of very popular, bipartisan policies that have not been enacted in Iowa simply because we're told there's not enough funding.”
Oklahoma’s most recent error rate is at 10.87%. Hunger Free Oklahoma estimates it would cost the state up to $270 million in new annual costs for the benefit cost. Jessica Dietrich, director of government relations and public policy for Hunger Free Oklahoma, said the group estimates the administration cost will add another $30 million. For her, the additional costs are shocking and concerning.
“Part of that concern is it feels like the goal is to get to a specific number in savings, and we're not doing this because it's good policy,” Dietrich said. “And that doesn't seem like the way we should be making policy on the nation's biggest anti-hunger program.”
In Missouri, the cost shift to the state could be $310 million a year, said Amy Blouin, CEO of the public policy analysis organization Missouri Budget Project. The most recent error rate in the state is 9.42%.
If the state can’t afford the program, Blouin said the harshest effect will be to the people who use the benefits. But she said the move will also impact local economies. Every $1 in SNAP benefits generates up to $1.50 in local economic activity, according to Feeding America.
“That money is used through SNAP to purchase food in local grocery stores throughout the state,” Blouin said. “And in some areas of the state where you've got 20 or 30% of the folks who live there having less money to meet their food needs, that's going to have an impact on our local grocery stores.”
Rep. Glenn Thompson of Pennsylvania and Sen. John Boozman of Arkansas said in a recent statement that the current payment error rates are a sign that there’s a lack of state accountability measures in the program
“The status quo, slap-on-the-wrist penalties from USDA have failed at maintaining program integrity in SNAP,” they wrote in the joint statement.
Dietrich said bringing error rates down is important, but the new law could do the opposite by adding more restrictions, which could create more errors. She said agencies are often using outdated software and many are short-staffed.
“So honestly, it’s amazing that they’re able to keep error rates at what they are now because they’re basically making the best with not much to work with,” Dietrich said.
Additional investments to make improvements, such as upgrading states’ systems, could be a better way to bring down the rates, Elzinga said.
Stacy Dykstra, chief executive officer of the Regional Food Bank of Oklahoma, said government programs like SNAP are the first line of defense against hunger. Food banks are the second.
Feeding America estimates the reductions to SNAP and other changes in Trump’s “Big, Beautiful Bill” could eliminate the equivalent of 6 to 9 billion meals annually.
The two Feeding America Food Banks in Oklahoma saw record demand last year, and now they are preparing for more, Dykstra said. She said the food bank is dedicated to its mission and it will stretch in every way it can to ensure people leave the bank with something.
“We believe no one should have to experience hunger,” Dykstra said. “But the reality is, there's no way we can make up the loss that's being suggested by these decisions. And so it's very scary. It’s what keeps me awake at night to know exactly how we're going to do this.”
This story was produced in partnership with Harvest Public Media, a collaboration of public media newsrooms in the Midwest and Great Plains. It reports on food systems, agriculture and rural issues.
