Enrollment in the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program has fallen sharply nationwide since the passage of the One Big Beautiful Bill Act last summer. More than 3.5 million people have lost access to the food assistance program as states implement a series of new eligibility requirements and stricter processes for applying, according to federal data reviewed by PBS NewsHour.
The Republican centerpiece budget law is projected to cut $186 billion in federal spending on SNAP over the next decade. The legislation raised the age limit for work requirements from 54 to 64 and increased documentation requirements for enrollment. Over 38 million people remain enrolled in the program, but participation has declined in every state.
What the Right Is Saying
The Trump administration has celebrated the decline in SNAP enrollment, arguing that it reflects a stronger economy and efforts to root out fraud. Agriculture Secretary Brooke Rollins and other officials have suggested rising wages and economic improvement are driving people off the rolls.
Jack Salmon, a researcher at the conservative Mercatus Center at George Mason University, argued the declining numbers represent a return to normalcy following pandemic-era expansions. "The SNAP program tends to be pretty cyclical," Salmon told PBS NewsHour. "During economic crises, like we saw in 2008-2009, when the unemployment rate goes up, we see program participation also go up with that." He noted that following COVID, enrollment remained elevated through the end of 2024 and is now returning to pre-pandemic patterns.
What the Left Is Saying
Sara Naomi Bleich, a professor of public health policy at Harvard University who previously worked at the USDA during the Biden and Obama administrations, disputed the Trump administration's characterization that declining enrollment reflects economic improvement. "The economy has not measurably improved since H.R.1 passed in July of 2025," Bleich said in an interview with PBS NewsHour. "Affordability, including high costs of food, remain an enormous challenge for families in this country."
Bleich argued that eligible people are leaving the program because it has become too difficult to document and maintain their eligibility. She noted that stricter time limits now require recipients to prove they are working 20 hours per week or 80 hours per month, greatly increasing paperwork burdens. "What's happening is these new rules are making it such that eligible people who should be in the program are unable to participate," Bleich said. "And that's not consistent with the mission of SNAP."
Advocacy groups have raised concerns about state implementation, noting that most states face staffing challenges and may fail to process applications within required 30-day deadlines. According to Bleich, even eligible applicants who submit all required information on time can be automatically removed if states do not process their paperwork by the deadline.
What the Numbers Show
The statistics paint a stark picture of programmatic change. More than 3.5 million people lost access to SNAP between July 2025 and February 2026, according to program data. Arizona has seen the steepest decline, with participation falling by approximately 51 percent—more than double the national average.
SNAP fraud rates stand at roughly 1.6 percent of benefits, which experts note is low compared to other federal safety net programs. The new legislation targets payment error rates—referring to how much recipients are over- or underpaid for their monthly benefits—rather than fraudulent enrollment. The Congressional Budget Office projects the changes will reduce SNAP spending by $186 billion over ten years.
The age threshold for work requirements has increased from 54 to 64, expanding the number of recipients subject to proving employment hours each month. Recipients must now document 80 hours per month of work or qualifying activities to maintain benefits.
The Bottom Line
The decline in SNAP enrollment represents one of the largest contractions in the federal safety net in recent decades. Supporters contend it reflects economic improvement and better stewardship of public dollars, while critics argue eligible families are being pushed off rolls due to administrative complexity rather than improved circumstances.
What happens next will likely depend on state implementation capacity and whether courts or Congress revisit specific provisions. Bleich warned that continued enrollment declines could lead to higher rates of food insecurity, with downstream effects on health outcomes including increased risk of heart disease and diabetes. The administration has not signaled plans to alter the current approach, and no legislative challenges have advanced in Congress as of this report.