By Sarah Mitchell
The Appleton Times
WASHINGTON — A sharp decline in participation in the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP), formerly known as food stamps, has raised alarms among advocates who argue that policy changes under the Trump administration are deliberately restricting access to food aid for millions of Americans. From July 2025, when 42 million people received SNAP benefits, to December 2025, when the figure dropped to 39.5 million, the reduction of 2.5 million participants does not reflect a decrease in hunger or economic improvement, according to a new report from the Food Research and Action Center (FRAC). Instead, the report attributes the drop to increased administrative barriers and policy shifts that make the program harder to navigate.
The FRAC report, authored by SNAP Director Gina Plata-Nino and Senior SNAP Policy Analyst Dory Thrasher, details how these changes are eroding trust and participation without addressing underlying needs. 'Policies that are meant to “reduce access to the program, increase administrative burden, and shift responsibility… onto families themselves” are being advanced by the Trump administration and a majority of Republicans in Congress,' the authors wrote. They point to the expiration of federal funding at the end of 2024 to replace stolen SNAP benefits, a move they say was influenced by President Trump before he took office.
This expiration had immediate repercussions, the report states. Households that had their benefits stolen were no longer compensated, leading to a loss of confidence in the program. 'The consequence was immediate: Households had their benefits stolen that were no longer made whole, and SNAP participants knew that the federal government no longer had their back,' Plata-Nino and Thrasher noted. 'This established a pattern that would continue: reducing participation not by reducing need, but by increasing loss, friction, and instability.'
Following this, the administration rolled back administrative improvements that had previously eased access, such as expanded language support and better cross-enrollment systems with other benefit programs. These rollbacks have disproportionately impacted vulnerable groups, including communities of color, immigrant households, and rural populations, where food insecurity rates are already higher. The report emphasizes that participation fell not because families were faring better financially, but because the system became more cumbersome.
Compounding these issues, the administration introduced expansive federal data collection requirements for SNAP participants and even applicants who were denied benefits. States are now required to submit detailed personal information, including Social Security numbers, home addresses, immigration data, and up to five years of participation history. This marks a significant departure from the program's six-decade history, where federal oversight relied on anonymized or limited datasets to protect privacy and maintain trust.
The new requirements have sparked legal concerns and what advocates describe as a 'chilling effect.' Eligible households, wary of sharing sensitive information, have opted out of applying. 'Participation declined further, not because need diminished, but because trust eroded,' Plata-Nino and Thrasher wrote in their analysis.
SNAP serves some of the nation's most vulnerable populations. According to U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) data cited in the report, four in five SNAP households include a child, an elderly person, or a nonelderly individual with a disability. Reports from the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities highlight how the program supports millions of children, low-income seniors, and veterans. Nearly three-quarters of SNAP households have gross monthly incomes at or below the federal poverty line, which stands at $33,000 annually for a family of four.
A pivotal legislative change came with the passage of H.R. 1, dubbed the 'Big Beautiful Bill,' on July 4, 2025. The Congressional Budget Office (CBO) projects that this law will reduce SNAP participation by an average of 2.4 million people per month between 2025 and 2034. Early implementation data aligns with this forecast, showing accelerated declines in enrollment.
The CBO analysis identifies specific groups hit hardest: about 800,000 adults under age 64 without dependent children are expected to lose benefits, along with roughly 300,000 adults living with children age 14 or older. An additional 1 million people who previously qualified for waivers from time limits on benefits will be removed. Restrictions under Section 10108 of the bill target eligibility for asylees, refugees, and victims of human trafficking, affecting approximately 90,000 people per month.
Under H.R. 1, states now shoulder greater financial responsibility for SNAP administration. This shift coincides with the uneven application of 'junk food waivers' inspired by the Make America Healthy Again (MAHA) initiative across the country. Error rates in the program now trigger financial penalties for states, pressuring them to invest in staffing, technology, and oversight—upgrades that many state budgets cannot easily accommodate.
Experts expressed concern that these pressures could lead states to shrink caseloads rather than expand access to meet demand. This would transform SNAP from a guaranteed benefit for eligible individuals into a more constrained system, according to the FRAC report. The changes echo historical precedents, such as policies in the early 1980s under the Reagan administration, when tightened eligibility and added barriers during a time of rising unemployment and poverty led to increased food insecurity.
Clinicians, mayors, and advocates at the time documented severe outcomes, including families skipping meals, developmental harm in children, and deteriorating health among older adults. The FRAC authors draw a direct parallel, warning that history is likely to repeat itself amid persistent economic pressures like inflation and ongoing global conflicts.
These SNAP restrictions are part of a broader push affecting other nutrition programs. President Trump's fiscal year 2027 budget request proposes deep cuts to the Special Supplemental Nutrition Program for Women, Infants, and Children (WIC), which provides health and food support to low-income families. Georgia Machell, president and CEO of the National WIC Association, criticized the proposal in an emailed statement.
'We are stunned to see another attempt by the Trump administration to cut access to healthy foods through WIC,' Machell said. She noted that the budget revives a previous proposal to slash WIC's fruit and vegetable benefits by nearly two-thirds. Additionally, the funding may fall short of covering rising food costs driven by tariffs, inflation, and the ongoing war in Iran.
Machell continued: 'It will be important for Congress to continue to monitor food price projections as a final FY27 funding level for WIC is determined.' She added a note of cautious optimism: 'We are grateful that Congress rejected these proposed cuts in the FY 2026 funding agreement, continuing its 30-year bipartisan history of fully funding WIC. We look forward to working with Congress again to ensure no benefit cuts, full funding for all eligible families seeking WIC services, and permanent access to flexible WIC services.'
The one positive element in the budget, per Machell, is a recommended $500 million boost to WIC's contingency fund, which would help the USDA respond to emergencies like government shutdowns. However, advocates worry that without congressional intervention, these cuts could exacerbate food insecurity for millions more families.
As these policies take effect, the implications extend beyond immediate hunger risks. Food insecurity has been linked to long-term health issues, reduced educational outcomes for children, and increased strain on community resources. With economic recovery uneven and global uncertainties persisting, the FRAC report calls for a reversal of these barriers to restore SNAP as a reliable safety net.
Looking ahead, congressional debates over the fiscal year 2027 budget will be crucial. Bipartisan support has historically protected programs like WIC, but the current political landscape, marked by partisan divides, could determine whether these trends continue. For now, families across the country—from urban centers to rural areas—are feeling the pinch of a system designed, according to critics, to limit rather than expand aid.