In the first year after the 2025 One Big Beautiful Bill Act (OBBBA) became law, 5.5 million people—including an estimated 2 million children—left SNAP, bringing participation to its lowest level in 17 years, according to the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities.

The law cut nearly $187 billion from SNAP over a decade while providing about $1 trillion in tax benefits that the author says disproportionately favor wealthy Americans; meanwhile, higher grocery prices since July 2025 added an estimated $17.2 billion in costs as $5.1 billion was removed from SNAP benefits.

The author argues that reduced benefits and stricter eligibility rules—not widespread prosperity—are driving people off assistance as food prices rise, with children carrying much of the harm.

The rules extend work requirements to older adults and parents of teenagers, remove protections for veterans and homeless people, and exclude some lawfully present immigrants; research cited in the article suggests such requirements tend to reduce program participation rather than unemployment.

SNAP’s average monthly benefits were modest in May 2025—$218.44 per person in New York and $158.45 in Minnesota—and many recipients work but still earn too little to afford food.

When families have to spend more on groceries, they have less for rent, utilities, medicine and transportation, while inadequate nutrition can undermine children’s development and education; SNAP losses can also reduce school districts’ eligibility for free-lunch programs and put added pressure on food banks.

Starting in October 2027, states will have to cover 75% of SNAP administrative costs, up from 50%, a shift that could raise state expenses, create more administrative barriers or lead to reduced assistance.

Brookings researchers warn that OBBBA’s structural changes could make SNAP less able to expand during economic downturns, weakening its role as an automatic stabilizer for families and the broader economy.

The author places today’s cuts in a longer history of political opposition, including strong Republican resistance to the Food Stamp Program’s passage in 1964, and rejects the idea that recipients are freeloaders, pointing instead to low wages, illness, housing costs and other hardships.

The author argues that food banks and charities cannot replace a national nutrition program and condemns Republican lawmakers for portraying millions losing food assistance as a success while families and local services bear the consequences.