Across the United States, a wave of anxiety is sweeping through food banks, state governments, and low-income households as sweeping changes to the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) loom on the horizon. The "One Big Beautiful Bill," recently passed by Congress, promises to reshape the landscape of food assistance, slashing $186 billion from national programs over the next decade and shifting more responsibility onto states already struggling with tight budgets and growing need.
In Nevada, the impact is immediate and deeply personal. Senator Catherine Cortez Masto did not mince words at a recent public event, calling the proposed cuts "unfair and cruel." She argued, "At a time when food insecurity in our state is on the rise, groceries are increasingly unaffordable, and it's harder and harder to make ends meet, these cuts will devastate Nevada families." According to the senator, Nevada alone is set to lose an estimated $170 million in SNAP funding—a blow that will reverberate through households and community organizations alike.
Nicole Lamboley, CEO of the Food Bank of Northern Nevada, underscored the vital role SNAP plays in addressing hunger. "SNAP is the best program that helps address hunger. It is the first line of defense in our country," she said. Lamboley explained the dramatic difference in impact: "For every meal that the food bank is able to provide, $1 equals three meals, SNAP provides nine meals." The numbers, she suggested, speak for themselves—and the consequences of the cuts will be felt not just by families, but by the food banks already stretched thin. "We are already overburdened. So how will we support this increased need? We will be able to provide food, but not at the level that SNAP currently provides," she added.
While Nevada braces for the fallout, the story is much the same in Kansas. On a warm July morning at the Harvesters food bank distribution center in Lawrence, volunteers like Steve Vossler packed corn and cucumbers for local pantries. Vossler, a regular at Harvesters, is keenly aware of the changes underway. "I don't like it and I'm sure there will be some changes," he said. "But who knows what they’ll be."
The uncertainty is rooted in the bill's historic overhaul of SNAP. For the first time, states will be required to shoulder a greater share of administrative costs—jumping from 50% to 75%—and will be penalized if they fail to run the program with a high degree of precision. In Kansas, this means an extra $15 million in administrative expenses and, potentially, $41 million in annual penalties if the state’s payment error rate remains above 6% when the new rules take effect in 2028. Governor Laura Kelly has warned that the total increased cost could top $56 million, a daunting figure given Kansas’s projected $731 million budget shortfall by 2029.
The changes go beyond dollars and cents. The bill expands work requirements, mandating that able-bodied adults aged 55 to 64, parents with children aged 14 or older, veterans, former foster children, and those experiencing homelessness must prove they are working or participating in job training for at least 80 hours a month to keep their benefits. Previously, many in these categories were exempt. According to the U.S. Department of Agriculture, more than two-thirds of SNAP recipients are children, elderly, or disabled—groups not directly affected by work requirements, but who may feel the ripple effects if household benefits are lost.
The rationale for these reforms, according to supporters such as Kansas Senate President Ty Masterson, is to ensure states have "skin in the game" and to curb what Republicans describe as program abuse. Citing an 11 percent improper payment rate last year, they argue that stricter oversight and shared financial responsibility will lead to a more efficient and accountable system. "The panic over added SNAP costs for states is overwrought, and the Kansas Legislature can easily account for added costs—so long as the state gets its payment error rate down," Masterson said.
Critics, however, see the changes as a direct threat to food security for millions. The Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, a progressive think tank, warns that the new requirements could cause millions of low-income people to lose some or all of their food assistance. The Brookings Institute, a center-left policy group, notes that stricter work requirements often do not lead to increased employment or earnings, but instead make it harder for eligible individuals to access or keep benefits.
For food banks, the prospect of filling the gap left by SNAP cuts is daunting. Stephen Davis, CEO of Harvesters in Kansas, knows the stakes firsthand. "We struggled the way that many other families struggle on a daily basis," Davis said, recalling his own childhood experience with food insecurity. He explained that in the 17 counties served by Harvesters, 375,000 people—about one in seven—are food insecure. "For every meal Harvesters provides, SNAP provides nine," Davis emphasized. Yet, with federal assistance for food banks also being scaled back, including the cancellation of dozens of truckloads of food shipments, the system is stretched to its limits. "Those families that lose their SNAP benefits ... will likely try to turn to the charitable food system. And we already don't have the capacity to meet the current need," he warned.
The administrative burden is also climbing. Kansas must hire and train about 40 new employees to handle the increased paperwork and compliance demands. Carla Whiteside-Hicks, director of economic and employment services at the Kansas Department for Children and Families, testified before state lawmakers about the challenge of keeping payment error rates low. During the COVID-19 pandemic, error rates surged nationwide, but Kansas has since reduced its rate below 10%. Still, the looming 6% threshold for penalties keeps state officials on edge. "We are all hands on deck out there right now," said Governor Kelly. "Hiring, training our folks, working on our technology systems, our computer systems, programming, to bring that down. Because if we don't, it'll just cost us so much more."
Meanwhile, confusion is spreading among SNAP recipients. In Nevada, Nicole Lamboley noted that some people mistakenly believe they no longer qualify for assistance, even though many of the changes have yet to take effect. She urged those in need not to give up: "People should continue reaching out to see if they can still receive food assistance."
As the nation moves closer to implementing the "One Big Beautiful Bill," the consequences for families, food banks, and state budgets are coming into sharper focus. For now, the question on everyone’s mind is whether the patchwork of state and charitable support can possibly fill the void left by a shrinking federal safety net. The answer, it seems, is still very much up in the air.