On November 1, 2025, a seismic shift in America’s social safety net will take effect as sweeping changes to the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP)—the nation’s largest food aid program—begin to ripple across the country. The overhaul, driven by the One Big Beautiful Bill Act signed by President Donald Trump in July, is set to cut $187 billion from SNAP funding over the next decade, according to the Congressional Budget Office (CBO). That’s nearly a 20% reduction, and the consequences are already being felt from food pantries in Missouri to refugee communities in Georgia.
For millions of Americans, SNAP has been a lifeline, helping them put food on the table during tough times. But under the new law, that lifeline is fraying. The law not only slashes funding but also introduces stricter work requirements, shifts a greater share of program costs to states, and—most controversially—removes eligibility for most refugees, asylum seekers, trafficking and domestic violence victims, and other legal immigrants. The impact is immediate and far-reaching.
Legal challenges have erupted as federal courts in Rhode Island and Massachusetts have ordered the government to release emergency funds to keep SNAP running during the ongoing government shutdown, but the Trump administration has resisted, leading to a climate of fear and uncertainty for those who depend on the program. As reported by KFF Health News, food banks across the country are bracing for a surge in demand. The Gateway Food Pantry in Arnold, Missouri, for example, has already exhausted its yearly food budget due to the spike in need. Executive Director Patrick McKelvey described the situation as dire, noting that the pantry’s latest shipment of groceries might be its last for a while.
Charitable organizations are scrambling to fill the gap. New Disabled South, a Georgia-based nonprofit, offered one-time payments of $100 to $250 to individuals and families expected to lose SNAP benefits in the 14 states it serves. Within 48 hours, the group received more than 16,000 requests totaling $3.6 million—far beyond what it could support. “It’s unreal,” said co-founder Dom Kelly, capturing the desperation felt by thousands of families.
Yet, the changes go even deeper. The new law tightens work requirements for SNAP recipients, extending them to previously exempt groups such as homeless individuals, veterans, and young adults who aged out of foster care. Parents with children 14 or older and adults aged 55 to 64 are now included. Recipients must document at least 80 hours of work, volunteering, or other eligible activities each month or face a strict limit of three months of benefits in a three-year period. “That is draconian,” said Elaine Waxman, a senior fellow at the Urban Institute, highlighting how about one in eight adults have already lost SNAP benefits due to paperwork issues, according to a December Urban Institute survey.
Perhaps the most controversial aspect of the overhaul is the removal of SNAP eligibility for most refugees and certain other lawful immigrants. For people like Antoinette, a 51-year-old refugee who fled war and now works packing boxes in a warehouse, the loss is devastating. “I would not have the means to buy food,” she said through a translator, her voice echoing the fears of thousands. The CBO estimates that about 90,000 refugees and legal immigrants will lose SNAP benefits in an average month due to the new restrictions. For many, the cuts mean skipping meals, buying cheaper and less nutritious food, and worsening chronic health conditions and mental health struggles.
Historically, the U.S. has provided refugees with a path to stability, including access to SNAP and Medicaid. But the One Big Beautiful Bill Act not only slashes food aid but also revokes Medicaid eligibility for refugees starting in October 2026. Financial assistance for refugees entering the U.S. has already been cut from one year to just four months. According to a February 2024 report from the Department of Health and Human Services, federal, state, and local spending on refugees and asylum seekers totaled $457.2 billion from 2005 to 2019, with 21% of this population receiving SNAP benefits compared to 15% of all U.S. residents. Despite the initial investment, refugees contributed $123.8 billion more in taxes than they received in benefits during that period.
Advocacy groups are sounding the alarm about the long-term health consequences of the cuts. According to research cited by KFF Health News, children in households with limited access to food are more likely to develop mental disorders, while working-age adults face higher risks of chronic diseases like diabetes, high blood pressure, and asthma. Low-income adults not on SNAP spend an average of $1,400 more annually on healthcare than those who receive benefits. “It could affect the labor market,” warned Valerie Lacarte, a senior policy analyst at the Migration Policy Institute, noting that hunger and poor nutrition can lower productivity and make it harder for people to find and keep jobs.
The law also shifts a massive burden onto states. Previously, states covered only half of SNAP’s administrative costs and none of the food costs. Now, they must pay 75% of administrative costs and a portion of the food costs—a median increase of more than 200% according to the Georgetown Center on Poverty and Inequality. A KFF Health News analysis projects that a single funding shift could cost states an additional $11 billion. Facing these costs, some states may consider withdrawing from the program entirely, a prospect that has prompted nearly two dozen governors to warn Congress of the dangers. “If states are forced to end their SNAP programs, hunger and poverty will increase, children and adults will get sicker, grocery stores in rural areas will struggle to stay open, people in agriculture and the food industry will lose jobs, and state and local economies will suffer,” the governors wrote in a joint letter.
Meanwhile, the Trump administration’s “Make America Healthy Again” platform is pushing for healthier eating by restricting the purchase of candy and soda with SNAP dollars. So far, 12 states have received approval to implement such bans. Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. has championed these restrictions, but critics argue that they are difficult to enforce, stigmatize recipients, and may drive stores out of the program. The USDA itself has found that SNAP recipients are no more likely to buy sweets or salty snacks than other shoppers, and research suggests that encouraging healthy choices is more effective than regulating purchases.
All these changes are unfolding against a backdrop of rising food prices and a fragile labor market. In 2023, roughly 47 million people lived in households with limited or uncertain access to food. SNAP spending doesn’t just help families—it generates at least $1.50 in economic activity for every dollar spent, supporting grocery stores, suppliers, and farmers. Yet, as Ted Terry, a DeKalb County commissioner, observed, “It’s just the whole ecosystem that has been in place for 40 years completely being disrupted.”
Charity organizations, food banks, and local governments are bracing for what comes next, but as Muzhda Oriakhil of Friends of Refugees put it, “A lot of families, they may starve.” The story of SNAP’s transformation is still unfolding, and its effects—on dinner tables, store shelves, and state budgets—will be felt for years to come.
