The Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program has long been a crucial lifeline for millions of Americans facing food insecurity. Each year, approximately 42 million people rely on SNAP to meet their food needs. However, recent proposals from the Trump administration and Congressional leaders to roll back SNAP benefits nationwide are raising alarms, with many wondering how these cuts would impact their local communities. New data from the Urban Institute sheds light on just how significant the gap between SNAP benefits and local food costs could become if these cuts move forward.
A proposed rollback of the 2021 update to the Thrifty Food Plan — which determines the amount of SNAP benefits — would leave recipients with insufficient support to meet even the most basic meal costs in any U.S. county. According to the Urban Institute, the average meal cost would surpass the maximum SNAP benefit by 51%, leaving recipients on average $105 short per month.
Some regions, especially those with high food costs, may face even steeper challenges.
In response, The Food Research & Action Center (FRAC) and over 1,600 national, state, and local organizations from every state have urged Congress to reject any cuts to SNAP. In a March 6 letter, these groups emphasized the crucial role SNAP plays not only in alleviating hunger but also in improving health outcomes and boosting local economies.
“Cuts to SNAP would not only increase food insecurity but also shift the burden of food assistance to local governments and charities, which cannot fully meet the need,” the letter read, in part. “For example, while emergency food programs help, they only provide one meal for every nine meals that SNAP supplies. The proposed cuts would further strain food banks, food retailers, and those serving vulnerable populations.”
It continued: “Additionally, reduced SNAP benefits would hurt the broader economy. Food retailers, including grocery stores and farmers' markets, depend on SNAP dollars to stay afloat. In areas where food retailers are already struggling, any reduction in SNAP benefits would have a catastrophic impact on businesses and the local economy.”
We need your help to stay independent
The Thrifty Food Plan, or TFP, which serves as the foundation for determining SNAP benefit levels, had remained unchanged since 2006. As Salon reported last year (following then-House Agriculture Committee Chairman Glenn “GT” Thompson’s proposal to cut SNAP’s budget by $30 billion) it wasn’t until 2018 that Congress passed a bipartisan provision to re-evaluate the plan every five years, with the 2021 update reflecting current dietary guidelines, the rising cost of food, and evolving household consumption patterns.
As the Urban Institute’s Poonam Gupta and Elaine Waxman wrote in a report at the time, before the 2021 TFP update, the old TFP assumed an average family “consisting of a man, woman, and two children predominantly purchased milk, potatoes, fruits and rice, and spent roughly two hours a day preparing food from scratch, including tasks like hand-soaking dried beans.”
“All of these assumptions were proven to be grossly out of step with actual food preparation and consumption behaviors and are not grounded in the reality of everyday life,” they continued. “The reality is, our interactions with our food environment are constantly evolving as people and food systems grow and adapt to climate change and other external factors. In response, dietary guidelines, consumption patterns, and preparation times will continue to shift.”
The 2021 update was significant, increasing the average SNAP benefit per meal by approximately 21%. However, proposed policy changes would reverse this progress, reducing the per meal benefit from $2.84 to $2.25.
"The reality is, our interactions with our food environment are constantly evolving as people and food systems grow and adapt to climate change and other external factors. In response, dietary guidelines, consumption patterns, and preparation times will continue to shift."
At this reduced level, SNAP benefits would not cover the average cost of a modestly priced meal in any county across the U.S. Nationally, the average meal cost in 2023 is $3.37, leaving a stark gap between what SNAP provides and what families must pay to feed themselves. In total, families would fall short by $105 each month.
This shortfall would hit hardest for the nearly 40% of SNAP recipients who rely on the maximum benefit, which is often the only way they can afford to eat. Households that already struggle to make ends meet would face an even steeper financial burden, forcing them to choose between purchasing fewer, lower-quality food items or diverting funds from other essential needs.
As established by the Urban Institute, the impact of these proposed cuts will not be uniform. While SNAP benefits are based on a nationwide formula, food prices vary widely across the U.S. In high-cost urban areas like New York County or rural regions like Custer County, Idaho, meal costs are far higher than the average. In some counties, food prices are twice as high as the current SNAP benefit, creating an even greater discrepancy between available benefits and actual food costs.
Without adjustments for regional cost variations, SNAP recipients in high-cost areas will experience more severe challenges in feeding themselves and their families. The reduction in benefits could force households to cut back drastically on the quality and quantity of food they purchase, further exacerbating food insecurity, which is already a significant problem in many regions.
The economic repercussions of reduced SNAP benefits extend beyond individual families. Studies show that for every dollar spent on SNAP, up to $1.80 is generated in economic activity, particularly during economic downturns. Cutting these benefits would not only hurt families but also harm local economies. The reductions would ripple through food supply chains, impacting farmers, grocery stores, and food retailers. Jobs would be lost, and local businesses would see decreased revenue, especially in rural and southern areas where food insecurity rates tend to be higher than the national average.
"Any cut to benefits or reduced access to participation will have serious consequences for children, older adults, people with disabilities, and those living in rural areas who rely on this support to put food on the table."
Beyond the immediate financial strain, cuts to SNAP would also have long-term consequences for public health. Access to sufficient nutrition is directly linked to better health outcomes, including improved birth outcomes, better academic performance, and lower healthcare costs. According to a report by the Food Research & Action Center, SNAP has been shown to improve children’s test scores, reduce the incidence of chronic diseases, and lower rates of maternal and infant mortality.
For children in particular, the consequences of food insecurity are devastating. Reduced access to healthy meals and school nutrition programs would hinder children’s development, both physically and academically. School meal programs, which are often closely linked with SNAP, ensure that children receive at least one nutritious meal each day. Without this support, food insecurity would likely increase, affecting students’ ability to focus, learn and thrive in school. FRAC warns that the proposed cuts to school meals, in tandem with reductions to SNAP, would increase the number of children who experience food insecurity, thus perpetuating a cycle of poor health and educational outcomes.
As these legislative battles unfold, advocates are speaking out in large numbers. The letter from FRAC and over 1,600 organizations emphasizes the importance of SNAP not just for fighting hunger but for its broader impact on health and the economy.
“SNAP is one of the most effective programs we have to combat poverty-related hunger, improve health outcomes, and boost local economies,” said Crystal FitzSimons, interim president of FRAC. “Any cut to benefits or reduced access to participation will have serious consequences for children, older adults, people with disabilities, and those living in rural areas who rely on this support to put food on the table.”
Shares