SNAP Cuts Had Nothing to Do With Fraud, Waste, or Abuse

President Trump signed the One Big Beautiful Bill Act (OBBBA) into law on the fourth of July, setting in motion $290 billion in cuts to food assistance to low-income Americans. One of the Republican talking points in defense of the cuts to the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) is that they are cutting waste, fraud, and abuse so that SNAP is preserved for those who “deserve it.” This is a premise with two critical flaws: 1) SNAP is an entitlement, so cutting one person’s SNAP doesn’t mean another person gets more SNAP. 2) Everyone deserves food.

This law’s draconian cuts to the social safety net are horrifying on many levels. For a thorough and clear-eyed accounting of the SNAP cuts, read Bruce Lesley’s take. But let’s make one thing clear: these cuts have nothing to do with waste, fraud, or abuse, and everything to do with taking from the poor to give to the rich. Consider each of the SNAP cuts in OBBBA:

Expanded Work Requirements

OBBBA expands SNAP work requirements to apply to 55 to 64 year olds, and removes the exemptions for people who are homeless, veterans, or aging out of foster care. People in all of these groups now must work 80 hours per month in order to receive food assistance through SNAP. How is making veterans find a job before giving them food assistance cutting down on waste, fraud, or abuse? They didn’t have to meet a work requirement before, and now they do. Participating in SNAP without working 80 hours a month wasn’t fraudulent or abusive, because work wasn’t required. It wasn’t wasteful, because they needed food, as do all humans. The research shows that SNAP work requirements do not promote work or improve outcomes for SNAP participants; they just make it harder for people to feed themselves and their families.

Eliminated Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program Education (SNAP-Ed)

SNAP-Ed is a federally funded grant program that teaches SNAP participants about nutrition and meal budgeting. According to USDA, “SNAP-Ed is evidence-based and helps people make their SNAP dollars stretch, teaches them how to cook healthy meals, and helps them lead physically active lifestyles.” When I talk to skeptics about SNAP, the number one recommendation they make is that there should be nutrition education. Apparently they don’t realize that there already is such a program. Research examining the 30-year history of SNAP-Ed found ample evidence of its effectiveness, leading to recommendations to expanding the program. “The expansion of SNAP-Ed would enable the program to reach more Americans so that our nation can end hunger and reduce diet-related health disparities.” The Make America Healthy Again movement, led by US Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) Secretary Robert F. Kennedy, Jr., argues for more nutrition education to fight diet-related chronic disease. Yet, President Trump just signed a law that will completely eliminate the nutrition education component of SNAP.

Reversed Thrifty Food Plan (TFP) Revision

The TFP is the basis for calculating SNAP benefit levels. The bipartisan 2018 Farm Bill passed by Congress instructed USDA to carry out a scientific review of, and update to, the TFP, which USDA did. From the USDA web page describing the Thrifty Food Plan reevaluation process (accessed on the USDA website July 15, 2025):

“As directed by Congress in the Agriculture Improvement Act of 2018 (PL 115–334, the 2018 Farm Bill), and for the first time since 2006, USDA reevaluated the Thrifty Food Plan to reflect updated data on food prices, food composition, and consumption patterns, and current dietary guidance in the Dietary Guidelines for Americans, 2020-2025. USDA took a careful and considered approach, using the same underlying mathematical model used in previous reviews and only making changes if there was clear and convincing evidence to do so. The methods used to reevaluate the Thrifty Food Plan were peer reviewed by subject matter experts from other USDA agencies.”

The result was a 21% increase in the average SNAP benefit. Republicans in Congress–many of whom voted in favor of the 2018 Farm Bill–howled that USDA was exceeding its authority and violating the intent of Congress, but the department was simply following the law that Congress passed. OBBBA reverses that increase, meaning all 42 million SNAP participants will see their SNAP benefits slashed, though it is unclear when or by how much their benefits will be cut. One study estimates that “the average family may lose $146 per month,” a staggering blow for low-income families already struggling to put food on the table.

USDA’s TFP revision was not waste, fraud, or abuse. It was a recommendation that resulted from a scientific study mandated by Congress. Reversing the TFP revision will increase food insecurity for tens of millions of Americans. Even worse, this law prevents USDA from making science-based updates to the TFP in the future. This means that there is no possibility of increasing benefit levels based on the science of nutrition and the math of economics.

Eliminated Internet Cost Deduction

OBBBA removes SNAP households’ ability to factor in the cost of Internet service when determining household need and calculating eligibility and benefits. This will result in lower benefits for many households. It is difficult to see how accounting for the cost of Internet service was wasteful, fraudulent, or abusive.

Excluded Humanitarian Immigrant Groups from SNAP Entirely

The new law bars many immigrants from receiving SNAP benefits, including those who came to the United States legally to escape violence or certain death. Specifically, the law excludes “refugees, people seeking asylum, survivors of domestic violence, and victims of trafficking who haven't become permanent residents.” These are survivors who are fleeing from life-threatening situations. The least we can do is ensure they have access to food as they rebuild their lives. Now they will have no access to food assistance. Waste, fraud, and abuse? Hardly.

SNAP Benefit State Cost Share

Perhaps the most destructive SNAP provision of OBBBA is the new state cost share regime. Beginning (in most states) in FY 2028, states with SNAP payment error rates above 6% will have to pay a percentage of the cost of SNAP benefits. Until now, the federal government has paid 100% of all SNAP benefits. States with error rates between 6% and 8% will have to pay 5% of SNAP benefits. States with rates between 8% and 10% will have to pay 10%, and states with error rates exceeding 10% will have to pay 15%.

At the same time that states take on this substantial new funding obligation, they will also shoulder a larger share of SNAP administrative costs–75% instead of 50%. (This applies to all states, regardless of error rates.) While states grapple with less federal funding for SNAP administration, they will also have to apply work requirements to new categories of people. Doing more with less is never a formula for increased accuracy and efficiency.

The state cost share may lead some states to opt out of SNAP entirely, simply because they will be unable to fit the state benefit cost share in their budgets without making deep and painful cuts to other programs. This would undermine the program nationally and put tens of millions of Americans at increased risk of food insecurity.

The motivation to cut SNAP was never to reduce waste, fraud, and abuse. It was always to reduce federal spending on low-income people and redirect those dollars to billionaires in the form of new or expanded tax cuts. Now that is some real waste, fraud, and abuse.