SNAP Cuts and America’s Health: Can We Improve Nutrition While Making Food Harder to Afford?

The United States is trying to address a serious public health problem: diet-related disease. Obesity, type 2 diabetes, cardiovascular disease, and hypertension affect millions of Americans, while poor nutrition and food insecurity can make healthy living more difficult.

At the same time, the federal government has enacted substantial changes to the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, better known as SNAP. The program helps eligible low-income households buy groceries, making it one of the country’s largest tools for reducing hunger.

These two developments raise an important question: Can the country improve Americans’ diets while reducing assistance that helps millions of households afford food?

The answer depends partly on how the changes are implemented, what alternatives are available to affected families, and what happens to food security and health over time. But the tension deserves serious examination.

SNAP served an average of 42.1 million people per month during federal fiscal year 2025. By June 2026, approximately 36.4 million people were participating.

That is a decline of about 5.2 million participants since the law commonly known as H.R. 1 was enacted in July 2025. The Center on Budget and Policy Priorities reported in October 2026 that participation had fallen to its lowest level since August 2009.

Children have also been affected. Based on data from states where child participation figures were available, the Center estimated that approximately 2 million fewer children nationwide were receiving SNAP than at the time the law was enacted. That national child figure is an estimate, not a complete count from every state.

These figures are significant, but they require careful interpretation. A decline in enrollment does not, by itself, tell us precisely how many people have become ineligible, how many no longer need assistance, or how many eligible people have lost benefits because of new requirements or administrative barriers.

The available analysis suggests that changes to the program are contributing to the decline. The full effects will become clearer as additional state data and evaluations become available.

The central concern is straightforward: fewer people receiving food assistance does not necessarily mean fewer people experiencing food insecurity.

The 2025 law made several changes to SNAP that affect eligibility, benefits, and the way the program is funded.

Expanded work requirements: The law expanded the group of adults subject to SNAP work requirements and narrowed some exemptions. People who do not meet applicable work requirements or qualify for an exemption can lose benefits. Requirements can be particularly difficult for people facing unstable employment, caregiving responsibilities, health limitations, or administrative obstacles.

Changes to benefit calculations: The law changed elements of how benefits are calculated and limited future increases in the maximum benefit. It also changed certain deductions used to determine household benefits.

Higher costs for states: Beginning in federal fiscal year 2027, the federal share of states’ SNAP administrative costs falls from 50% to 25%. Beginning in fiscal year 2028, states with sufficiently high payment error rates must also pay part of the cost of SNAP benefits.

Payment error rates measure inaccuracies in benefit determinations and payments. They are not a direct measure of fraud. Errors can include both overpayments and underpayments.

The new financial responsibilities could put pressure on state budgets. States may respond in different ways, including changing administrative practices, reducing costs, or reconsidering their participation. The eventual effects will depend on state decisions and how the provisions are implemented.

Nutrition education funding: Federal funding for SNAP-Ed, the program that supported nutrition education and related community initiatives for SNAP participants, was eliminated under the law. SNAP-Ed supported activities such as food preparation education, cooking skills, and other efforts to help people make healthier food choices.

These changes matter because access to food depends on more than whether a household technically qualifies for assistance. Benefit amounts, paperwork, administrative capacity, and the availability of affordable groceries all affect what families can actually put on the table.

Food insecurity means that a household has limited or uncertain access to enough food for an active, healthy life. It can involve reducing portions, skipping meals, buying less food than needed, or worrying about how to afford the next grocery shop.

It is not simply a question of hunger. It can influence the quality of a person's diet, the stability of daily routines, and the ability to manage existing health conditions.

Research has associated food insecurity with a range of adverse health outcomes, including type 2 diabetes, hypertension, cardiovascular disease, and poorer mental health. Several pathways may help explain these relationships.

When money runs short, households may prioritize the cheapest calories, choose foods that keep longer, or rely on less expensive options that are convenient but not always nutritionally ideal. Families may also face difficult choices between groceries and other necessities such as rent, utilities, transportation, and medication.

For people with diabetes or other chronic conditions, an unpredictable food supply can make consistent meal planning more difficult. For children, inadequate or unstable access to nutritious food can affect growth, learning, and general well-being.

These associations do not mean that every person experiencing food insecurity will develop a chronic disease. Nor do they prove that every reduction in SNAP participation will cause a specific health outcome. But they provide a strong reason to monitor food security and health as the program changes.

SNAP can help households purchase food and reduce the pressure to go without groceries. Research has found that food assistance can reduce food insecurity, although the size of the effect varies by the measure and population studied.

That makes access to assistance relevant to public health, not just household finances.

Another part of the debate concerns ultra-processed foods, which have become a focus of public health discussions.

Ultra-processed foods are a broad category. Many products contain combinations of ingredients and industrial formulations that differ substantially from minimally processed foods. Some are high in added sugar, sodium, or saturated fat and low in fiber. The category also includes products with different nutritional profiles, so the label alone does not tell the whole story.

A major 2024 umbrella review in The BMJ, which examined evidence from millions of participants across multiple studies, found associations between higher ultra-processed food consumption and several adverse health outcomes. The review reported evidence linking higher intake with cardiovascular disease-related mortality and type 2 diabetes, among other outcomes.

However, much of the underlying research was observational. Observational studies can identify important patterns, but they cannot always establish that ultra-processed foods themselves caused an outcome. Researchers also differ in how they define and measure these foods.

For households with limited food budgets, price, convenience, shelf life, transportation, cooking facilities, and time can all influence what is purchased. A nutritious diet is easier to achieve when healthier foods are affordable and accessible.

That is where food assistance and nutrition policy intersect. Encouraging healthier choices is one objective. Ensuring that households have enough money to buy food is another. Effective public health policy needs to consider both.

There is a separate debate over whether SNAP should cover certain products, such as soda and candy.

Supporters of restrictions argue that taxpayer-funded nutrition assistance should encourage healthier purchases and should not subsidize products with little nutritional value. Critics raise concerns about stigma, personal choice, administrative complexity, and whether narrow restrictions meaningfully improve the overall diet.

Evidence from newly implemented state restrictions is beginning to emerge. Early research has reported reductions in purchases of restricted sugary beverages in some settings. That is relevant evidence, but a reduction in purchases is not the same as proof of improved long-term health. Consumers may substitute other products, and the effects on total diet, health outcomes, and household behavior require further study.

There is also a practical distinction between changing what people can buy with SNAP and reducing the number of people who can access benefits at all.

If the policy goal is healthier eating, restrictions or incentives should be evaluated on whether they improve overall nutrition and health—not simply whether they make the program harder to use. Affordable produce, practical nutrition education, and access to healthy foods may also be important parts of the solution.

No single policy should be assumed to solve the entire problem. The evidence should determine which approaches work, for whom, and at what cost.

The administration's Make America Healthy Again agenda emphasizes better nutrition and reducing chronic disease. Federal health officials have also announced initiatives intended to improve the nutritional quality of school meals and encourage healthier food.

Against that backdrop, the reduction in SNAP participation raises a legitimate policy question: how do cuts to food assistance fit with the stated goal of improving Americans’ diets?

In a September 2026 C-SPAN discussion about school nutrition, HHS Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. was asked whether he was concerned that SNAP cuts would leave children and families with less access to food. He responded: “I don’t think it’s going to have that much effect.”

The consequences should be assessed using evidence rather than assumptions. The sharp decline in participation is documented; its precise causes and the long-term health effects are still being evaluated.

A useful assessment would track food insecurity, household food spending, child nutrition, benefit access, and health outcomes. It should also examine whether families who leave SNAP are better able to support themselves or are struggling to obtain enough food.

The broader question is not whether government should promote healthier diets. There is a substantial public health rationale for doing so. The question is whether the policies used to pursue that goal also preserve realistic access to sufficient, nutritious food.

SNAP changes may also have consequences beyond food purchases.

The Congressional Budget Office estimated that the 2025 law’s SNAP provisions would reduce projected federal deficits by approximately $187 billion over the 2025–2034 period, relative to its earlier baseline. That is a budget estimate, not a direct measurement of the law’s eventual effects on hunger or health.

Researchers have also examined the wider costs associated with food insecurity, including healthcare and educational consequences. Food insecurity and chronic disease can overlap, and households that struggle to afford food may also face barriers to managing existing medical conditions.

SNAP participation has been associated in research with lower healthcare spending compared with similar nonparticipants, though such comparisons cannot establish that participation alone caused the difference. Household circumstances and other factors can influence both program participation and healthcare use.

The program also interacts with other supports. SNAP participation can help eligible children qualify for, or access more easily, certain nutrition programs. Changes in SNAP enrollment may therefore have consequences beyond the immediate benefit.

None of this proves that every dollar cut from SNAP will produce a particular amount of additional healthcare spending. It does mean that judging the policy solely by its federal budget savings would leave important questions unanswered.

A fuller assessment would compare public spending with changes in food insecurity, health, administrative costs, and the financial pressure placed on states and households.

Rather than relying on political claims from either side, several indicators can help establish what the changes are doing.

• Food insecurity: Are more households reporting that they cannot afford enough food?
• Children’s well-being: Are child participation, nutrition, and access to related food programs changing?
• Benefit access: How many eligible households are losing assistance because of eligibility rules, work requirements, paperwork, or administrative problems?
• Diet quality: Are households consuming more nutritious foods, fewer sugary beverages, or simply less food overall?
• Health outcomes: Are there measurable changes in chronic disease management, nutrition-related health indicators, or healthcare use?
• State finances: How are the new cost-sharing requirements affecting state budgets and program administration?

These measures would help distinguish policies that improve nutrition from policies that primarily reduce participation or spending.

The results should be examined over time and across different groups. A policy may have different effects on working families, older adults, people with disabilities, and households with children.

A healthier America needs more than advice about what to eat. People also need a realistic way to afford food.

The latest figures show that SNAP participation has fallen by more than five million people since H.R. 1 was enacted, including an estimated two million fewer children receiving assistance. The causes and long-term consequences are not yet fully established, but the scale of the decline warrants close attention.

There is a legitimate debate about how SNAP should encourage healthier food choices and how its costs should be shared. That debate should not confuse two different outcomes: improving the nutritional quality of food people buy and making it harder for people to obtain food in the first place.

The test of public health policy is not just whether it reduces spending or changes purchasing behavior. It is whether it improves people’s lives in measurable ways.

The question worth watching is simple: Can America make healthy food more accessible while ensuring that families still have enough to eat?