This is an edition of The Atlantic Daily, a newsletter that guides you through the biggest stories of the day, helps you discover new ideas, and recommends the best in culture. Sign up for it here.
Back in April, Brooke Rollins, the agriculture secretary, wrote an op-ed celebrating the Trump administration’s efforts to get Americans off food stamps. Officially known as SNAP, the program has shed an estimated 6 million participants since Donald Trump’s return to office—a shift that Rollins argued could help break a “vicious cycle” of government dependence.
The idea that too many people have come to rely on federal handouts has long been a line of attack against SNAP. Per the Department of Agriculture’s preliminary data from April, about 37 million low- and no-income people in the United States are on food stamps. That’s roughly one in 10 Americans, down from one in eight last year. The reduction is in line with the administration’s broader approach to social welfare. Last year’s One Big Beautiful Bill Act, which Trump has touted as one of his signature policy achievements, slashed funding to Medicaid and the Children’s Health Insurance Program. And its cuts to SNAP—tightening eligibility requirements and limiting the amount of aid that recipients might be able to collect in the future—were the largest in the program’s history.
Food stamps will lose $186 billion in federal funding through 2034, according to the Congressional Budget Office’s estimates. But what Rollins has framed as a way to curtail waste, fraud, and abuse is already having far-reaching impacts on the Americans who rely on the program. Last week, the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, a left-leaning think tank, suggested that “it’s very likely that the number of children receiving SNAP has dropped by more than 1.5 million since July 2025,” when the OBBBA became law. Inflation has been rising quickly this year, in part because of the Iran war, and the assault on food stamps is now compounding an ongoing affordability crisis. If states can’t meet the federal government’s new requirements for SNAP, they may have to take on a collective $9 billion in food-stamp costs themselves—forcing local legislators to make hard choices about which kinds of social-welfare programs, and which kinds of people, should receive aid.
This past winter, when the White House decided to briefly stop funding SNAP during the government shutdown, Trump said that the program’s enrollment number was “many times what it should be.” It’s true that food-stamp enrollment—which tends to rise during moments of economic crisis and contract in moments of recovery—spiked substantially during the coronavirus pandemic as Congress temporarily increased benefit amounts, and enrollment still hasn’t reverted to its pre-2020 level. But stricter work requirements (homeless people and veterans are no longer exempt, for example) and reductions in federal funding have helped drive down SNAP enrollment at a vertiginous moment. Most people, whether on food stamps or not, are cutting back on groceries. And no other institution “is going to swoop in and provide these financial resources” to families struggling to buy groceries, Lauren Bauer, a fellow in economic studies at the Brookings Institution, told me.
In Arizona, the number of people with access to SNAP benefits has almost halved in less than a year—the biggest drop in any state. A recent New York Times report explains that the OBBBA’s cuts and updated rules have created “bureaucratic chaos” in the state, which has been exacerbated by a labyrinthian paperwork process and antiquated tech infrastructure. The fact that Arizona laid off a third of its caseworkers after losing a federal grant has also made it harder to verify who is and isn’t eligible for aid—and monthly visits to food banks have outpaced SNAP enrollment in the state for the first time, according to the Times.
States have historically managed SNAP payments on their own; the federal government supplies the money for benefits and for some of the administrative costs. Critics of this arrangement have noted that the post-COVID swell in enrollments has coincided with an uptick in improper payments, most of which have historically been overpayments. In 2019, 7.4 percent of the payments SNAP doled out were made in error, according to the USDA; last year, the national error rate was 10.6 percent. The OBBBA puts states in a tough spot. When it went into effect, it gave most states until the end of September 2026 to get their error rates below 6 percent—a little more than a year. If they fail to do so, they will begin sharing the cost of food-stamp benefits with the White House in 2027 (Alaska and other states with higher error rates will have longer deadlines).
The consequences will affect red and blue states alike, unlike some other Trump-backed economic initiatives. According to data released by the USDA last month, 41 states had error rates above the threshold in the 2025 fiscal year, and many are now scrambling to get those numbers down. California could end up paying roughly $1.9 billion if legislators don’t find a way to reduce the state’s rate by almost half, and Florida may need to pay $900 million, according to one estimate. Taking on those costs would require states to radically reshape their budgets, raise taxes, or find some other way to pay for SNAP—otherwise, their constituents may hold them accountable when the food-stamp payments stop coming. Officials in Alabama and Arizona have already considered ending the program, and, in an anonymous survey, four states identified “withdrawing and/or pausing from SNAP” as a potential risk.
If states are able to lower their error rates, SNAP could be transformed for the better. But if they fail to do so by the fast-approaching deadline, it’s hard to see who wins: not food-stamp recipients, not the states that will have their budgets upended, and not the administration, which has been trying to convince Americans ahead of the midterms that it’s responding to their affordability concerns. Rollins has described SNAP as a “broken program,” but these changes aren’t guaranteed to restore trust in the system. Instead, the push to repair SNAP could end up breaking it even more.
Related:
Here are four new stories from The Atlantic:
Today’s News
- President Trump threatened to temporarily withdraw Todd Blanche’s nomination for attorney general until Republican Senators John Cornyn and Thom Tillis, who are holdouts, leave office in January.
- Iran and the United States continued exchanging missile strikes today; drone strikes targeted Egypt for the first time.
- FIFA proposed spinning off the commercial rights of its major tournaments into a private company and then selling a 20 percent stake of it to investors. UEFA member nations argued that the plan would give private investors too much influence over soccer and threatened to boycott all FIFA competitions if the $20 billion deal goes through.
Dispatches
Explore all of our newsletters here.
Evening Read
The Cities That Said Yes to Drugs
By Michael Powell
Late last year, I walked roughly a mile from downtown Seattle to the working-class neighborhood of Little Saigon and came upon a montage of human despair. An open-air drug market stretched along the intersection of 12th and Jackson: about 250 people, many smoking fentanyl or bent over in the thrall of the drug, tilting as if mid-fall. Three women lay passed out on the sidewalk, their chests slowly rising and falling, while fellow addicts stepped over them and dealers made sales. Young boys, schoolbags on their backs, stood on a far corner and watched …
Seattle, like a striking number of other liberal American cities, has embraced a radical form of “harm reduction,” which is more a philosophy about treating addiction than a scientific approach to it.
Read the full article.
More From The Atlantic
Culture Break
Read. Animal narrators in fiction have a long history, but they seem to be enjoying a contemporary moment. Rachel Vorona Cote explores Paul Yoon’s Etna and the instructive journey of a very good boy.
Watch (or skip). Despite seeming like a fresh start, the newest Spider-Man movie (out now in theaters) is trapped in the Marvel vortex, David Sims writes.
Play our daily crossword.
Rafaela Jinich contributed to this newsletter.
When you buy a book using a link in this newsletter, we receive a commission. Thank you for supporting The Atlantic.
