SNAP Cuts Set to Endanger Basic Needs and State Higher Education Budgets
This blog is an update to TICAS’ analysis of Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) cuts passed in the One Big Beautiful Bill Act (OBBBA). TICAS’ previous analysis was based on fiscal year (FY) 2024 SNAP error rates and FY24 state higher education budgets. This updated blog includes the most recent data from FY25 for SNAP error rates and state higher education budgets. This blog was originally published on August 7, 2025.
Last Updated: July 7, 2026
On July 4, President Trump signed a policy framework that would cut billions of dollars from critical nutrition programs to offset tax cuts for the wealthy—with devastating implications for individuals with lower incomes and for the higher education system. These cuts will reduce funding for essential support programs and attempt to shift more responsibility to states when many states are already facing budget shortfalls.
As these cuts squeeze state budgets and erode critical support systems, they will also harm access to higher education while demand for workers with more education is growing. Affording both education and living expenses is already out of reach for many, which helps explain why only 64% of students in four-year programs graduate within six years—and why 43 million adults have some college education but no degree or credential.
Our nation cannot afford for states to sacrifice a healthy population or an educated workforce in exchange for tax cuts projected to add $4.1 trillion to the federal deficit. It is imperative that members of Congress protect their states and their constituents by reversing deep cuts to SNAP as they work to reauthorize the Farm Bill.
The Impact of Cost-Shifting to States
The federal spending cuts passed by Congress in H.R. 1 will necessitate increasing state tax revenue and/or making state-level spending cuts. Unlike the federal government, states must balance their budgets annually. In fiscal year 2024, 40 states saw declining tax revenues, and many are already projecting short- and long-term fiscal shortfalls, increasing the odds that many states will need to make spending cuts. Healthcare and higher education comprise over 30 percent of state spending, with higher education comprising 15 percent of state budgets alone.
Increasing state costs of administering SNAP and requiring many states to cover a portion of the cost of SNAP benefits for the first time will further deepen state budget pressures. While the SNAP cuts included in H.R.1 are projected to save the federal government $120 billion over the next 10 years by shifting costs to states, roughly 4.7 million people have already lost access to SNAP benefits since the passage of H.R.1. Whether state legislators decide to cut SNAP benefits, funding for transportation, or education, students lose access to critical resources. The consequences are obvious: states face the challenge of doing more with fewer resources and everyday Americans will ultimately pay the immediate and long-term price.
Cuts to SNAP: Implications for States and Higher Education
Currently, the federal government and states jointly administer SNAP, while the federal government provides full funding for SNAP benefits. States are already responsible for funding a portion of administrative costs, such as salaries and benefits for SNAP staff. Benefit costs are the allotments that SNAP participants receive to purchase food. For the first time in program history, states will also pay a portion of SNAP benefits based on their error rates, or the under and over payments of SNAP benefits. H.R.1 shifts a portion of SNAP benefit costs to states if they have a payment error rate above 6%. States with higher error rates would contribute more toward SNAP benefits, though their share would be capped at 15%. Cost-sharing begins in FY 2028 with some flexibility in how error rates are determined at the beginning of the implementation period.
| SNAP Payment Error Rate | State Share | Number of States Impacted |
|---|---|---|
| Error rate below 6% | No benefit cost share requirement | 9 |
| 6%-8% error rate | State required to pay 5% of SNAP benefits | 6 |
| 8%-10% error rate | State required to pay 10% of SNAP benefits | 16 |
| 10% or higher error rate | State required to pay 15% of SNAP benefits | 19 + DC |
The cost shifts to states will impact over 40 states based on their FY25 error rates. States will face stark choices: choices: reduce SNAP benefits, cut eligibility, or find other ways to limit access. But the effects wouldn’t stop there. Because state tax dollars primarily fund higher education, federal cuts to SNAP will reverberate through education budgets as well, where higher education remains the largest source of discretionary spending that can be cut.
When the federal government enacts SNAP cost-sharing in FY2028, current and future students, many of whom are also navigating food insecurity, will experience a double blow as states have to choose between ensuring residents don’t go hungry or funding public colleges and keeping tuition affordable. While state leaders may make different decisions, cutting discretionary programs such as higher education will have long lasting impacts on today’s students as well as future generations.
State Budget Impact Example: SNAP Benefit Cost-Sharing
To contextualize how federal cuts to SNAP would put downstream pressure on state budgets, we used the U.S. Department of Agriculture’s FY25 SNAP benefits data. We assessed what shifting the cost of SNAP benefits from federal to state responsibility, based on a state’s FY25 error rates would mean in the context of a state’s FY25 state and local higher education spending (Table 1.4) and found that:
-
41 states + DC have an error rate above 6% and would need to fund a portion of SNAP benefits,
-
35 states + DC would be responsible for at least 10% of benefits costs, and
-
19 states + DC would pay at least 10% or more of the equivalent of their state’s higher education budget in SNAP benefits.
| State | Total SNAP Benefits Issued, FY25 | State Error Rate FY25 | SNAP Cost Shift, Based on FY25 Error Rates | SNAP State Benefit Responsibility, FY25 | FY25 Higher Education Budget | SNAP Cost Share as a Percent of HE Funding |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Alabama | $1,729,963,597 | 9.52% | 10% | $172,996,360 | $2,609,863,000 | 6.63% |
| Alaska* | $246,678,871 | 23.15% | 15% | $37,001,831 | $366,990,000 | 10.08% |
| Arizona | $1,955,986,149 | 10.80% | 15% | $293,397,922 | $2,328,778,000 | 12.60% |
| Arkansas | $506,724,515 | 8.81% | 10% | $50,672,452 | $1,161,579,000 | 4.36% |
| California | $12,552,027,262 | 10.93% | 15% | $1,882,804,089 | $26,449,341,000 | 7.12% |
| Colorado | $1,420,137,601 | 10.09% | 15% | $213,020,640 | $1,769,838,000 | 12.04% |
| Connecticut | $849,900,229 | 9.08% | 10% | $84,990,023 | $1,542,515,000 | 5.51% |
| Delaware* | $260,403,947 | 16% | 15% | $39,060,592 | $308,182,000 | 12.67% |
| DC* | $324,587,747 | 18.66% | 15% | $48,688,162 | $105,459,000 | 46.17% |
| Florida | $6,836,801,047 | 12.97% | 15% | $1,025,520,157 | $7,741,918,000 | 13.25% |
| Georgia* | $3,511,640,745 | 15.21% | 15% | $526,746,112 | $5,048,488,000 | 10.43% |
| Hawaii | $686,958,438 | 10.92% | 15% | $103,043,766 | $927,651,000 | 11.11% |
| Idaho | $286,417,252 | 3.85% | 0% | $0 | $713,899,000 | 0.00% |
| Illinois* | $4,455,837,089 | 14.67% | 15% | $668,375,563 | $6,920,010,000 | 9.66% |
| Indiana | $1,391,396,148 | 9.77% | 10% | $139,139,615 | $2,070,150,000 | 6.72% |
| Iowa | $541,016,154 | 5.34% | 0% | $0 | $964,893,000 | 0.00% |
| Kansas | $400,106,924 | 9.44% | 10% | $40,010,692 | $1,685,427,000 | 2.37% |
| Kentucky | $1,271,167,598 | 4.70% | 0% | $0 | $1,649,844,000 | 0.00% |
| Louisiana | $1,840,754,476 | 8.14% | 10% | $184,075,448 | $1,593,826,000 | 11.55% |
| Maine | $348,288,821 | 10.81% | 15% | $52,243,323 | $408,309,000 | 12.80% |
| Maryland | $1,474,375,153 | 13.08% | 15% | $221,156,273 | $4,258,015,000 | 5.19% |
| Massachusetts | $2,616,540,763 | 12.49% | 15% | $392,481,114 | $2,741,800,000 | 14.31% |
| Michigan | $3,125,292,201 | 9.89% | 10% | $312,529,220 | $3,455,166,000 | 9.05% |
| Minnesota | $865,279,084 | 12.58% | 15% | $129,791,863 | $2,099,959,000 | 6.18% |
| Mississippi | $786,952,142 | 9.51% | 10% | $78,695,214 | $1,274,876,000 | 6.17% |
| Missouri | $1,564,349,022 | 8.67% | 10% | $156,434,902 | $1,567,379,000 | 9.98% |
| Montana | $164,432,947 | 8.86% | 10% | $16,443,295 | $337,663,000 | 4.87% |
| Nebraska | $328,247,275 | 5.90% | 0% | $0 | $1,198,117,000 | 0.00% |
| Nevada | $1,015,310,895 | 6.22% | 5% | $50,765,545 | $1,034,899,000 | 4.91% |
| New Hampshire | $153,338,944 | 8.85% | 10% | $15,333,894 | $175,682,000 | 8.73% |
| New Jersey | $1,931,567,467 | 6.86% | 5% | $96,578,373 | $3,479,112,000 | 2.78% |
| New Mexico* | $996,235,534 | 16.81% | 15% | $149,435,330 | $1,794,507,000 | 8.33% |
| New York | $7,686,974,902 | 13.18% | 15% | $1,153,046,235 | $8,482,318,000 | 13.59% |
| North Carolina | $3,069,335,722 | 7.36% | 5% | $153,466,786 | $5,899,994,000 | 2.60% |
| North Dakota | $129,152,955 | 9.89% | 10% | $12,915,296 | $470,036,000 | 2.75% |
| Ohio | $3,212,023,242 | 6.76% | 5% | $160,601,162 | $2,922,192,000 | 5.50% |
| Oklahoma | $1,570,346,797 | 11.04% | 15% | $235,552,020 | $1,231,416,000 | 19.13% |
| Oregon* | $1,684,575,099 | 14.14% | 15% | $252,686,265 | $1,544,947,000 | 16.36% |
| Pennsylvania | $4,245,693,721 | 9.21% | 10% | $424,569,372 | $2,424,002,000 | 17.52% |
| Rhode Island | $341,841,456 | 12.42% | 15% | $51,276,218 | $267,045,000 | 19.20% |
| South Carolina | $1,413,664,309 | 8.80% | 10% | $141,366,431 | $2,097,491,000 | 6.74% |
| South Dakota | $179,019,138 | 2.47% | 0% | $0 | $369,670,000 | 0.00% |
| Tennessee | $1,709,503,843 | 9.44% | 10% | $170,950,384 | $2,904,564,000 | 5.89% |
| Texas | $7,557,411,884 | 9.34% | 10% | $755,741,188 | $17,597,960,000 | 4.29% |
| Utah | $408,610,616 | 5.54% | 0% | $0 | $1,815,125,000 | 0.00% |
| Vermont | $149,888,299 | 5.38% | 0% | $0 | $150,347,000 | 0.00% |
| Virginia | $1,773,561,910 | 12.32% | 15% | $266,034,287 | $4,110,564,000 | 6.47% |
| Washington | $2,002,310,923 | 6.98% | 5% | $100,115,546 | $3,327,143,000 | 3.01% |
| West Virginia | $558,127,063 | 6.69% | 5% | $27,906,353 | $642,002,000 | 4.35% |
| Wisconsin | $1,360,889,550 | 5.72% | 0% | $0 | $2,155,438,000 | 0.00% |
| Wyoming | $60,338,390 | 3.96% | 0% | $0 | $469,226,000 | 0.00% |
| *Alaska, Delaware, Georgia, Illinois, New Mexico, Oregon and Washington, D.C., all met the higher threshold and will benefit from the delayed implementation of the benefits cost shifts. | ||||||
Conclusion
Once states are responsible for a portion of SNAP benefit costs beginning in FY28, the impact will be immediate and far-reaching. Millions of Americans across every state and territory may lose access to critical food assistance—a program that keeps people stable, nourished, and able to work or pursue education. To prevent this, states would have to make deep spending cuts elsewhere in their budgets. History demonstrates that when the federal government withdraws support from states, they fill the gap by slashing discretionary programs such as higher education budgets. This translates to fewer resources for colleges, higher tuition for students, and reduced access to postsecondary education. These efforts stand in stark contrast to policymakers’ stated goals of improving people’s ability to be self-sufficient, as individuals obtaining credentials and degrees have more opportunities for economic mobility and are less likely to use public programs.
State leaders should not have to decide if people in their state can eat or be trained for the jobs of the future. It is essential that Americans have access to food so they can live a life that allows them to focus on work and school. Enhancing access to basic needs programs like SNAP makes education more attainable and improves self-sufficiency in the long-term. Congress must work with states to help them improve their SNAP error rates and reverse the cost-shifting provisions included in H.R. 1 before they go into effect.
Meet Our Researchers
See all
Erika Roberson
Senior Policy Associate
Erika is a senior policy associate supporting TICAS’ anti-poverty and basic needs work. She is particularly passionate about closing opportunity gaps for students from low-income families and those in rural communities, similar to those of her hometown.
