In July, the “One Big Beautiful Bill Act” was signed into law, cutting federal funding for the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) by $187 billion through 2034. This reduction is expected to affect around 4 million people, either reducing or eliminating their food assistance. Public health experts from Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health, Erica Kenney and Cindy Leung, highlight the serious implications for SNAP recipients, emphasizing that this program has long been a key tool in reducing food insecurity among low-income families.
SNAP has been proven effective in reducing food insecurity by approximately 30%, particularly among households experiencing severe food shortages. Food insecurity is strongly linked to poor diet quality and higher risks of cardiometabolic diseases, cognitive impairment, and dementia. Experts note that expanding SNAP benefits, such as during the COVID-19 pandemic, led to measurable declines in food insecurity, which reversed when benefits were reduced. While SNAP’s impact on dietary behaviors is mixed, it is crucial for households facing limited access to healthy foods, time constraints, or chronic health conditions.
The program also reduces healthcare costs. Research shows that SNAP participants spend approximately $1,400 less on medical care annually compared to low-income non-participants. Benefits include fewer emergency room visits, reduced workplace absences, healthier pregnancies, and lower incidences of low birth weight among children. By supporting household income, SNAP provides both economic and health-related advantages for vulnerable populations.
A significant concern in the new legislation is the elimination of the SNAP-Ed program, which provides nutrition education to help participants make healthier food choices. Experts argue that this move is counterintuitive, as nutrition education complements SNAP benefits and promotes community-based public health initiatives. Without SNAP-Ed, participants and broader communities may lose access to evidence-based programs that support healthy eating habits.
Experts stress that there is no adequate alternative safety net to replace SNAP. While programs like WIC serve specific populations, they cannot substitute for SNAP’s broad coverage. The charitable food system may provide limited relief, but it cannot match the scale or consistency of SNAP benefits. Stricter work requirements under the new legislation are expected to reduce participation by approximately 2.4 million people, disproportionately affecting households with children, older adults, veterans, former foster youth, and the homeless—groups already facing employment challenges.
Ultimately, these historic cuts to SNAP pose serious threats to public health and food security. Experts warn that the reduction of benefits and changes to program responsibilities could have long-lasting negative effects, particularly for the most vulnerable populations, and undermine decades of progress in addressing hunger and improving nutrition across the United States.
