SNAP has recently been in the spotlight due to the Make America Healthy Again movement. RFK, Jr. has stated that using taxpayer money to subsidize junk food, such as sodas and cookies, makes no sense, as “there is no nutrition in these products.”

Health advocates also strongly criticize the amount of money spent by recipients on sweets, sugar-laden beverages, salty snacks, over-processed foods and other items well known to be inconsistent with a heathy diet, especially when overconsumed.  They point out that SNAP imposes no nutritional standards for purchased foods.

The Trump Administration’s focus on improving the nation’s healthful food supply has added an important new element to the debate over SNAP and its future. Not to mention the health care support needed for those who are obese, have diabetes, cancer, or heart disease due to a poor diet.

What is SNAP?

SNAP, or the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, is a federal program designed to supplement food budgets among lower-income households to assure the nutritious food essential to the health of all family members. It is part of the broader Farm Bill and accounts for 1.5% of total federal spending.

As reported by Harvard’s Kennedy School from USDA’s February 2025 data, $100 billion was spent on SNAP in 2024 for approximately 41 million people. This equates to about $2,439 per person each year, or $203 a month. The average recipient receives $188 in monthly benefits. The remaining $15 difference most likely goes towards funds administration.

Who uses SNAP?

In 2024, 12.3% of the U.S. population was on the SNAP program.

Eligibility and the amount of assistance from SNAP are based on gross and net monthly income. In most cases, eligible households must have a gross monthly income of less than 130 percent of the federally determined poverty level, or a net income of 100 percent of the poverty level.

For a single-person household, the poverty level is $15,650 a year, for a family of four, it is $32,150.

Certain exceptions exist for special categories, such as the disabled or seriously ill. But 92 percent of all SNAP benefits go to individuals and households meeting the basic income criteria.

The states determine their own guidelines laid out in the program criteria. Benefits are based on USDA’s calculation of the cost of low-cost nutritious meals in the Food & Nutrition Service’s Thrifty Food Plan.

SNAP also requires recipients to comply with various work requirements, including registering for work, maintaining existing employment, accepting offered jobs and participating in job training or education.

Certain non-citizen groups are also eligible, including those designated as refugees, asylum-seekers, and victims of trafficking.  SNAP generally is not available for tourists or students and is prohibited for undocumented residents.

What can and do SNAP recipients purchase?

Here are some items you can and cannot purchase using SNAP funds, according to USDA regulations:

For an expanded list of items covered by SNAP, click here.

Most studies indicate that SNAP recipients tend to mirror the food buying habits of non-SNAP households.

The most comprehensive analysis of buying habits by USDA dates back almost a decade, to 2016.  Its finding and analysis must be evaluated in the context of a pre-Covid, pre-economic slowdown. However, those results seem to match the various ad hoc reports currently found in cyberspace.

Citing USDA data, the Economic Policy Innovation Center in May 2024 reported the top items purchased through SNAP as:

Why is SNAP so much in the news?

Two major issues have helped propel the SNAP program into the public – and political – spotlight.  One is its sharply increasing use and cost.  The other is the use of SNAP benefits to support purchase and consumption of foods and beverages that are inconsistent with its stated objective of advancing “healthy” diets.

Government efforts to help disadvantaged food consumers afford better, healthier food aren’t something new. In fact, they date back to 1939, when the first “food stamp” program over its initial four years provided economic support for an estimated 20 million households at one point or another. Consumers in almost half the counties in the United States participated, at a cost of $262 million at the time. In other words, substantial government spending on food help is 86 years old.

SNAP as we know it today can be traced to 1964, when President Lyndon Johnson helped make the food stamp program permanent.

Initial estimates at that time projected participation at 4 million, at a cost of $360 million per year. Those estimates proved what may charitably called optimistic.

If anything, the program might be argued to be too successful.  Participation has remained high over the years – with commensurate growth in its cost.

SNAP expenditures have increased by about 40 percent since the passage of the last Farm Bill in 2018 – from about $81 billion in 2018 to $113 billion in 2023.

What program changes can we expect?

Congressional budget officials project SNAP spending to continue to increase without changes to the program. To budget-minded policy makers, the past and future cost increases have become a major political target, with all sorts of proposals to tighten eligibility requirements, push more program costs (and controls) to the states, and other reforms.

Not all lawmakers agree, pointing to the potential adverse effects of reduced participation on not just the most needy members of our society but also the communities in which they live. The argument has been a major issue in the on-going battles to craft a comprehensive budget bill and finally approval a long-overdue Farm Bill.

2018 Farm Bill: Funding Allocation

Many political observers caution that efforts to divorce the SNAP program from its usual place in the comprehensive Farm Bill could substantially weaken political support for farm and rural policies, especially among largely urban politicians and others in a Congress who are new and unsophisticated in their understanding of farm policies.

In this hyper-politicized environment, hyberbole and political sniping have become prominent elements of the discussion, making the outcome of the debate very uncertain.