Happy Friday, and welcome to Food Fix. The MAHA rollercoaster rolled on this week, and it was essentially just straight betrayal. The Trump administration nixed some PFAS water regulations and determined controversial pesticide atrazine (and top MAHA foe) was actually fine to keep using. President Donald Trump did everything he could to oust MAHA hero Rep. Thomas Massie (R-Ky.) from Congress as part of a revenge tour — and it worked. Then the New York Times reported Thursday that tobacco giant Reynolds donated $5 million to Trump-aligned super PAC MAGA Inc. just days before the FDA was pressured into changing its policy on vaping.
There was plenty of rage about all of this. Alex Clark, a conservative wellness influencer affiliated with Turning Point USA, was blunt after the tobacco news broke: “How in the world are we supposed to make America healthy again if corporate interests are still running the show?!”
There’s a ton going on, but today’s newsletter is about something else that hasn’t gotten as much attention in the news: the state of the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program.
Don’t miss out: The best way to make sure you don’t miss a beat in food policy is to upgrade to a paid subscription and get Food Fix in your inbox twice per week. Almost everyone who upgrades finds it valuable. This week, I wrote about why Kyle Diamantas could be leading FDA for a while.
As always, I welcome your feedback. Send me your thoughts by replying to this email, or drop me a line: helena@foodfix.co.
Alright, let’s get to it –
Helena
***
Millions lose access to SNAP as impact of Trump’s signature law comes into focus
The Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP), which helps roughly one in 10 American households buy groceries each month, is shrinking at a rate we haven’t seen in decades — maybe ever.
The program was designed to expand and contract with economic conditions, so normally a reduction in SNAP is actually good news. Fewer people on the program usually means the economy is improving and households need less help meeting basic needs. But that’s not what’s happening right now.
Millions drop out: The latest analysis from the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities (CBPP) found that SNAP participation dropped by more than 3.5 million people, or nearly 9 percent, in the seven months following the passage of Trump’s signature reconciliation package last summer (officially dubbed H.R. 1 or the “One Big Beautiful Bill”).
That law made the biggest cuts to SNAP spending in history, shifted billions in new costs to the states, significantly expanded work requirements and ended eligibility for many people with lawful immigration status (like refugees and asylees). We do not know exactly how much of the SNAP exodus is directly because of these changes, but experts think it’s a major factor.
Per CBPP’s analysis, SNAP participation has dropped in nearly every state, including by 5 percent or more in 38 states, and by 10 percent or more in 13 states. In Louisiana, caseloads dropped nearly 15 percent (more recent data shows it’s now 20 percent). In Arizona, participation has dropped around 50 percent (a cliff that’s unheard of).
The researchers note that the overall declines started before the reconciliation package was enacted “suggesting factors at play in addition to that law.”
“But in many states, declines in SNAP participation accelerated after H.R. 1, and we expect that trend to continue,” they conclude.
Jobs check: Is there an argument to be made that economic conditions are improving enough to explain this? It doesn’t seem like it. As CBPP notes: Unemployment nationwide has been flat at 4 percent since July 2025. “At best, it’s down in 13 states by less than 1 percentage point,” the researchers conclude. “It’s very unlikely that reduced need is driving the decline in SNAP participation.”
The GOP rationale for expanding work requirements to way more people was simple: People who can work should, and they shouldn’t get SNAP for long. It sounds logical, but plenty of research has found that imposing work requirements doesn’t actually increase employment. They are, however, very effective at cutting people from the program.
A 2021 paper by the National Bureau of Economic Research found that there was a 53 percent overall reduction in program participation among adults who are subject to work requirements. The administrative requirements also disproportionately knocked homeless adults out of the program. They found “no effects” on employment.
Admin costs looming: Of course, expanded work requirements are not the only factor here. States are also freaking out about a provision in the law that shifts billions in administrative costs onto states — and even requires states to pick up billions of the benefit costs if they can’t keep their error rates below certain thresholds. (Note: Error rates measure administrative mistakes, so this includes both over and under payments — it’s different from fraud.)
Most everyone agrees states do need to bring their error rates down — they went up quite a bit during the pandemic — but having states face large unfunded mandates could perversely incentivize state agencies to limit access to the program.
To give you a sense of the math here, it was recently reported that Texas, a Republican-run state, will likely need to budget for $117 million in admin costs starting in October and (because of the state’s error rate) could be responsible for $709 million to cover SNAP benefits in the state starting in October 2027.
A bipartisan delay? The Senate Agriculture Committee is now mulling whether to delay some of these changes in the upcoming farm bill. Grace Yarrow over at Politico scooped Thursday that Republican senators are “privately discussing” a potential delay. “A proposal to postpone the implementation date of a GOP-led move to make states pay for some Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program benefits has emerged as a crucial factor that could garner the bipartisan support needed to move a farm bill through the Senate.” Senate Democrats have been pushing hard to delay some of the costs looming for states. We’ll have to see what happens here, but it’s a key issue to watch as the Senate begins work on a farm bill in earnest.
Speaking of that farm bill, Senate staffers this week confirmed to the Hagstrom Report that they plan to keep two poison pill provisions out of the bill, including the controversial pesticide preemption language, which is a huge win for MAHA et al. even as they are getting bulldozed on so much else in Washington.
Data axed: While researchers will no doubt be studying how H.R. 1 is impacting SNAP participation for some time, it’s worth noting that the Trump administration cancelled the federal government’s annual survey that measures food insecurity. In the wake of massive changes to SNAP, we’ve lost our primary way of measuring food insecurity and hunger. And all of this comes as food in America is more expensive than ever.
***
What I’m reading
Dems ask USDA detailed questions about FNS reorganization (Fence Post). “Sen. Amy Klobuchar, D-Minn., ranking member on the Senate Agriculture Committee, and 25 other Democratic senators this week sent Agriculture Deputy Secretary Stephen Vaden a letter asking him a series of detailed questions about the Trump administration’s plans to reorganize the Food and Nutrition Service. The Hagstrom Report obtained a copy of the letter. In the letter, the senators noted that USDA manages 16 nutrition programs and said, ‘Unfortunately, this administration has engaged in repeated efforts to undermine these crucial programs: cancelling over 90 million pounds of food ordered for food banks and schools; enacting the deepest cuts to SNAP in history; refusing to comply with court orders to fund SNAP benefits during the government shutdown; and terminating a long-standing food insecurity survey that has measured hunger in America since the 1990s. At the same time, the USDA has greatly reduced the capacity of the Food and Nutrition Service to administer nutrition assistance programs, and almost 30 percent of FNS staff have left the agency as a result of last year’s Deferred Resignation Program.’”
Natural food colors embraced by MAHA linked to health problems (Wall Street Journal). “Artificial food dyes have long been suspected to be harmful to your health. But new research shows that some of the natural color additives being turned to as alternatives are associated with an increased risk of Type 2 diabetes and cancer,” reports Andrea Petersen. “Studies conducted by researchers in France showed that certain natural dyes were associated with a more than 40 percent increased risk of Type 2 diabetes and certain cancers, in research published this week. The scientists, from several French universities and research institutions, looked at what more than 100,000 people ate and drank, including specific brands, and followed participants for up to eight years on average.”
Montana candy, soft drink SNAP waiver gets federal approval (Daily Montanan). “The State of Montana received federal approval from the United States Department of Agriculture to ban soft drinks, junk food, and candy from the state’s Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program,” reports Jordan Hansen. “SNAP is a federal program administered by the USDA. Montana joins 22 other states in banning soft drinks, junk food and candy from its SNAP program. Gov. Greg Gianforte, in a press release, said the state was making, ‘bold steps to Make America Healthy Again,’ adding the state was looking to ‘ensure taxpayer dollars provide nutritious options that improve health outcomes for those who rely on these crucial programs.’”
Greenpeace warns of microplastics in baby food sold in plastic pouches (Packaging Insights). “New research commissioned by Greenpeace has discovered microplastics in baby food sold in plastic pouches by Nestlé and Danone. At the same time, packaging experts remind that plastic packaging is important to achieving longer shelf life and food security. The researchers behind the report Tiny Plastics, Big Problem: The Hidden Risk of Plastic Pouches for Baby Food conducted laboratory testing on Nestlé’s Gerber and Danone’s Happy Baby Organics infant nutrition. The report notes the presence of microplastic particles, and ‘a range of chemicals’ were found in every sample of packaging and food analyzed. According to the report, this suggests that the plastic packaging may be the source of contamination.”
***
Why you should upgrade to a paid Food Fix subscription
Become a paid subscriber to unlock access to two newsletters each week, packed with insight, analysis and exclusive reporting on what’s happening in food, in Washington and beyond. You’ll also get full access to the Food Fix archive — a great way to get smart on all things food policy.
Expense it: Most paid subscribers expense their subscriptions through work. It’s worth asking!
Discounts: We also offer discounts for government, academia and students. See our subscription options. Individuals who participate in SNAP or other federal nutrition programs qualify for a free Food Fix subscription — just email info@foodfix.co.
Get the Friday newsletter: If someone forwarded you this email, sign yourself up for the free Friday edition of Food Fix. You can also follow Food Fix on X, Bluesky and LinkedIn.
See you next week!
