The uncomfortable truth about SNAP

PUBLISHED: November 4, 2025 | www.baltimoresun.com

State and federal leaders across the country are sounding the alarm after the federal government failed to fully secure SNAP funding during the latest shutdown. Nearly 42 million Americans, including 16 million children, 8 million seniors and 4 million people with disabilities, now face the possibility of losing much of their food assistance, which averages $187 a month.

And just recently, a U.S. District Judge in Rhode Island ruled that the USDA must use its existing $6 billion in contingency funds to provide at least partial SNAP benefits, noting in oral argument, “It’s clear that when compared to the millions of people that will go without funds for food versus the agency’s desire not to use contingency funds in case there’s a hurricane need, the balances of those equities clearly goes on the side of ensuring that people are fed.” A similar ruling was made in Massachusetts.

Initiatives such as SNAP have led to an unparalleled crisis for those dependent on these services. This raises the question, though: Why have we allowed this to become an emergency in the first place? Why do 42 million Americans depend on SNAP benefits?

Republican pushback to SNAP should not come as a surprise to anyone. In the One Big Beautiful Bill Act, enacted in July, they cut over $180 billion from the SNAP program. The rationale for the reductions and resistance is linked to three factors. First, Republicans seek to address fraud and misuse inside the SNAP program. Second, they look to motivate individuals to get off of SNAP and become self-reliant. And, third, if this can all be achieved, they can subsequently decrease federal spending.

Research indicates a staggering amount of government waste attributable to SNAP overpayments and fraud. In 2023, around $10 billion, constituting 10% of the entire program’s spending, was misused for fraudulent purposes or given to persons in error. Annually, over $1.3 billion in SNAP benefits are trafficked, with individuals selling these benefits to retailers for cash at a rate of 50 to 60 cents on the dollar. From the second quarter of 2023 to the end of 2024, more than 457,000 SNAP households experienced EBT theft, resulting in over $220 million in benefits being stolen by criminals. Estimates suggest that around 40% of victims did not seek reimbursement, so the total amount of theft is likely higher.

This does not mean that some individuals do not face genuine challenges in escaping poverty, whether due to a disability or other uncontrollable circumstances (or if they’re children, of course). The substantial proportion of SNAP payments allocated to individuals who have participated in the program for nearly a decade indicates that prolonged enrollment in SNAP is the norm rather than the exception.

The fundamental question ultimately becomes the following: Should we prefer that 42 million Americans require food assistance, or would we want that figure to be as close to zero as possible? To any rational individual, the latter should be the answer.

So, what strategies can be implemented to transition people off SNAP, enabling them to achieve more successful and comfortable lives? To reduce opportunities for thieves to exploit the vulnerable? And to allow the government to allocate that money toward other programs — or even provide those who truly need more assistance with more?

The solution is inherently complex; however, it must begin with the acknowledgment that SNAP benefits should not and will not be permanent. To achieve a comfortable life without the need for government aid, one must build skills, establish habits and develop income streams that foster self-sufficiency. There is no shame in seeking help, like SNAP, when it’s needed. Those who make efforts to do so should never feel bad about getting government assistance. Nevertheless, it is irresponsible and shameful to refuse to make a genuine effort to become fully self-sufficient.

While Democrats nationwide endeavor to bring back money for SNAP, they have clearly responded to the previous question in the opposite. They believe people should remain on these programs for as long as they want, not as long as they need.

Armstrong Williams (www.armstrongwilliams.com; @arightside) is a political analyst, syndicated columnist and owner of the broadcasting company, Howard Stirk Holdings. He is also part owner of The Baltimore Sun.

©️ 2025 Baltimore Sun