U.S. Agriculture Secretary Brooke Rollins publicly highlighted a sharp decline in food assistance enrollment, pointing to preliminary federal data showing millions of Americans are no longer receiving benefits through the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program. The announcement drew immediate scrutiny from researchers and policy analysts who say the drop closely follows legislative changes that made the program harder to access.
In a social media post referencing Agriculture Department data, Rollins stated there were now “4.3 million off SNAP and counting!” She described the decline as evidence of economic recovery, writing, “Under President Trump, Americans are getting back to work!” and adding, “Healthy employment numbers mean less reliance on government programs. Leaving benefits for those who truly need them. America is back in business!”
Rollins expanded on those claims in remarks reported alongside the data release. “As of just a couple of days ago, we now have moved 4.3 million Americans off of the food stamp program. A lot of that is fraud. A lot of it is people taking the program that shouldn’t have been. And a lot of it is just a better economy. We’ve had wage growth that has outpaced inflation for the first time since early 2021. This is a really big day. So people don’t need food stamps.”
Federal data shows that SNAP participation fell from approximately 42.83 million people in January 2025 to about 38.55 million in January 2026. That nearly 10 percent decline accelerated in the second half of the year, following the passage of a major Republican budget law signed by President Donald Trump in July 2025.
From January through June 2025, SNAP enrollment dropped by about 743,572 people. From July 2025 through January 2026, the number fell by roughly 3.47 million. The timing aligns with the implementation of the 940 page “One Big Beautiful Bill Act,” also known as H.R. 1, which introduced significant changes to eligibility requirements and reduced federal funding.
The Congressional Budget Office projected that the law would cut $186 billion from SNAP over a ten year period, amounting to a 20 percent reduction in federal spending on the program. The same analysis estimated that provisions within the law would “reduce participation in SNAP by roughly 2.4 million people in an average month over the 2025-2034 period.”
Researchers who study food insecurity say the scale and timing of the decline are not consistent with the administration’s explanation that stronger economic conditions drove the drop. Caitlin Caspi, an associate professor at the University of Connecticut, said the available data does not support a link between employment trends and the sharp reduction in SNAP participation.
“We’re not seeing a linear kind of drop-off,” Caspi said. “We are not seeing, if you look at the unemployment rates, things that might be an indicator that a strong economy was driving this change. We don’t see, for example, a pattern of decline in unemployment that would match the pattern of decline in SNAP participation.”
The administration has also cited fraud as a major factor behind the reduction, but available data suggests fraud rates are too low to account for the magnitude of the change. In fiscal year 2023, 41,476 individuals were disqualified from SNAP due to fraud related violations. That figure represents less than one percent of the more than 42 million people enrolled at the time.
“I don’t see any evidence supporting a significant reduction in fraud as a driver of what we’re seeing as far as declining SNAP participation,” Caspi said.
When asked for evidence supporting the claim that fraud contributed significantly to the decline, the U.S. Department of Agriculture directed inquiries to reporting on broad based categorical eligibility. This policy allows some applicants to qualify for SNAP if they receive non cash assistance through programs such as Temporary Assistance for Needy Families. While critics have argued that the policy gives states flexibility in determining eligibility, it remains a legal option and does not account for the scale of the recent drop, according to experts.
Economic data during the same period presents a mixed picture. Gross domestic product contracted in early 2025 before rebounding later in the year. Growth slowed in the fourth quarter but resumed at a modest pace in early 2026. At the same time, food prices increased by 3.1 percent in 2025 and are expected to rise another 2.9 percent in 2026, adding pressure for lower income households.
Wage growth reached 3.4 percent in March, slightly exceeding inflation at 3.3 percent, though this was not the first time that wages outpaced inflation since 2021. Economists also noted that income gains were uneven, with higher income households benefiting more than lower income groups. Hiring remained sluggish and the unemployment rate increased compared to early 2025.
Kate Bauer, an associate professor of nutritional sciences at the University of Michigan, said broader economic improvements do not eliminate the need for food assistance.
“We have a persistent poverty problem in this country,” Bauer said. “And we have huge economic disparities. And most people, even in good economic times, are not able to pull their families out of poverty.”
Policy analysts and researchers point to the structural changes introduced by H.R. 1 as the primary driver behind the decline in SNAP participation. The law expanded work requirements for able bodied adults without dependents, increasing the age threshold for stricter requirements from 54 to 64. It also reduced eligibility exemptions by lowering the age of dependent children used to qualify from 18 to 14.
Additional provisions removed exemptions for homeless individuals, veterans, and young adults who had aged out of foster care. Participants subject to stricter requirements must now complete at least 80 hours per month of work or participation in a work program, even if the work is unpaid. States also face new limits on their ability to waive these requirements in areas with limited employment opportunities.
“Families have lots of really complicated situations and you can’t just say to people, in 10 days or in one month, go find 80 hours a month of work when you don’t have the skills and those jobs aren’t available in your community,” Bauer said.
Roger Figueroa, an assistant professor at Cornell University who studies food insecurity, said the pattern of declining enrollment reflects these policy changes.
“What we’ve seen in terms of the data is that the trend in participation declines seems to be related to the program being harder to access,” Figueroa said.
The Center on Budget and Policy Priorities reached similar conclusions in its analysis of the data, stating that “economic conditions haven’t been improving as the number of people receiving SNAP has plummeted in recent months, representing the sharpest decline in decades.” The organization also noted that “The deep cuts to federal funding for SNAP are shifting significant new costs to states,” and that the law “also dramatically expands SNAP’s already harsh and ineffective provision taking away people’s benefits for not meeting the work requirement.”
The decline in SNAP participation has also drawn criticism from lawmakers. Rep. Shontel Brown of Ohio challenged the administration’s characterization of the drop as a positive development, citing rising grocery costs linked in part to tariff policies.
“Better economy where?” Brown wrote. “You mean the one where Americans paid $300 more on their groceries to compensate for Trump’s tariffs? Kicking 4.3 million Americans off of SNAP is not a flex, it’s a failure. That’s why I’ve authored legislation to reverse the Trump SNAP cuts.”
While SNAP enrollment has declined significantly, researchers emphasize that the reduction does not necessarily indicate decreased need. Instead, they point to a combination of reduced funding, expanded work requirements, and stricter eligibility rules that have limited access to benefits.
“It shouldn’t be surprising that we are seeing this decline and it shouldn’t be a leap in logic to think that these declines are attributable to H.R. 1,” said Caspi.
COMMENTS