As we move into the new year, communities that rely on SNAP are struggling to survive. While the longest government shutdown in U.S. history ended on November 12, it has left long-term consequences for SNAP users. On November 1st, 2025, SNAP users, 39% of whom are children, could no longer access their benefits. The average monthly benefits for SNAP users is $190, marking the loss of access to essential groceries for 42 million Americans. In the new year SNAP benefits have even more restrictions that will harm communities.
One draft of upcoming changes is to narrow “broad-based categorical eligibility,” (BBCE) which is a policy that allows families to receive SNAP if they qualify for Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF). These are looser guidelines for qualification than SNAP and also help 10% of SNAP households with children. Critics say that BBCE gives funding to non-needy families, citing how some states have no asset limits to qualify. According to the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, however, states that have this policy are more likely to have low-income households that have a bank account with $500 in it. BBCE effectively helps these families save and use SNAP benefits to be able to have economic mobility in the long-term. Restricting BBCE qualification would have the adverse effect of limiting families from moving from and staying above the poverty line if, without BBCE, those families would no longer qualify under SNAP while still being low-income.
Another change that has begun and is rolling out this year for many states is blocking SNAP funds for purchasing soda, candy, and other “non-nutritious” foods. While this change has the intention of improving the health of SNAP beneficiaries and reducing the risk of obesity, other policies must also be reformed. The issue is that many of the beneficiaries do not have ready access to the nutritious foods for purchase on SNAP and may have to rely on processed foods at times to not go hungry. Logistically, restricting certain foods would harm purchases for the grocery stores that are sometimes the only source of food in the communities of SNAP users. At larger retailers, there would be an estimated loss of 1.9 billion dollars. Further, the USDA itself also reports that there is no research that links restricting SNAP benefits to improving the health of its users.
While narrowing SNAP qualifications intends to improve people’s health, it doesn’t address the root of the problem— the lack of supermarkets where people could access nutritious foods under SNAP. Instead, this policy restricts users’ options at grocery stores. Improving consumers’ health requires an overhaul of U.S. food policies that favor the monopolies that a few large corporations have on the food industry, controlling how unaffordable many foods are today. In a Guardian analysis of market share data of U.S. supermarkets, it was found that four firms control 50% of the supermarkets. Taking back SNAP users’ health means taking back our food economy.