The Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, or SNAP, is the modern name for the government program that used to be called food stamps. It is the largest program in the United States dedicated to fighting hunger, helping more than 41 million Americans in an average month buy groceries. The main goal of SNAP is to help people with low incomes get enough food to stay healthy and improve their nutrition. Instead of paper stamps, people today use an Electronic Benefits Transfer (EBT) card, which works like a debit card at grocery stores and farmers’ markets that are approved to accept it.
This change from paper coupons to electronic cards, which happened in all states by 2004, was a major update. It was designed to make using the benefits easier and less embarrassing for families, and also to cut down on certain types of fraud that were easier with paper stamps. However, this technological solution brought new challenges. Today, a modern concern is electronic theft, where criminals use “skimming” devices to steal benefit information from EBT cards, a problem that did not exist with paper stamps. This shows that managing a program of this size is a constant challenge, with old problems sometimes being replaced by new ones.
Despite its simple goal of helping people afford food, SNAP is one of the most debated government programs in the country. Different groups have very different ideas about how well the program is working, how much it should cost, and who should be able to get help. This report will explore in detail who sees a problem with SNAP and EBT, and the reasons behind their concerns.
The Critics: Who Sees a Problem with Food Stamps?
Concerns about the SNAP program come from several different groups, each with its own set of reasons. These criticisms range from the cost of the program and its effect on the economy to questions about fraud, health, and whether it encourages people to work. Understanding these different viewpoints is key to understanding the national conversation about America’s food assistance safety net.
Political and Ideological Critics
The most vocal critics of SNAP are often found in the political arena. This group primarily includes conservative lawmakers, many in the Republican party, along with commentators and influential conservative think tanks such as The Heritage Foundation and the American Enterprise Institute (AEI). Their concerns are rooted in a combination of fiscal policy and a specific philosophy about the role of government and individual responsibility.
Their core arguments include:
- High Cost to Taxpayers: A primary concern is the program’s large budget. With federal spending on SNAP totaling $112.8 billion in fiscal year 2023, critics argue that the cost is a significant burden on taxpayers and a major driver of the federal budget deficit. They frequently propose cuts to the program as a way to reduce government spending.
- Creating a “Culture of Dependency”: A central philosophical argument is that SNAP, and welfare programs in general, can discourage people from working and becoming self-sufficient. Critics worry that providing benefits without strong obligations creates a “culture of dependency,” where people rely on government assistance for the long term instead of seeking employment.
- Weak Work Requirements: Flowing from the dependency argument is the belief that the program’s work requirements are not strong enough. Critics contend that too many able-bodied adults receive benefits without working or looking for a job. They point to rules that allow states to waive work requirements in areas with high unemployment, arguing these waivers are used too broadly. As a result, they advocate for making the requirements stricter, applying them to more people (like older adults and parents of school-aged children), and limiting the ability of states to grant exemptions.
Critics Focused on Program Integrity and Management
Another group of critics focuses less on the philosophy of the program and more on how it is managed. This group includes government oversight bodies like the Government Accountability Office (GAO), the USDA’s own Office of Inspector General, and fiscally conservative watchdog organizations like the Mercatus Center. Their job is to ensure that taxpayer money is being spent correctly and efficiently.
Their main concerns are:
- Fraud and Abuse: This is one of the most common criticisms of SNAP. It can involve recipient fraud, where a person lies on their application to get benefits they aren’t eligible for. It also includes retailer fraud, where a store owner breaks the rules. The most well-known type of fraud is “trafficking,” where a recipient sells their EBT benefits for cash, usually at a discount, to a store owner who then pockets the difference. High-profile arrests and criminal cases involving millions of dollars in stolen benefits often make headlines and fuel public concern.
- Improper Payments: This is a broader category than just fraud. “Improper payments” are any benefits that were made in the wrong amount or should not have been made at all. While this includes fraudulent payments, it also includes honest mistakes made by recipients (like misreporting income) and, significantly, administrative errors made by the state agencies that run the program. Critics point to the high improper payment rate—which the GAO reported was about 11.7% in fiscal year 2023, costing taxpayers an estimated $10.5 billion—as evidence that the program is poorly managed and wasteful.
Critics Focused on Health and Nutrition
A third set of criticisms comes from those who believe the program is failing to meet its core nutritional goals. This group includes some public health advocates, conservative think tanks like the AEI, and certain lawmakers who want to change what can be bought with SNAP benefits.
Their arguments center on two main points:
- Failure to Improve Nutrition: These critics argue that SNAP is not living up to its goal of improving the health of low-income families because the program allows benefits to be spent on unhealthy foods and drinks, such as soda, candy, and highly processed snacks. They believe that taxpayer money intended for nutrition should not be used to buy items with little to no nutritional value.
- Poor Health Outcomes: To support their case, these critics often point to research suggesting that SNAP recipients, on average, have less healthy diets and higher rates of obesity compared to other low-income individuals who are not in the program. They argue that by allowing unhealthy purchases, the program may be contributing to or at least “sustaining unhealthy habits” that lead to long-term health problems and higher healthcare costs for taxpayers.
Concerns from the General Public
Finally, many of the concerns raised by political, fiscal, and health critics are reflected in public opinion. National polls show that while Americans generally support the idea of helping people afford food, they also have significant reservations about how the SNAP program works in practice.
Polling data reveals that a notable portion of the public shares these concerns:
- Support for Purchase Restrictions: There is strong public support for changing what can be bought with SNAP. One poll found that 58% of likely voters support limiting SNAP purchases to foods with high nutritional value. Another survey showed that 69% of the public, including a majority of SNAP participants themselves, supported removing sugary drinks from the list of approved items.
- Support for Work Requirements: The idea that able-bodied adults should work in exchange for benefits is very popular. A 2023 poll found that about two-thirds of Americans support work requirements for people receiving government assistance like SNAP.
- Concerns About Fraud and Waste: The perception of widespread fraud is a major driver of public skepticism. When asked why they might support cutting SNAP, voters’ top reasons included beliefs that the system is abused, that people who don’t need help are getting it, and that benefits are used for unhealthy food.
These different streams of criticism—political, managerial, health-related, and public—do not exist in isolation. They often flow together, creating a powerful and persistent narrative that shapes the debate around SNAP. For example, an argument about the high cost of the program can be combined with a story about fraud and a concern about junk food purchases. This creates a combined message that the program is an expensive, wasteful, and unhealthy system that fosters dependency. This multi-faceted critique is often more politically effective than any single argument on its own, which helps explain why SNAP is a constant subject of reform efforts and budget battles.
| Table 1: Who Thinks SNAP is a Problem and Why? |
| Group of Critics |
| Political & Ideological Critics(Conservative Lawmakers, Think Tanks) |
| Program Integrity & Management Critics(Government Watchdogs, Fiscal Conservatives) |
| Health & Nutrition Critics(Some Public Health Advocates, Think Tanks) |
| The General Public(As reflected in polling data) |
A Deeper Look: Examining the Evidence Behind the Criticisms
While the criticisms against SNAP are widespread and influential, it is important to look closely at the data and research behind these claims. Supporters of the program, including anti-hunger organizations like the Food Research & Action Center (FRAC) and research groups like the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities (CBPP), offer evidence that often presents a more complex picture. Examining this evidence provides a deeper, more nuanced understanding of the debates over dependency, fraud, nutrition, and the program’s economic impact.
The “Dependency and Work” Debate
The argument that SNAP creates a “culture of dependency” is one of the most powerful and enduring criticisms of the program. This critique is based on a philosophy that views welfare as a potential trap that can weaken an individual’s motivation to work, leading to long-term reliance on the government, which is seen as harmful to both the individual and the economy. This perspective often frames poverty as an issue of personal behavior and choices, suggesting that the solution is to push people toward self-sufficiency through work. However, data on who actually uses SNAP and research on the effects of work requirements challenge this narrative.
Who Actually Receives SNAP?
A common image associated with the dependency argument is that of an able-bodied adult choosing not to work because they can live on government benefits. However, official data from the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) shows a very different reality. The vast majority of people receiving SNAP benefits are not expected to work in the first place.
- Most Recipients Are Not Expected to Work: In fiscal year 2023, nearly four out of five (79%) of all SNAP households included a child, an older adult (age 60+), or a person with a disability. These three groups—children, seniors, and the disabled—make up the overwhelming majority of SNAP participants and are generally not considered part of the workforce.
- Many Recipients Who Can Work, Do Work: For the smaller group of households that do include a working-age, non-disabled adult, most of them are connected to the labor force. More than half of these households work while they are receiving SNAP, and over 80% work in the year before or the year after getting assistance. This suggests that for many working families, SNAP is not a replacement for a job but a temporary support system to supplement low wages, bridge periods of unemployment, or help them cope with unstable work hours.
Do Work Requirements Actually Increase Work?
Given the data showing that most SNAP recipients either cannot work or already do, the debate then shifts to whether stricter work requirements would push the remaining few into the workforce. Proponents claim that such rules are a necessary “stick” to encourage employment. However, a large and growing body of research suggests that these policies do not achieve their stated goal.
The claim is that making benefits conditional on work will increase employment. The research, however, tells a different story. Multiple studies, many using high-quality administrative data from states, have found that imposing stricter work requirements has little to no effect on whether people get jobs or how much they earn. For example, a major study looked at Virginia when it reinstated work requirements after suspending them during the Great Recession. The researchers found that 18 months later, there was zero increase in employment or earnings among the group subject to the new rules.
So if these rules don’t lead to more work, what do they do? The evidence is clear: their main effect is to cause a large number of people to lose their food assistance. One study found that more than half of the people subject to the work requirement were cut off from the program. This loss of benefits is often not due to a refusal to work, but to other factors. Many people in low-wage jobs have unpredictable schedules that make it hard to consistently meet an 80-hour-per-month requirement. Others struggle with the complex paperwork and reporting needed to prove they are complying. The people who are most harmed are often the most vulnerable, such as those experiencing homelessness, who face immense barriers to finding and keeping a stable job and are most likely to lose their benefits under these rules.
| Table 2: The SNAP Work Requirement Debate: Claims vs. Research Findings |
| The Claim (from proponents of stricter requirements) |
| Stricter work requirements will encourage people to find jobs and increase employment rates. |
| Work requirements promote self-sufficiency and reduce dependency on government aid. |
| The policy targets able-bodied adults who are choosing not to work. |
| The policy is a common-sense way to ensure taxpayer dollars support those who are truly trying. |
The “Fraud, Waste, and Abuse” Debate
No issue damages public trust in a program more than the perception of widespread fraud and waste. Stories of people selling their benefits for cash or of billions of dollars in “improper payments” fuel arguments that SNAP is a broken system in need of drastic cuts. While fraud and error do exist in a program of this scale, a closer look at the data provides important context.
First, it is crucial to understand the difference between intentional fraud and administrative error. “Fraud” is when a recipient or retailer intentionally breaks the rules for personal gain, which is a crime. The most common type of retailer fraud is “trafficking,” where a store gives a recipient cash (for example, $50) in exchange for their EBT benefits (for example, $100), and the store keeps the difference. “Improper payments,” on the other hand, is a much broader term used by government auditors. It includes fraud, but it also includes unintentional errors made by recipients (like reporting income incorrectly) and, importantly, mistakes made by the state agencies that process the applications and calculate the benefits.
When these terms are put into context with official data, a different picture emerges:
- The Trafficking Rate is Low: The USDA has worked for years to fight trafficking and has successfully reduced it from about 4 cents on the dollar in the 1990s to its current level of about 1 cent on the dollar, or 1% of all benefits.
- The Improper Payment Rate is Complex: The overall improper payment rate is much higher, estimated by the GAO at 11.7% for fiscal year 2023. However, this figure is not a measure of pure fraud. It reflects the immense administrative challenge of verifying the complex and often fluctuating circumstances of over 40 million people each month. Some states have extremely high error rates (one report cited Alaska’s at 57%), which points to significant issues in how the program is being run at the state level, rather than just recipient dishonesty.
The federal government and states have numerous systems in place to fight fraud. The USDA’s Food and Nutrition Service (FNS) uses sophisticated data analysis to monitor EBT transactions and identify suspicious patterns that might indicate trafficking. States conduct hundreds of thousands of fraud investigations each year. Those found guilty of fraud face stiff penalties, including being disqualified from the program for a year, two years, or even permanently, as well as facing criminal prosecution, fines, and jail time. To combat the modern problem of electronic benefit theft, states like New York are moving to add computer chips to EBT cards to make them more secure, similar to modern credit and debit cards. These efforts show that program integrity is taken seriously, even if challenges remain.
The “Junk Food” and Nutrition Debate
The argument that SNAP benefits are being wasted on unhealthy foods is emotionally powerful and intuitively appealing to many. If the program’s goal is nutrition, why should it pay for soda and candy? Proponents of restrictions argue that this is a common-sense reform that would improve health and ensure taxpayer money is spent wisely. However, opponents of these restrictions, including major anti-hunger organizations and many public health experts, argue that the issue is far more complicated.
A look inside the shopping carts of American families reveals a surprising fact. According to a comprehensive USDA study that analyzed grocery store scanner data, the top spending categories for both SNAP and non-SNAP households are nearly identical. Both groups spend the most on essentials like meat, fruits, vegetables, milk, eggs, and bread. While sugary drinks are a popular purchase, they are popular across the board; SNAP households do not spend a significantly larger portion of their food budget on these items compared to other American families with similar incomes.
Beyond the data, there are strong arguments against implementing food restrictions:
- Paternalism and Stigma: Critics argue that telling people what they can and cannot buy is paternalistic and stigmatizing. It creates a two-tiered system where people with low incomes are treated differently from other shoppers, which can be demeaning. Some have compared it to historical “sumptuary laws,” which were used to control what common people could wear or eat to keep them “in their place”.
- Administrative Nightmare: Creating and enforcing a list of “healthy” and “unhealthy” foods would be incredibly complex. Retailers would have to reprogram their checkout systems to identify tens of thousands of individual products, a costly and complicated task. Many smaller stores, like corner bodegas or rural grocers, might find the burden so high that they would stop accepting EBT altogether. This would actually reduce food access for SNAP recipients, especially in low-income neighborhoods.
- Ignoring the Real Barriers to Health: Perhaps the strongest argument against restrictions is that they do not address the root causes of poor nutrition among low-income families. Many of these families live in “food deserts,” neighborhoods without full-service supermarkets, making it difficult to find fresh, affordable produce. Fresh foods are also more expensive and have a shorter shelf life than processed foods, a major challenge for a family on a tight budget. Furthermore, many low-income parents work long or irregular hours, leaving little time or energy for cooking meals from scratch. Simply banning soda does nothing to solve these much larger, systemic problems.
The Economic Impact Debate: Cost vs. Investment
The most straightforward criticism of SNAP is its cost. With a budget of over $100 billion, it is a significant federal expense. However, economists and program supporters argue that viewing SNAP as only a cost is a mistake. They frame the program as an economic investment that provides benefits far beyond the grocery aisle.
SNAP is designed to be an “automatic stabilizer” for the economy. This means the program automatically and quickly expands when the economy gets worse and contracts when it gets better, without needing a new law from Congress. When a recession hits and people lose their jobs, more people become eligible for SNAP and enroll. This feature serves two key purposes: it provides a critical safety net for families facing hardship, and it pumps money into a weak economy when it is needed most. For every 1-percentage-point increase in the national unemployment rate, SNAP participation typically grows by 2 to 3 million people.
This leads to what economists call the “multiplier effect.” Because SNAP benefits are given to low-income households who are likely to spend them immediately to meet basic needs, the money does not sit in a savings account. It flows directly to local grocery stores and farmers’ markets. Those businesses then use that revenue to pay their employees, buy from their suppliers, and pay their own bills. This creates a ripple effect through the economy. The USDA’s Economic Research Service has estimated that during a weak economy, every $1 in new SNAP benefits generates between $1.50 and $1.80 in total economic activity.
From this perspective, cutting SNAP is not just a budget saving; it is also a form of economic contraction. Proposed cuts could harm local economies, especially in rural areas where SNAP participation rates are often higher than in urban areas. One analysis found that proposed cuts could threaten the financial stability of more than 27,000 retailers nationwide.
This economic context reveals the hidden danger in some proposed reforms, such as requiring states to share in the cost of SNAP benefits. Currently, the federal government pays 100% of the benefits. If states were forced to pay a share, it would fundamentally break the program’s ability to act as an economic stabilizer. During a recession, a state would be faced with a double crisis: its tax revenues would be falling just as the number of people needing SNAP was rising. The state would be forced to find millions of extra dollars to cover its share of the increased benefit costs. Unable to do so, it would likely have to cut benefits or restrict eligibility, taking food assistance and economic stimulus away from its residents at the exact moment they needed it most. The combination of stricter work requirements (which cause more people to lose benefits during a downturn) and state cost-sharing would effectively dismantle SNAP’s role as a first line of defense in an economic crisis.
| Table 3: SNAP’s Economic Footprint: Cost vs. Stimulus |
| The Costs |
| Total Federal Spending: $112.8 billion in fiscal year 2023. |
| Average Monthly Benefit: $211.93 per person in fiscal year 2023. |
| Administrative Costs: States and the federal government share administrative costs, which were about $6 billion in fiscal year 2023. |
| Improper Payments: An estimated $10.5 billion in fiscal year 2023, due to a mix of fraud, recipient error, and agency error. |
Conclusion: The Enduring Debate Over America’s Safety Net
The debate over the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program is more than a simple disagreement over a government budget line. It is a deep and ongoing conversation about America’s fundamental values. The wide range of criticisms—from concerns about cost and dependency to questions about fraud and health—reveals a set of core tensions that lie at the heart of how the nation views poverty and the role of government.
First, there is the tension between viewing SNAP as a cost versus an investment. Critics see a massive federal program with a triple-digit-billion-dollar budget and argue for fiscal restraint. Supporters, however, see an economic engine that stimulates local economies, supports jobs, and reduces other societal costs, such as the billions spent on healthcare to treat illnesses related to malnutrition and food insecurity.
Second, the debate highlights the conflict between a belief in individual responsibility and an acknowledgment of systemic barriers. One side argues that poverty is often a result of personal choices and that the solution is to instill a stronger work ethic through stricter requirements. The other side points to a low-wage labor market, a lack of affordable housing and childcare, and systemic inequities as the primary drivers of poverty, arguing that a robust safety net is necessary to help people overcome barriers that are not of their own making.
Finally, there is the persistent challenge of balancing program integrity with program access. Everyone agrees that fraud and waste should be minimized. However, the methods used to achieve this—such as complex application forms, frequent reporting requirements, and strict work rules—can create so much bureaucracy that they prevent eligible people, particularly the most vulnerable, from getting the help they desperately need. Finding the right balance between preventing abuse and ensuring access is one of the most difficult administrative challenges for any public assistance program.
Ultimately, the conversation about food stamps is a reflection of a larger American dialogue. It forces us to ask difficult questions: What do we owe one another as members of a community? What is the right way to help those who are struggling? And how do we build a society that promotes both opportunity and security? The answers to these questions are not simple, and as long as they remain at the center of our national identity, the debate over SNAP will surely continue.