WASHINGTON — A SNAP cost shift took effect Thursday, requiring states and counties to cover more of the food assistance program’s operating expenses. The change reduces federal support for the offices that process applications, verify eligibility and keep benefits moving.

The standard federal reimbursement fell from 50% to 25% on Oct. 1. As a result, states and participating local governments must cover the remaining 75%, up from half. Congress approved the change in the 2025 tax and spending law that President Donald Trump signed July 4, 2025.

Governments entered the new funding arrangement with different plans for paying the bill. Some legislatures replaced lost federal money, while others left county officials responsible for finding additional funds.

Those decisions reach beyond a line in the federal budget. They determine how governments finance the staff and systems that deliver food assistance, while competing with other state and local spending priorities.

How the SNAP cost shift changes the math

The Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program helps eligible households buy groceries. Running it requires a separate administrative budget for tasks such as reviewing applications, checking income and handling renewals.

Under the new standard formula, every $100 in covered administrative expenses requires $75 from nonfederal sources. Previously, those sources supplied $50.

That represents a 50% increase in the nonfederal contribution for the same amount of administrative spending. A government’s actual bill will also depend on its expenses and how its state divides responsibility with counties.

The administrative funding change does not, by itself, reduce a household’s monthly benefit. Other provisions of the 2025 law change eligibility and program rules, while a separate benefit-financing requirement begins later.

USDA projects $16.9 billion moving to state budgets

The Agriculture Department’s own analysis describes the administrative change as a transfer of financial responsibility.

In its June proposal to update SNAP regulations, USDA estimated that federal administrative spending would fall approximately $16.9 billion over fiscal years 2027 through 2031. State spending would rise by the same amount, averaging about $3.4 billion annually.

The department projected no net change in total spending from the administrative formula alone. Its analysis also assumed a negligible effect on SNAP participation and benefit spending, while inviting comments about possible operational consequences.

The law established the funding change and its effective date. USDA’s proposed regulation would update the rules to reflect that statutory requirement.

Consequently, the savings recorded in Washington’s budget become expenses that other governments must finance. Whether those governments replace the lost support helps determine how much money remains available to operate the program.

Forty states provided at least some additional funding

A Ballotpedia review published Oct. 1 found that 40 states had partially or fully appropriated money for the increased administrative share as of Sept. 30.

However, an appropriation did not necessarily cover the entire increase. The review identified differing approaches, including additional assistance for counties and funding that covered only part of the expected expense.

Ballotpedia also identified four states where action remained pending or it could not find a response explicitly tied to the change. Those states included governments operating under two-year budgets adopted before the federal law passed.

That distinction matters when comparing states. The absence of a separately identified appropriation does not establish that a state stopped processing applications or ended SNAP participation.

South Dakota offers a clear example of replacing federal support. Its fiscal 2027 budget legislation lists $5.5 million in additional general funds for SNAP administration alongside a matching reduction in federal funding authority.

The budget identifies that adjustment as a response to the federal administrative cost shift. For that line item, state dollars replace federal dollars without increasing the total appropriation.

Related coverage: States Ordered to Rein in SNAP Waivers as USDA Warns of Widespread Abuse

New York counties face an estimated $168 million increase

In New York, county governments and New York City administer SNAP locally. Their work includes reviewing applications, verifying income, managing renewals and handling cases.

The New York State Association of Counties estimates that the federal change adds $168 million annually to county and city administrative expenses. The association says the state budget provided no new funding to offset those local costs.

County officials have urged Congress to delay the change for two years. They argue that additional time would help them budget, train workers and update systems as federal requirements change.

The association also warns that covering the increase could put pressure on property taxes and other services. It raises concerns about processing speed and demands on local workers. Those statements describe the risks county leaders anticipate, rather than a statewide finding that the new formula has already delayed benefits.

North Carolina funded improvements, but counties carry more costs

North Carolina faces a similar division between state policy and local administration.

The North Carolina Association of County Commissioners’ budget review identified approximately $52 million in increased county administrative costs for the current state fiscal year. The association said the budget placed most new SNAP costs resulting from the federal law on counties.

Meanwhile, state lawmakers funded several efforts to improve administration. North Carolina Health News reported that the budget included $2.5 million in one-time funding to modernize the state’s benefits eligibility system. It also included about $2.18 million in recurring funding for 25 positions focused on reducing payment errors.

Those investments support technology and oversight. However, they did not provide the replacement funding county officials sought for their added administrative expenses.

“We juggle other things in the budget,” Scotland County Manager April Snead told North Carolina Health News.

The outlet also reported that lawmakers discussed helping smaller rural counties. County representatives acknowledged tighter state revenues, but said they remained disappointed that the final budget did not cover the added local expense.

Another SNAP cost shift is approaching

The administrative change arrives before a separate requirement involving the benefits households receive.

Beginning as early as Oct. 1, 2027, states will have to finance a share of SNAP benefits based on their payment error rates. That contribution can range from zero to 15%. The law allows later implementation for certain states.

The Trump administration has defended the broader overhaul as a way to improve accountability. In a June announcement about payment errors, Agriculture Secretary Brooke Rollins said “state accountability is severely lacking in SNAP.” USDA pointed to the new financial consequences for states with higher error rates.

However, payment errors include both overpayments and underpayments. USDA’s quality-control guidance explicitly distinguishes error rates from fraud rates and says errors are largely unintentional.

For example, an agency can miscalculate expenses, or a household can fail to report an income change. Either mistake can produce an incorrect benefit amount.

As a result, states face two related financial pressures: paying more to operate SNAP now and improving accuracy before benefit-sharing requirements begin. Investments in staff, training and eligibility systems can therefore affect both current administration and future state expenses.

What the change means for households

For recipients, the immediate funding change concerns the government offices managing their cases. It does not establish a new percentage that households must pay toward their own SNAP benefits.

Application and renewal requirements still matter, including responding to requests for information and completing required interviews. Households should review notices from their state or local agency because separate eligibility changes can affect individual cases.

Under USDA’s application guidance, agencies generally determine eligibility within 30 days. Households meeting additional criteria may qualify for expedited benefits within seven days.

Applicants and recipients can also challenge decisions through a fair hearing. USDA says the general deadline is 90 days after the disputed agency decision.