Counties warn of higher taxes and staffing pressure, while supporters say states need stronger incentives to reduce billions of dollars in improper SNAP payments.

Counties in several states are confronting higher costs to administer the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program after a major federal funding change took effect Oct. 1, shifting more of the program’s administrative expenses from Washington to state and local governments.

The change is part of the 2025 federal reconciliation law, Public Law 119-21, commonly known as the One Big Beautiful Bill Act. Previously, the federal government generally paid 50 percent of SNAP administrative expenses. Under the new structure, the federal share falls to 25 percent, leaving states and, in some states, counties responsible for the remaining 75 percent.

The impact varies significantly because most states administer SNAP primarily at the state level, while 10 states rely on counties for substantial portions of program administration. How much of the increased cost ultimately reaches a county depends on each state’s financing rules and whether state lawmakers provide additional assistance.

Local officials in several county-administered states say the change is forcing difficult budget choices.

In Bladen County, North Carolina, officials estimate the county will incur more than $397,000 in additional annual administrative costs. The rural county had already reduced its overall budget by about 14 percent and used approximately $1.1 million in capital reserves to balance its finances, according to reporting by the Bladen Journal.

North Carolina officials have estimated that counties statewide could collectively face about $69 million in additional SNAP administrative costs. Individual counties cannot simply withdraw from SNAP because administration is tied to North Carolina’s participation in the federal program.

Similar concerns are emerging elsewhere.

Washington County, New York, has estimated an additional $574,558 in SNAP administrative expenses and has kept some Department of Social Services positions vacant while dealing with increased costs. The county increased its property-tax levy by nearly 17 percent this year, although SNAP is only one of several state and federal obligations affecting its budget, according to New York Focus.

In Minnesota, Meeker County approved a preliminary 7.84 percent property-tax levy increase for 2027. County documents attribute the increase to a combination of wage costs, state mandates, federal funding reductions and other expenses, including the new SNAP administrative cost share. The increase therefore cannot accurately be attributed to SNAP alone.

That distinction matters because some criticism of the federal law has presented county tax increases as a direct consequence of SNAP changes even when local budget documents identify several contributing factors.

Congress sought to change state incentives

The increased local costs were not an accidental byproduct of the legislation.

Republican supporters of the law deliberately reduced the federal share of SNAP administration and created a future state contribution toward food benefits themselves, arguing that states had too little financial incentive to improve payment accuracy when the federal government absorbed nearly all benefit costs.

House Agriculture Committee Chairman Glenn Thompson, R-Pa., said before passage that requiring states to share in SNAP costs would give them greater incentive to improve administration and reduce improper payments.

After USDA released fiscal 2025 figures this summer, Thompson reiterated that position, saying states needed “skin in the game” because they were spending federal rather than state money, according to a House Agriculture Committee statement.

There is a significant payment-accuracy problem behind that argument.

USDA reported in June that the national SNAP payment error rate for fiscal 2025 was 10.62 percent, representing approximately $10.1 billion in improper payments. The rate declined modestly from the previous year but remained well above the 6 percent threshold established by Congress.

The previous year’s national error rate was 10.93 percent. Individual state rates varied considerably.

But “payment error” does not mean the same thing as fraud.

Federal law defines the SNAP payment error rate as the combination of benefits that were overpaid and benefits that were underpaid. Errors can result from incorrect eligibility determinations, changes in household income, missing documentation or administrative mistakes. Some improper payments can involve fraud, but the payment-error statistic itself is not a fraud rate.

That distinction is sometimes blurred by both sides of the debate. Supporters of tighter controls frequently emphasize waste and improper payments, while opponents emphasize administrative mistakes and eligible recipients who may lose benefits because of paperwork or verification requirements.

Both issues can exist simultaneously.

Bigger financial consequences arrive in 2027

The administrative cost change that took effect Oct. 1 is only the first part of the law’s new state-financing structure.

Beginning with fiscal 2028, which starts Oct. 1, 2027, most states with SNAP payment error rates of 6 percent or higher will have to pay a portion of the actual food benefits distributed in their states.

Under the federal formula, the state contribution rises as its error rate increases. USDA says states above the threshold can become responsible for 5, 10 or 15 percent of benefit costs. Fiscal 2025 and 2026 error rates can be used to establish those obligations.

That creates a potentially much larger financial exposure than the administrative-cost change.

California’s nonpartisan Legislative Analyst’s Office, for example, estimates that a SNAP payment error rate between 6 and 8 percent could eventually expose the state to roughly $650 million annually in benefit costs. A rate of 10 percent or more could produce an estimated $2 billion obligation.

Supporters say that financial exposure is precisely the point: states now have a direct economic reason to improve eligibility determinations and payment accuracy.

County and state officials counter that the same incentive can create pressure to make eligibility verification more restrictive, increase paperwork or reduce enrollment rather than simply improve administrative accuracy.

The Congressional Budget Office expects states to respond differently. Some are expected to maintain current eligibility and benefit structures, while others could modify their SNAP programs or, in more extreme cases, choose not to participate.

SNAP enrollment has dropped, but causation is more complicated

SNAP participation has fallen sharply since the reconciliation law was enacted.

The Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, a Washington organization that opposed the SNAP provisions, calculates from USDA data that nationwide enrollment declined by more than 5 million people, or about 13 percent, between July 2025 and June 2026.

But attributing all five million directly to the law’s expanded work requirements goes beyond what the available data establish.

CBPP itself acknowledges that participation declines began before some major provisions were fully implemented and says factors in addition to the reconciliation law were involved. The organization argues that implementation of the law accelerated the decline, including through state efforts to lower error rates, but the data do not establish that five million people were removed specifically because they failed a work requirement.

CBO’s longer-term estimate is more specific. It projects that changes in the law will reduce SNAP participation by about 2.4 million people in a typical month when the provisions are fully implemented. CBPP estimates that roughly 4 million people could lose all or a substantial portion of their benefits when secondary household effects are included.

The law expanded existing work requirements to additional adults, including people ages 55 through 64 and some parents or caregivers whose youngest child is 14 or older. It also eliminated special exemptions previously provided to veterans, people experiencing homelessness and former foster youth.

Supporters argue that the changes are intended to encourage able-bodied adults to work or participate in qualifying activities rather than remain indefinitely dependent on assistance.

Thompson said during congressional consideration of the law that SNAP had shifted from a temporary support system toward what he viewed as long-term dependency and that strengthened work requirements would reconnect able-bodied adults with employment.

Critics dispute that premise and cite research suggesting SNAP work requirements frequently reduce enrollment without producing corresponding increases in employment.

Federal savings come with state and local costs

The law substantially reduces projected federal SNAP spending.

CBO now estimates that the reconciliation law will reduce federal SNAP outlays by approximately $211 billion from 2026 through 2035 through a combination of lower participation, changes in benefit calculations and increased state responsibility for program costs.

Some of that represents genuine reductions in federal spending. Some represents costs transferred to state governments rather than eliminated altogether.

CBO explicitly expects states to respond to the new SNAP matching requirements by increasing taxes, reducing other spending or modifying their programs.

That makes the dispute partly a question of which level of government should bear responsibility for administering a jointly operated benefit program.

For county governments, particularly small rural counties with limited tax bases, that distinction offers little immediate relief. Their administrators still have to balance budgets, pay eligibility workers and comply with federal and state requirements.

For supporters of the law, however, keeping nearly all financial responsibility in Washington while states make eligibility and payment decisions created weak incentives for accurate administration.

The next two years will provide a clearer test of both arguments.

Counties are already seeing the immediate effects of the reduced federal administrative contribution. Beginning in October 2027, states with persistently high payment error rates will face substantially larger bills for SNAP benefits themselves.

Whether those incentives primarily produce more accurate administration, reduced improper payments and higher workforce participation, or instead result in staffing shortages, reduced enrollment and higher state and local taxes, remains unresolved.