The USDA just released last year’s SNAP payment error rates, and the amount is staggering. These figures, released on June 24, showed an improper payment total of $10.1 billion. This dollar amount represents all the SNAP benefits that were paid out incorrectly during fiscal year 2025, including both overpayments and underpayments.
SNAP is essentially food stamps distributed via EBT cards, its intended purpose to provide nutrition assistance to low-income households.
Overpayment cases covered households, whether eligible or totally ineligible, received more money than program rules allowed, accounting for 9.28% of the recorded rate.
Underpayments, where qualified families received less than they should have, only accounted for 1.33%. The total arises directly from an overall nationwide error rate of 10.62%.
That’s roughly one in every nine to ten dollars distributed through SNAP that did not reach the right recipient in the right amount.
The $10.1 billion loss represents a significant burden on U.S. taxpayers at a time when the program distributes tens of billions annually to millions of people.
In July 2025, President Trump signed H.R. 1, the major 2025 reconciliation law. Among its key provisions, the bill requires states to share a portion of SNAP benefit costs, ranging from 5% to 15%, when their error rates exceed 6%. The bill also allows states to be charged back for errors. The requirement takes effect in fiscal year 2028, with some delays permitted for states with especially high error rates.
The FY 2025 data serves as a key baseline for these penalties, shifting burden from federal taxpayers to states while requiring corrective action plans to address root causes like outdated systems and training gaps.
The day after the results were released, the House Oversight Subcommittee on Delivering on Government Efficiency held a hearing titled “Combating Waste, Fraud, and Abuse in SNAP.” Witnesses, including USDA Inspector General John Walk, discussed administrative weaknesses identified by the GAO, fraud vulnerabilities, eligibility errors, and oversight reforms. The timing reinforced the Trump administration’s emphasis on accountability, as noted in the USDA press release by Secretary Brooke L. Rollins.
A particularly heated discussion occurred when Rep. Brandon Gill (R-TX) questioned minority witness Gina Plata-Niño, Director of SNAP Policy and Advocacy at the Food Research & Action Center. Gill pressed her on whether SNAP should fund sugary sodas like Coca-Cola, asking pointedly if Americans “need Coca-Cola to survive” and what nutritional value such products provide.
He criticized taxpayer funding for items contributing to obesity and diet-related diseases, calling out ideological resistance to prioritizing health over unrestricted purchases. Plata-Niño defended the program’s focus on access and hunger relief, avoiding direct condemnation of sugary drinks.
The discussion reflects a legitimate ongoing debate about eligible purchases under the SNAP program and efforts to improve nutritional outcomes while maintaining broad access to food assistance. Many agree that if the government funds the program, it has a responsibility to do so in a manner that supports better health outcomes rather than enabling poor nutritional choices.
Beyond the hearing room, the new error rate data is already prompting urgent reviews in state capitals across the country.
The error rate release triggered widespread state-level analysis and media coverage focused on potential cost shifts under H.R. 1. States like Alaska (23.15%), New Mexico (16.81%), and the District of Columbia (18.66%) face higher scrutiny, while performers such as South Dakota (2.47%) and Idaho (3.85%) avoid penalties.
Many states are evaluating budget pressures, adjusting operations, or calling for delayed implementation to allow adaptation through training, technology, and quality control.
House Agriculture Committee Chairman Glenn Thompson (R-PA) issued a statement on June 24 linking the high SNAP error rates to the importance of the 2025 nutrition reforms in H.R. 1.
“The most recent SNAP payment error rates demonstrate the importance of last summer’s historic nutrition reforms in the Working Families Tax Cuts Act. When administering SNAP benefits, states must move toward doing so in a way that is respectful to the American taxpayer. It is human nature to be more careful with your own money than with other people’s, and it is clear that states require skin in the game to become responsible stewards of SNAP benefits. There is still work to be done, but the structural improvements made in the Working Families Tax Cuts Act remain the correct path forward for this program.”
Senate Agriculture Committee Chairman John Boozman (R-AR) stressed the need for improvements.
State and local organizations such as the American Public Human Services Association (APHSA) responded on June 25, noting that FY 2025 results largely predate full H.R. 1 implementation and urging a delay in cost-sharing until FY 2030. Other groups, including governors’ associations, echoed calls for time while committing to integrity efforts.
The $10.1 billion loss is clear evidence of government waste and a lack of sufficient oversight or checking systems.
“The Central Question remains: The Government already knows how to reduce SNAP fraud and improper payments. The question is whether Congress and the Executive Branch will require the fixes, fund them, measure them, and enforce them.”
— Dawn Royal, Director, United Council on Welfare Fraud, in written testimony to the House Oversight Subcommittee on Delivering on Government Efficiency (June 25, 2026).
The Trump administration has pursued aggressive reforms to reduce SNAP errors, including stronger verification processes, administrative changes, and a nutrition-first approach that prevents taxpayer dollars from subsidizing unhealthy items such as sugary sodas.
USDA officials, state agencies, fiscal watchdogs, and anti-hunger advocates continue to debate the broader implications. The administration maintains that these historic steps are reducing improper payments while better targeting aid to eligible families, putting both fiscal responsibility and nutritional integrity at the forefront of the program.
