California families who rely on food assistance and other social safety nets may soon find themselves without critical support as the federal government moves forward with sweeping cuts to key programs. A Senate-backed budget reconciliation bill now under consideration in the House would slash $186 billion from the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) over the next ten years, representing the largest funding cut in the history of the program. Known as CalFresh in California, SNAP supports low-income households by providing monthly grocery stipends. These cuts would not only shrink federal benefits but also shift financial responsibility to state governments, a significant departure from how the program has traditionally operated.
Under the current structure, the federal government covers the full cost of SNAP benefits while administrative costs are shared between federal, state, and local agencies. However, the proposed bill introduces work requirements for certain adult recipients and mandates that states contribute between 5 to 25 percent toward benefits. Critics argue this is an unsustainable burden for state budgets already facing deficits, and will inevitably lead to fewer people receiving aid.
In Santa Clara County, the number of CalFresh recipients is at a decade high, with more than 130,000 individuals relying on food stamps as of last July—nearly double the participation seen in 2019. The proposed federal reductions could cause an estimated $70 million loss in support for the county, placing thousands of families at risk of losing their benefits if the state cannot compensate for the shortfall.
Across California, over 5.3 million residents received food assistance in 2024, with an average monthly allotment of $189 per person. That adds up to approximately $12 billion annually in federal support. If the new bill is signed into law, California’s CalFresh budget would be slashed to between $5.4 billion and $2.8 billion, potentially affecting over 735,000 recipients, according to state estimates. The impact would not be limited to food assistance; cuts also affect Medi-Cal and housing vouchers, further straining communities.
Local leaders have voiced deep concern about the potential consequences. County officials warn that imposing additional eligibility requirements while simultaneously shifting costs to state governments could dismantle a lifeline many families depend on. Food, they argue, is a basic human need and should not be caught in the crosshairs of budget politics.
Nonprofit advocates across the state share this concern, warning that the proposed funding model could overwhelm existing support structures. Requiring states to cover a substantial portion of SNAP benefit payments could lead to scaled-back programs or stricter eligibility standards, inevitably leaving many without access to food assistance.
As federal support shrinks, California is trying to bolster its local programs despite facing its own budget challenges. The newly approved state budget includes $36 million for the CalFresh Fruit and Vegetable Program, which offers rebates up to $60 per month for produce purchases at select grocery stores. It’s the largest allocation in the program’s history and represents the state’s effort to support healthy eating for low-income families. However, experts say the funding is minor in comparison to what is being lost at the federal level.
Another $60 million was added to CalFood, a state-run initiative that allows food banks to buy California-grown food for distribution to local communities. These funds help purchase higher-cost items like eggs and proteins, which are often scarce in donated food inventories. Despite this support, food bank leaders caution that they will be unable to bridge the gap created by the federal cuts. One comparison often cited is that for every meal served by a food bank, SNAP provides nine. If federal funding is slashed, food banks will be left to serve significantly more people with limited resources.
As inflation continues to affect the price of groceries and housing, the timing of these cuts is especially concerning. Food banks are already struggling to meet increased demand and may see even longer lines and dwindling inventories if thousands lose access to CalFresh. The reliance on local safety nets and charitable food providers is likely to grow, even as those systems are stretched to their limits.
In addition to financial strain, there is also the administrative burden. If states must process more applications, oversee new work requirements, and manage partial funding obligations, their already overtaxed systems could become overwhelmed. The risk is not just fewer people receiving benefits, but delays and errors that could harm the most vulnerable.
While some argue that states should have more control over their welfare programs, many worry this shift represents a deeper retreat by the federal government from its role in protecting the nation’s most at-risk citizens. The ability of state and local governments to adapt will likely vary widely, exacerbating regional inequalities.
For now, families in places like Santa Clara County wait anxiously as the legislation moves through Congress. The uncertainty has created fear among low-income residents, who depend on consistent food assistance to survive. Advocates continue to call for a reevaluation of the bill’s provisions, urging lawmakers to consider the long-term human cost of stripping down the social safety net.
In the end, whether the federal government continues to shoulder its traditional responsibilities or leaves that burden to the states could redefine the future of social welfare in the United States. For millions of Americans, the stakes are not just political—they are personal and immediate.
