New federal law harms families who rely on CalFresh to put food on the table

Every day more than 5 million Californians rely on the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP), known here as CalFresh, to keep food on the table. It is our state’s largest anti-hunger program. 

Yet at the moment when food prices are rising and poverty is deepening, SNAP is facing renewed political threats that could push even more families into hunger. 

The Trump administration and its policy allies have outlined plans to significantly restrict SNAP access. They seek to revive earlier efforts to tighten work requirements for recipients, narrow eligibility and impose new administrative hurdles. 

These proposals would not simply “cut fraud,” as they are often framed. They would take food assistance away from Californians who are barely getting by. In a state where the cost of living is among the highest in the nation, the consequences would be especially severe, reversing a trend from a few years ago. 

During the pandemic, when emergency SNAP allotments were increased, food insecurity fell among the millions of low-income adults who accessed the program, national and state data show.

Nearly 3 million Californians received emergency allotments during the pandemic, but when those allotments ended, food banks across the state reported rising demand for assistance. 

That was with a federal expansion ending. Federal cuts, especially those deliberately targeting CalFresh eligibility, would be far more damaging. 

President Trump signed House Resolution One on July 4. The One Big Beautiful Bill Act alters the general work requirements to qualify for SNAP and the rules for “able-bodied adults without dependents” who receive it.

Strict work requirements will disproportionately harm people who already are working unstable, low-wage jobs. These often are retail workers with unpredictable schedules, caregivers juggling multiple responsibilities or workers whose hours fluctuate. 

Paperwork burdens and aid cuts

Research shows that such mandates do not increase employment. Instead, they create additional paperwork burdens and often result in eligible families being cut off from critical food benefits. 

Other changes hitting CalFresh recipients include Standard Utility Allowance adjustments. The allowances enable recipients to factor in standard utility costs when applying for aid.

Effective November 1, only households that include a member over the age of 60 or someone with a disability can claim such deductions for electricity, gas or water bills. That will mean a lower monthly food budget for already struggling families not meeting that criteria. 

Even modest reductions matter when grocery costs are rising.

Though CalFresh recipients are getting a small cost-of-living adjustment that will slightly raise payments, the increase is modest compared to the potential harm of expanding work requirements and reducing utility assistance.

California’s focus must remain on ensuring that these policies do not worsen hunger, especially for communities already facing systemic barriers. The state has a chance to preserve its own asset-friendly rules, maintain waivers for able-bodied adults where appropriate and advocate for policies that strengthen, rather than weaken, access to food. 

CalFresh is not a handout. It is a critical public health and equity tool. 

When families lose it, that harms children, seniors and working family members, pushing them into food insecurity and stress which, in turn, affects health, education and economic stability.  

As policymakers debate SNAP’s future, one principle should guide them: public benefits exist to protect people in crisis, not to create new obstacles. California can show the nation that smart, equitable food policy supports families, reduces hardship and builds a healthier, more resilient state.