The Daily - Arizona’s Food Stamp Crisis Is Coming for the Rest of the U.S.

Episode Date: August 5, 2026

The United States is undergoing one of the biggest changes to its social safety net in recent history, with huge numbers of people getting dropped from the government’s food assistance program. Nowhere has this been more dramatic than in Arizona. Jason DeParle, who covers poverty for The New York Times, explains why so many people are suddenly losing access to this key benefit, and what implications it could have for the rest of the country. Guest: Jason DeParle, who writes about poverty in the United States for The New York Times. Background reading:  Faced with piles of new paperwork, people are losing food stamps. Video: What Arizona reveals about the future of food stamps. Photo: Adriana Zehbrauskas for The New York Times For more information on today’s episode, visit nytimes.com/thedaily. Transcripts of each episode will be made available by the next workday.  Subscribe today at nytimes.com/podcasts or on Apple Podcasts and Spotify. You can also subscribe via your favorite podcast app here https://www.nytimes.com/activate-access/audio?source=podcatcher. For more podcasts and narrated articles, download The New York Times app at nytimes.com/app. Hosted by Simplecast, an AdsWizz company. See pcm.adswizz.com for information about our collection and use of personal data for advertising.

Hi there. Hi, my name's Anna. I'm with the New York Times. We're talking to people about SNAP and what it's like in Arizona right now. Can I ask you a couple questions in the shade? Okay, it's hot out today. I'm Jason DeParl. I'm a reporter for the New York Times. I cover poverty issues and I'm here with my colleagues, Olivia Natt and Anna Foley. We're outside a food stamp or SNAP office in Phoenix, Arizona. I just took a look inside the office. There are people. sitting on the floors, there are people in wheelchairs, there are people on crutches, there are people wearing worn out looks of long waits that aren't yet over. How many times do you think you've been to this office?

Oh my goodness. And this month? And this year? This is going to be like my fifth time. Your fifth time trying to get snap. Come into these places, this is just like work itself. From the New York,

In New York Times, I'm Natalie Ketrow-F. This is the Daily. The United States is undergoing one of the biggest changes to its social safety net in recent history, with huge numbers of people dropping out of the government's food assistance program. Nowhere has it been more dramatic than in Arizona. For some reason or another, my food stamps application keeps getting lost, quote-unquote, lost. I don't have any income. I don't know, no food.

I'm homeless in a couple months. How many meals are you eating a day right now? One. Today, my colleague, Jason DeParl, explains why so many people there are suddenly losing access to this key benefit. And the implications all this could have for the rest of the country. It's Wednesday, August 5th. Jason, we want to talk to you today about these drastic changes that have been made to the food stamp program known as SNAP.

When Trump's big, beautiful bill passed about a year ago, we understood that Republicans were planning to pay for it by making cuts to the government's welfare programs. You have been following that story all the way to Arizona. So just walk me through why you went there. Arizona is the place in the country that's had the largest reduction in food stamps. since the passage of the big, beautiful bill, the rolls there have fallen in half. 450,000 people have lost nutrition aid there. That's just a huge number.

Yes, and includes more than 100,000 children as well. And why is that? Why has the drop-off been so steep? The law imposed dramatic changes in the SNAP program, but mostly deferred those changes until after the mid-term elections. Arizona was the state that moved most aggressively to make changes. And Jason, just remind us what those changes actually were and the argument that Republicans made for why they needed to implement them.

Republicans saw SNAP as a bloated program. It had more than doubled in size since 2000. About one in eight Americans get SNAP. And its annual costs had exceeded $100 billion. They thought it needed reining in. They thought it served as a work disincentive. They thought that offering people nutrition aid, persuaded some not to work or not to work as much as they could. They were concerned that some people committed fraud to get on it. But those were all longstanding concerns. What really drove the changes last year in Congress was the need for money to finance President Trump's tax cuts, which I think it's worth remembering largely went to the wealthy. The reason they did what they did when they did it was because they wanted money for President Trump's tax cuts. And how do they go about shrinking the program? What do they actually do?

The thing that's gotten the most attention, and it's probably the easiest to understand, is that they expanded work requirements. More people have to work in order to qualify for benefits. It used to be the people 55 and older were exempt, and now they've expanded that up to age 65. So you've got people in their late 50s and early 60s who, for the first time, face work requirements in order to get SNAP benefits. Got it. But that's not really the main factor in what's driving the caseload declines in Arizona. The thing that's really driving this is a change in how SNAP is funded.

Historically, the federal government had paid all the benefits. States paid part of the administrative costs of running a SNAP program, but all the food stamp money came from the federal government. But now this new law says that if a state makes too many mistakes, then we're mostly talking small administrative errors. They'll have to pay up to 15% of the benefits. And in some states, that could cost more than the billion dollars a year. Basically, what the federal government is doing, if I understand this correctly, is telling the states that if they mess up their payments, they're going to end up shouldering part of the cost of this program.

And it could be a lot of money. Yes. They're basically saying, if you can't keep what's known as your error rate down, you'll lose access to a bunch of federal money. So much money that some states may not be able to keep. keep running the program at all. I think that's worth stopping to consider for a moment. I mean, can you imagine a state without a food stamp program? So in order to avoid a $300 million penalty and potentially losing the program altogether, Arizona officials made dramatic changes to the program and the rolls instantly began falling. They fell much farther and much faster than Arizona officials

imagined. And what we found in our reporting, was that these are people who, by and large, remain eligible for aid, but simply can't get it because they're stuck in webs of red tape. Hey, I saw you on the phone earlier. My name's Olivia. I'm here with The New York Times. I'm talking to people about whether or not they're receiving their SNAP benefits. Oh, girl.

No. I did everything. Still no help. One of the people caught in that red tape is a woman, my colleague, Olivia Nat, and I met, outside a food stamp office in Phoenix. Her name is Alejandra Cassias. I've been applying since December, right? I did that.

In January, they had me waiting until February. I can't be calling them all the time because I have a job and kids to take care of. But, yeah, I called them at least five times in the morning. She's 28 years old. She's a mother of two, and she's working. But she doesn't make enough to feed her family. Hmm.

She gave us a version of a story we had heard in other places. of notices that were impossible to comply with. Mailing date, you see that, March 30, 20, 26. And it says right here that I have to do the interview by February, 28, 2026. So a month after they said, this is the deadline. Yeah. That's when you got the piece of paper. I'm like, what am I supposed to do?

Do I look like I can create a time machine and go back in time? Why was it so hard for her to get her benefits, Jason? Did she explain that? Once you apply for SNAP benefits, you have to have an interview with a special caseworker and it has to happen within two weeks of the application. But you call in those two weeks and nobody answers. Nobody answers.

And tomorrow is the last day that I had to complete my interview and then they close the cases too. She couldn't get through on the phone to have the interview. So she left her home, came in to the SNAP office on her day off, and they told her you can't do the interview here. You have to call. I can even call it right now, too, and they'll drop it. Can we try? Yeah.

Welcome to the Department of Economic Security, Family Assistance Administration. To continue in English, press one. We listened to her, make the call. Our record show you need to complete an interview. Due to extremely high call volumes, we are not able to accept your call. We apologize for the inconvenience. That's how it is all the time that we call. That call, like others, went nowhere.

They told her she'd just have to wait for a call back. So now here she is, in limbo, unable to get access to food stamps. But what really struck me about her was just how angry and defeated she seemed. She told us she'd been going to food banks, that she'd stopped breastfeeding her child because she feared she lacked nutrients. Oh, no. I've been thinking about going into a grocery store, just put a whole bunch of food and run out.

And then she said something like really remarkable. She said she'd been having fantasies about stealing food. Hmm. Like, I will sign up for Insta car as a driver and keep the groceries for my kids. I'm at that point. You know, she wasn't apologetic. She wasn't defiant.

She wasn't justifying it. She was just saying... Then I do think it through. I'm like, they're pushing me to that point, but my kids need me. So I can't be breaking no loss. So I'm like stuck, you know? Here it is. This is the way I'm living right now.

She was really desperate, obviously. Yes. And part of what was remarkable about Alan. is that there was nothing remarkable about it. We heard echoes of that with almost everybody we talked to. I mean, if one or two people tells you a story like that, you can always think, well, maybe it's an extraordinary circumstance, but it was the norm, not the exception in Arizona. I have to say, Jason, hearing that and hearing how common it sounds like Alejandro's experience is, it sounds like the system completely broke down in a sense. How did that happen? It did. It completely broke down. It was a perfect storm, but a lot of it can be traced back to the decision Arizona made to change the paperwork requirements. It used to be that applicants could just walk in the office and tell a caseworker how many people lived in the household and who they were. Now applicants had to go to neighbors or friends and get a written declaration of who lived in the household.

And if the neighbor or friend failed to sign the letter or failed to put their phone number on the letter, you'd have to have to. start all over again. It used to be if you had panhandling income, you gave the office your best guest of how much you made. Now they asked applicants with panhandling income to go back and get written documentation of the money people had dropped in the jars. What? They knew that there was no way that people could go get that. They said that to us. When we talked to them, they rolled their and said, yes, this is absurd, but this is what we have to do. And in the end, if they can't get the written documentation, we'll take their word for it. But we have to make them go out and try. And of course, if you make people go out and try, a lot of them just don't come back. And

another thing that made things worse is that Arizona just happened to make deep cuts in caseworkers at the same time the federal government was passing this bill. So it lost a third of its caseworkers at the very time it was asking people to submit more paperwork. Meaning there were way fewer people working in these offices processing these claims. The staff was just reduced. More paperwork, fewer people to look at it, yes. Right. And so it's that combination of factors in Arizona that then leads to half a million people suddenly losing their benefits.

Yes, and boy, it did affect them in profound ways. People were skipping meals. People were having household quarrels over food. They were selling blood plasma to get money to buy food. They were falling behind on the rent. And remember, these are people who, by and large, remain eligible for SNAP. That was definitely the case with a woman we met named D. McDonald. We'll be right back.

Sorry. Good morning. Good morning. I just got out of the shower. He's a 65-year-old grandmother in Mesa, Arizona. Can't be more than five feet tall she was wearing a knit barretel. And that was Tobias. He's going to work.

Hi, Tobias. Everybody come in. Oh, thank you. That was your grandson? One of them. I can't swear that she hugged me when I walked in, but it felt like she did. I think she did. Well, make yourself at home.

I made this for you guys. Oh, my gosh. What a spread. What did you make? Tell us what it is. They're just biscuits. And... No, that's more than biscuits.

We were there to talk to her about food stamps and food insecure. and she'd spent the previous day baking biscuits and assembling a fruit platter for us. These are choro donuts. I never had a choro donut. They were fantastic. I found them in a very good price. And then I quickly fried them and dunked them in cinnamon sugar.

Wow. So, yeah. And then all of this fruit I found for a dollar each yesterday. I was like, I can't pass it up. So anyway. The last thing I wanted to do was to impose on her like that. that. But that's an expression of who she is. She's a very warm, welcoming grandmotherly woman. And what's Dee's story? Would she tell you about her experience with Snap? So we sat around her

table and she told us about her life. It'd been a pretty exciting life at one point. I was a roadie locally. I was unloading trucks, pulling cables, hanging lights, doing all kind of stuff like that. And I started, my first job was boys to men for a wardrobe. That's how long ago. She was a kind of roadie. She was a wardrobe technician for traveling rock bands. The quick changes you see, that's what we do. I told Jimmy Buffett, Britney Spears, was asked to tour with Marilyn Manson, asked the tour with Slipknot. She went on tour with Britney Spears and Jimmy Buffett. Awesome. The dream of a lifetime. And I was really doing well. I worked really hard to get where I got to.

But when she was in her early 40s, her son fell into some trouble. And that's when I knew my career was over. And she wound up taking care of five grandsons. But I had to make a choice. I didn't want them going to the state. They needed family. For a while after taking in the grandkids, she worked. She had a job at a racetrack, among other things.

but eventually she needed to spend full-time taking care of the grandkids and she turned to SNAP for help. I felt like it was a way to help us, but I never thought I would be on it forever. I don't think you'd say forever for this long. About 15 years ago, she started receiving SNAP and has been on it since. Without SNAP, we would have starved.

We would have starved. Or maybe we wouldn't have starved. We would have not had the proper nutrition for sure. She was receiving about $700 a month in SNAPAid. That's about a third of her income. The rest mostly comes from Social Security. I can make it happen on $700 a month, even with them. I was buying four gallons of milk every other day.

Four gallons of milk. I mean, it's stretching, but I learned. If somebody, if I say I'm going big grocery shopping, and don't expect to see me for four to six hours. That's what I'm doing. I'm going to the discount store first, and then I'm going to the bread store, then I'm going to go to the fruit and veggie store.

I'm going to see where the sales are, and I'm going to go there, and that's what I'm going to do. And then last fall, all of a sudden, the benefits stopped. And why? Why do they stop? What happened? Last fall, these benefits were up for renewal. Once a year, people on SNAP have to go through this. Well, I got a notice that I had to renew, which was nothing new. And it was October of 25.

Well, what was going on in October 25? I remember shut down. It had always been matter of fact for her. You submit your income. Her income hadn't changed. You submit your address. Her address hadn't changed. And I thought, great, I've got to renew in the middle of all of this.

So I did. I did my application like I was supposed to do and got it turned in. She filed her paperwork in October in the middle of the government shutdown. The food stamp program was in disarray nationwide. She didn't get an answer, and she wasn't particularly worried at that time. Everything seemed good. And I thought, okay, it's going to come in. And it didn't come in.

And then the next month, she didn't get an answer again. What happened when you missed your second payment? How did you feel? Angry, frustrated, and scared. You know, like, how am I going to find? We've got rice and beans. We've got other things. But there's going to come a point where we don't have butter.

We don't have milk. We're out of cheese. The next month she goes down to the office itself. And the lady told me, well, you're one of many. There are people that are still waiting from September. And I said, what's going on? What's happening? And she said, well, we had 1,200 workers, and they were cut to under nine.

And so they were backed up. And she said, hang in there. They're coming. Thanksgiving comes and goes. Christmas comes and goes. At the start of the new year. My benefits didn't come in January. And I was like, something's just not okay here.

I started calling. Calling, calling, calling. And I couldn't get through. She makes 100 calls in a single month. Still can't get through. And then about mid-February, I finally reached a real person. The guy says to me, they closed your case.

When she finally does in February, they tell her her case has been closed. I said, what? I haven't gotten a letter. I haven't gotten anything on messaging, you know, on the laptop. I haven't gotten anything in the mail. I haven't gotten anything. Why did they close my case? Why? Why is her case closed? The caseworker tells her that she submitted the wrong form. That's not right. That's not possible. And I said, hold on. Let me pull my stuff and look. And he said, well, that's what I'm seeing. He was very nice.

He wasn't rude. I wasn't rude to him. And I pulled my stuff and I said, oh my gosh, I did pull the wrong date. D gets a little bit of income from the child welfare system. She submitted an income form from 2024 when she should have submitted an income form from 2025. She'd never done that before, but this time she made a mistake. I put the wrong date. And I said, okay, I can pull it right now, the right date.

And I can get it downloaded into the computer. get it and get it done. And he said, well, they closed your case, so I can't rework it. And I said, don't we, aren't we supposed to have like 30 days to fix things, to make things right if there's something wrong? And he said, yes, before we were, that's how it worked. He said, let me talk to you, my supervisor. And he came back and he wouldn't let him open.

He said his supervisor would not let him reopen my case to correct that document. And with the new changes to snap, that mistake was enough to disenroll her from the program. It's worth saying that denying eligible people doesn't actually count as a mistake under the new system. I was very, very angry. I was very angry. I didn't come out of my room for a little bit. I was like, why are they doing this to people? Why are they hurting people? You know, I'll survive.

You take food out of my mouth. I'll figure it out. but I've got children I'm raising. Children that need to be growing healthy. She realizes she has two choices. She can appeal and try to get that decision overturned. If she does that, she might be able to get all the back benefits from the months of age she's owed. Or she can start all over again and file a new application,

in which case she wouldn't get the back benefits. The very nice caseworker she reached on the phone and tried very hard to be helpful, told her that she should appeal. So she did. And how did that go? How many times do you think you've called the appeals office? At least once a day. Have you ever reached a person?

No. She never heard anything back. It's been five months. She's still waiting. Do I think members of Congress in writing the new laws intended to take snap away from 65-year-old grandmothers because of a casual mistake? No.

But the critics said at the time that this kind of bureaucratic gridlock was a foreseeable element of the new rules that they put in place. And in fact, many people warned that these new administrative rules would throw the program into disarray. Jason, it sounds like this is how the federal changes to SNAP actually can end up forcing people off the program because now states are so incentivized to reduce their errors. that they do so, perhaps at the cost of actually providing this benefit. Exactly. If the state had sent D her payment with that incorrect form in its files, it would have counted as an error. So you can see it becomes much more risky for the state to provide benefits than to simply close the case altogether. So the net effect of all this is that it's become much more difficult for eligible families like D's to get access to the program, even though they're entitled to it. And for the Republicans who advocated for these changes, does a story like D's give them pause, or do they see the system working as they intended?

Are they actually encouraged maybe by the notion that the state is taking this seriously and trying to take more accountability for how it spends taxpayer money? I don't think anybody's in favor of administrative errors. It's important to keep error rates down in order to. to make the best use of public resources, to save money, to keep public support for the program. The question is at what cost? For the most part, I think Republicans have celebrated the caseload declines without looking too closely at what's behind them. The top Republican in the Arizona State Senate said there's massive caseload decline because

there was massive fraud. Nationally, the rolls are down about four and a half million people or maybe 10% of the people getting snap of lift the rolls. The White House has celebrated this as proof that President Trump's program is working. So has the Secretary of Agriculture, Brooke Rollins. Between them, they've argued that the roles are falling because they're rooting out fraud or barring undocumented immigrants from accessing the program. Certainly in a program as large as SNAP, there's always going to be individual fraud.

But I haven't seen anything that would suggest wide-scale systemic fraud that could explain this kind of caseload decline. Certainly that's not what we saw in Arizona. And I don't think there's evidence of it in other states either. You said that Arizona has been the first to see this kind of impact because it moved so fast to make these changes to comply with the big, beautiful bill. Are we expecting to see this dramatic of an effect in other states? I think most people would guess that Arizona is an extreme example, but we don't really know. nationwide, the rules haven't taken place yet.

If you recall, Congress delayed the changes they made until after the midterm elections. So for the most part, we haven't seen the impact of these changes yet. But there are reasons to suspect that other states may respond in similar ways to Arizona. Starting in November,

the federal government is going to cut in half the amount of administrative money it gives states to run the program. That could cause states to lay off caseworkers just as Arizona did. Some other states have already had case load declines of 15 to 20%. Some states have very low error rates and don't need to change much. Some states have extremely high error rates and have to make radical changes to avoid big federal penalties.

We don't know enough about how they'll respond, how good their computer systems are, or how many caseworkers they have to predict with much confidence how these changes will affect the caseload. nationwide. But if you look at Arizona, there's reason to be concerned. Jason, you've been covering poverty for four decades. What are you thinking about this moment, about how significant it is? I'm thinking about what an important program, Snap is. Snap is the closest thing the United States has to a universal income. It serves such a wide variety of people. It serves the working poor. It serves children. It serves the elderly. It serves the elderly. It serves veterans. And it provides a basic commodity, food. It was clear from the moment the law passed that this was landmark legislation. But I don't think anybody expected the degree of

caseload decline that we've seen in Arizona. You know, I've thought about a smaller SNAP program. I've imagined a SNAP program with more work requirements. I've imagined a SNAP program with lower benefits. I don't think I've ever imagined a landscape in which a SNAP program simply didn't exist. And it's just mind-boggling to think that these penalties, these costs could be so steep some states might choose to end the program altogether. That's a real possibility. Well, Jason, thanks for being here. Thank you, Natalie. What's life been like since your case was closed? It's draining. Because I get up in the morning and I think, what are we going to have for dinner? What do they have to eat? What do they have to snack on? Do they have breakfast foods? Do they have enough

carrots tea, do they have enough baby tomatoes tea? Do we have enough to make a salad for dinner tonight? When you take a drop of $700 in your budget that you're used to that being the food, you then have to figure out where that food's going to come from. I'm sure there's people that are taking advantage of it. I'm sure there are. But I think it's inhumane to take food from people. What are we doing here? We'll be right back. Here's what else you need to know today. The progressive Democrat, Abdul El-Sayed, narrowly won the party's primary for U.S. Senate in Michigan, defeating his moderate opponent Haley Stevens in a closely watched race that remained too close to call until Wednesday morning. His win marked a milestone for the progressive wing of the Democratic Party in a swing state

because it showed that the movement's appeal has reached beyond traditionally liberal states like New York. El-Syed, who campaigned on universal health care and cutting off military aid to Israel, was massively outspent in the race by Stevens, who received $60 million in outside money. And... We are in talks with the Iranians, and I think there is a chance we may have a deal today or tomorrow to open the strait and move towards a more normalized position in this conflict.

On Tuesday, Treasury Secretary Scott Besson and Secretary of State Marco Rubio told reporters that negotiations to reopen the Strait of Hormuz are making progress. Under the framework being considered, ships entering the Persian Gulf would have to travel through a channel controlled by Iran, while outbound ships would travel through a channel near Oman. Today's episode was produced by Olivia Nat, Anna Foley, and Carlos Prieto, with help from Ricky Nevsky. It was edited by Mark George with help from Patricia Willens, and contains music by Pat McCusker, Alicia Baito, Dan Powell, and Marion Lazzano. Our theme music is by Wonderly. This episode was engineered by Alyssa Moxley. That's it for the Daily. I'm Natalie Ketrow.

See you tomorrow.