With a goal of cutting spending and promoting “self-sufficiency,” Sen. Mike Lee, R-Utah, wants to overhaul the nation’s largest federal food assistance program by requiring states to pay a bigger share, starting with 5% more a year until states take on 50% of the costs.

That would shift billions of dollars in food stamps costs to states and likely lead to slashed benefits. And if a recession hits — a time when state revenues usually fall and the need for food stamps increases — hundreds of thousands of Americans would fall into poverty who otherwise wouldn’t be if states don’t increase their spending.

Lee’s home state of Utah could also be among the hardest hit states when it comes to loss of benefits per household.

That’s according to two analyses that unpack the impacts of Lee’s proposal, which he introduced in March as the SNAP Reform and Upward Mobility Act. The legislation comes as Republicans in Congress consider expanding work requirements and other eligibility restrictions on programs including the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) and Medicaid.

A news release on Lee’s website described his proposal as “a bold piece of legislation aimed at strengthening work requirements” for SNAP and “closing loopholes that have contributed to its rapid expansion.” According to a two-page summary of the bill issued by Lee’s office, “the program has ballooned from 17.1 million food stamp recipients in 2000 to 41.1 million in 2022,” with a cost that’s risen from $17 billion to $119 billion in that same time period.

“SNAP was designed to provide temporary relief to vulnerable people facing difficult times, not a permanent subsidy for able-bodied adults,” Lee said in a prepared statement in that release. “Work requirements are widely supported by the American public, save taxpayer dollars, and will strengthen the program for families who really need it. Our legislation tackles fraud and abuse while promoting self-sufficiency, which should be the goal of all such programs.”

The bill has also been introduced in the U.S. House by Rep. Josh Brecheen, R-Oklahoma, who accused federal government officials of “grossly” mismanaging SNAP by “loosening eligibility requirements, allowing more recipients to be totally exempt from work requirements, and overseeing massive fraud and abuse.”

“This has created a culture of dependency instead of opportunity,” Brecheen said.

But mandating that states cover even just a portion of SNAP benefits would shift “huge costs” to states, according to an analysis by the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, an organization that was founded to analyze fiscal policies that impact low- and moderate-income Americans.

“Requiring states to pay even a modest portion of SNAP benefits would radically change the program’s funding structure, abandoning the long-standing national commitment to provide low-income households a SNAP benefit sufficient to afford a basic healthy diet, and undermining SNAP’s important role as an economic stimulus during recessions,” the analysis said. “This unfunded mandate would hit state budgets hard at a time when state finances are already highly strained. States could pass along some of the cost to counties and cities, either directly or indirectly.”

In Utah, $383 million in total SNAP benefits were issued in 2024, according to the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities. In 2026, if the state were to be required to pay 5% of the costs, it would cost the state about $19 million. At 10%, Utah’s share would be roughly $38 million; 25% would be $95 million. At 50%, Utah would need to pay an estimated $190 million.

Between fiscal year 2026 and 2034, Utah could be looking at upwards of $907 million in costs — that is, if the state took on only 25% of the cost, according to the analysis. That number would be much bigger if states were required to take on 50% in that same time frame.

Another analysis by the Urban Institute, a nonprofit founded by former Democratic President Lyndon Johnson that focuses on social and economic policy research, contemplates how a SNAP state cost share policy, like the one Lee is proposing, would play out in a recession scenario.

In the first year of a recession — if states were required to take on just 10% of the costs — the Urban Institute estimates states would need to spend an additional $980 million to cover increased benefit costs.

However, if states don’t increase their spending during the recession and opt instead to cut benefits to control costs, “all SNAP participants — not just those who lost jobs — would face an average annual benefit reduction of $327 per household, and 862,000 people would fall into poverty who would otherwise be out of poverty if SNAP were fully funded,” according to the Urban Institute report.

It also estimated Utah (if it was required to pay for 10% of the costs but also opted to prevent SNAP costs from rising in a recession by implementing across-the-board benefit cuts) would see one of the biggest losses in average annual benefits per household relative to what would be received during a recession under current rules.

Utah would lose about $731 in average annual benefits per household under that scenario, the Urban Institute estimated. That’s compared to a national average of $327 per household lost annually, with annual benefit reductions ranging from $174 in Massachusetts to the highest loss of $776 in Wyoming.

That’s only contemplating a 10% requirement on states. If Lee’s proposal is implemented, that share would eventually be 50%.

Lee’s office did not immediately respond to a request for comment on the impact analysis on Monday.

Bill Tibbitts, deputy executive director of the Urban Crossroads Center, a low-income advocacy group that provides food pantry services, criticized Lee’s proposal as “out of touch” during a time when families are already struggling to afford rent, utilities, transportation and food.

“Cutting federal funding in half for a program that helps thousands of Utah families to buy food shows how out of touch some people in D.C. can become,” Tibbitts said. “Do they not know how much inflation is already hurting Utah families? It makes you wonder when Mike Lee last visited a grocery store.”

Utah News Dispatch is part of States Newsroom, the nation’s largest state-focused nonprofit news organization.