The passage of H.R. 1, known as the One Big Beautiful Bill, marks one of the most sweeping changes to the U.S. social safety net in decades. Among the bill’s many provisions, cuts to the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) stand out as particularly consequential. With an estimated $186 billion in reductions over the next ten years, expanded work-reporting requirements for adults aged 18 to 64, the elimination of SNAP-Ed nutrition education, and new rules that restrict future benefit increases even as food costs rise, the bill reshapes the program precisely at a moment when food insecurity remains a widespread challenge. The U.S. Department of Agriculture reports that 13.5 percent of households experienced food insecurity in 2023, a figure that has remained stubbornly high due to persistent inflation, rising housing costs, and wage stagnation. College students, many of whom are already on the brink, may be among the hardest hit by these changes.
According to recent higher education surveys, nearly 60 percent of students across the country report experiencing at least one form of basic needs insecurity, defined as a lack of access to necessities such as food, housing, and healthcare. But this is just one aspect of a larger problem. Colleges and universities sit at the intersection of these pressures as students juggle academics, employment, tuition, transportation, and, often, caregiving responsibilities.
Despite the high need, few students get help. One study found that only 17 percent of food-insecure CUNY students receive government assistance. Barriers include not only work hours that conflict with class schedules but insufficient knowledge of eligibility rules and the stigma elated with using public benefits.
College students encounter a unique set of structural barriers that limit their ability to access SNAP, even when they are food-insecure and would otherwise qualify based on income. Federal SNAP rules apply an additional layer of student-specific eligibility criteria that are often complex, poorly understood, and inconsistently communicated. For most students, eligibility hinges on meeting exemptions related to work hours, enrollment status, or participation in narrowly defined educational or employment-focused programs.
These requirements create a system in which students must not only demonstrate financial need but also prove that they fit into one of several complicated categories—such as working at least 20 hours per week, caring for dependents, participating in federal or state work-study, or being enrolled in qualifying career and technical education programs. For full-time students balancing academic demands, rigid work-hour thresholds can be difficult or impossible to meet. Part-time students, meanwhile, may still fall into eligibility gaps if their course load does not align with federal definitions or if their institution does not classify their program in a way that satisfies SNAP criteria.
Many students who should qualify never apply because the rules are confusing, vary across states, or are communicated inconsistently by colleges and public agencies. Others begin the application process but drop off because verifying student status and exemption categories requires additional documentation that non-student applicants are not required to provide. These structural hurdles significantly depress participation rates, leaving many food-insecure students without access to a benefit designed to alleviate precisely this type of hardship.
This vulnerability is clear within the City University of New York (CUNY) system. CUNY, the nation’s largest urban public university, serves a student body that comes predominantly from low-income and working-class families. In the 2022 CUNY Student Experience Survey, 40 percent of students, about 110,000 individuals, reported low or very low food security.
The changes introduced by the One Big Beautiful Bill could increase these challenges. Expanded work requirements will likely disqualify many full-time students who already hold part-time jobs, internships, or unpaid field placements that do not meet the new standards. Expanded work requirements in H.R. 1 tighten what counts as a “qualified work activity,” meaning many full-time students’ part-time jobs, unpaid internships, and required field placements no longer meet eligibility standards. While the 20-hour weekly requirement remains the same, the bill expands who must meet it and significantly narrows student exemptions, making it much harder for students to maintain SNAP benefits while carrying full academic workloads. As a result, many low-income students who are already working or completing mandatory training for their degrees would be newly disqualified.
Furthermore, the bill’s limitations on future adjustments to SNAP benefit levels mean that if food prices continue to rise in New York City, a near certainty given long-term inflation trends, students who receive SNAP benefits will see diminishing purchasing power over time. Campus food pantries, which are already strained, may face surges in demand beyond their current capacity. For many students, this could translate into skipped meals, diminished diet quality, or financial trade-offs such as cutting back on textbooks, transportation, or healthcare. Demand for food assistance on campus has surged dramatically. CUNY food pantries recorded more than 206,000 visits in 2024, up from 59,000 in 2022, and have expanded their expansion of food pantries to 18 campuses and multiple professional schools.
But the effects extend well beyond immediate nutritional needs. Research consistently shows that food insecurity harms academic performance, concentration, attendance, retention, and, ultimately, graduation rates. Students experiencing hunger are more likely to exhibit depressive symptoms, heightened stress, sleep disruption, and physical health complications. Without sufficient nutrition, they struggle to sustain the cognitive and emotional focus required for academic success. This dynamic is particularly acute at CUNY, where many students balance full course loads with work and caregiving responsibilities, experiencing heightened financial concerns. The potential loss of SNAP benefits introduces additional pressures that could force them to take on more work hours, reduce course loads, or drop out entirely.
The long-term consequences are equally concerning. As social scientists have noted, periods of food scarcity can have lasting, enduring psychological and physiological effects. The Guardian recently highlighted the “scarring,” including stress, trauma, and entrenched barriers to long-term health and stability, that occurs when individuals face chronic or even temporary deprivation. Young adulthood is a formative period, and disruptions during college can affect economic mobility, earning potential, and overall well-being far into the future. SNAP participation, by contrast, has been linked to lower medical costs, improved birth outcomes, and stronger financial and health stability later in life. Cuts to the program risk undermining these protective benefits for an entire generation of students.
For New York City, and for CUNY in particular, the implications are profound. The combination of rising living costs, increasing food price volatility, and shrinking federal nutrition assistance may create a perfect storm for students already on the margins. Local governments, campus leaders, and community organizations will be forced to fill the gaps left by federal retrenchment, which may mean expanding food pantries, increasing emergency grants, hiring more SNAP navigators who help with the application process, or building partnerships with local food providers. But even the most innovative campus programs will be hard-pressed to match what SNAP has historically provided: consistent, flexible, dignified support for millions of households.
Food security is not a luxury but a prerequisite for academic success and long-term opportunity. As the country enters a new era of austerity in nutrition policy, it is vital to recognize that cuts to programs like SNAP, especially those affecting young people, are not just budgetary decisions. They are decisions that will shape educational outcomes, public health, workforce development, and economic mobility for years to come.
