The ongoing shutdown of the US federal government threatens the distribution of Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) benefits this November. States, localities, and anti-hunger organizations are scrambling to fill the gap in federal assistance amid a massive wave of food insecurity. While two federal judges have ruled that the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) must use contingency funds to keep SNAP flowing, the Trump administration announced on November 3rd that it will only cover a fraction of the usual benefits. As of November 4, President Trump stated that SNAP benefits would be suspended entirely until the shutdown ends, leaving the program’s immediate future uncertain. Meanwhile, conservatives have seized upon this uncertainty to deride SNAP recipients and to characterize the program as a waste of resources. These claims are both morally hollow and factually off-base.
One thing these conservatives scarcely mention is that a disproportionate share of SNAP recipients have at least one type of disability (Figure 1). Adults with disabilities make up about 25 percent of SNAP recipients, nearly twice their share in the overall population (around 13 percent). About one in four SNAP recipients reports a disability, compared with about one in nine non-recipients. The imbalance reflects deep and persistent economic barriers that make it harder for people with disabilities to meet basic needs without support.
Figure 1
Disabled adults participate in SNAP at more than double the rate of those without disabilities (Figure 2). While only 8.3 percent of those without disabilities lived in households that relied on SNAP assistance, 20.4 percent of those with disabilities did. People with disabilities may also be more likely to rely on food delivery services, which is one reason why SNAP coverage of such services is so important.
Figure 2
Of course, the way disability is measured has a major impact on the statistics. In the Current Population Survey Annual Social and Economic Supplement (CPS ASEC), disability status is determined via a short series of yes-or-no questions about six types of “serious” functional difficulty: vision, hearing, cognition, mobility, self-care, and independent living. Respondents who report at least one type of difficulty are classified as having a disability. This approach captures more people than administrative records but still undercounts disabled adults, tending to exclude those with chronic illnesses (such as Long COVID or autoimmune diseases that can flare) or episodic impairments that do not fit neatly into these categories. It is also worth noting that disability prevalence in the CPS ASEC is lower relative to other national surveys that use the same question set.
Nevertheless, surveys that rely on a broad set of functional questions consistently find that more than twice as many SNAP recipients have a disability compared with estimates using narrower administrative definitions. The stricter administrative measures tend to count only those receiving disability benefits, leaving out millions of people whose conditions limit their daily activities but who are not formally recognized by Social Security or similar programs. The administrative undercount obscures the true extent of disability among households receiving food assistance. It also reinforces norms that harm disabled people, as many of the qualifying benefits programs treat disability and labor force participation as mutually exclusive. The US’ approach stands in sharp contrast to those of other countries, which prioritize labor force inclusion for people with disabilities.
In the US, many who do not qualify as “officially” disabled under stringent program rules still face significant economic barriers, including but not limited to maintaining steady employment. This highlights the flaws in conservative efforts to impose or expand work requirements, including those in this year’s One Big Beautiful Bill Act, which are scheduled to take effect this week despite the ongoing shutdown. When policymakers tie access to food assistance to strict work hour thresholds, they risk cutting off people with disabilities who cannot meet those standards but still need to eat. Evidence from states that have imposed such requirements shows that they tend to balloon program costs via administrative bloat without meaningfully increasing employment. The result is greater hardship rather than increased labor force participation.
Even among employed adults, those with disabilities are nearly twice as likely to live in households that receive SNAP benefits as those without disabilities (Figure 3). Almost 12 percent of employed adults with at least one functional difficulty receive SNAP benefits, compared with about 6 percent of employed adults without a disability. This gap highlights the persistent income disadvantage faced by disabled workers, even when they are employed.
Figure 3
Disabled people are more likely to experience other forms of economic disadvantage, including unemployment, underemployment, higher medical expenses, and barriers to education and transportation. These barriers can make it difficult for many disabled workers to achieve food security without assistance. The overlapping and compounding challenges disabled people face make federal programs like SNAP essential for food security and economic stability.
Economic justice for people with disabilities cannot exist if disabled people are denied access to basic necessities. Lawmakers who care about the well-being of disabled people should make inclusive food assistance a core policy goal.
