¶ Overview
In 2025, Governor Kelly Ayotte acknowledged SNAP cuts in Trump’s “One Big Beautiful Bill” but did not stop the reductions. That same year, Governor Kelly Ayotte signed a repeal of New Hampshire’s dividends and interest tax, reducing state revenue at the same time federal SNAP costs shifted to states and leaving New Hampshire less able to cover food assistance for residents at risk of losing benefits. By 2025, about 76,000 New Hampshire residents relied on SNAP to afford groceries, leaving those households directly exposed to benefit reductions and higher food costs under Trump-era SNAP policies.
In the U.S. Senate, Kelly Ayotte voted multiple times to convert SNAP into a block grant, a change that would have capped federal funding and reduced benefits during economic downturns. Kelly Ayotte also voted for SNAP eligibility restrictions, such as prohibiting categorical eligibility, which would hinder efforts to eliminate childhood hunger.
¶ Kelly Ayotte Claimed She Opposed Federal SNAP Cuts, Yet She Signed Into Law Tax Legislation That Hindered New Hampshire’s Ability To Cover SNAP Costs
¶ Kelly Ayotte Said She Disagreed With Snap Cuts In Trump’s “One Big Beautiful Bill” While Allowing The Reductions To Proceed
2025: Kelly Ayotte Said She Was “On Board With Some Of The Cuts” In Trump’s Reconciliation Budget Bill, But Claimed She Disagreed With The SNAP Cuts And Directed Her Administration To Review Medicaid Impacts On Vulnerable Residents. According to WMUR, “Gov. Kelly Ayotte said Wednesday her administration is already evaluating how to implement changes from President Donald Trump's tax cut and spending bill, saying there are cuts coming that she does not support. Meeting with the Executive Council in Bretton Woods, Kelly Ayotte said she is not on board with some of the cuts being made in the budget reconciliation bill Trump recently signed into law. ‘There are aspects of it, of course, that I disagree with,’ Kelly Ayotte said. ‘Like, for example, it looks like there's going to be reductions in SNAP. We're evaluating the impact on Medicaid, and this is important, because as governor of the state, my job is to make sure that we serve our most vulnerable citizens.’” [WMUR, 7/9/25]
- 22.3 Million Families Would Lose Some Or All Of Their SNAP Benefits, With 5.3 Million Families Losing More Than $25 In Benefits Per Month, And Of Those Families, The Average Loss In Benefits Would Be $146. According to the Urban Institute, “Our preliminary estimates of the SNAP policies in the Senate bill show the following: 22.3 million US families would be affected, losing some or all of their SNAP benefits. Of the total affected families, 5.3 million would lose at least $25 in SNAP benefits per month. Among these families, 3.3 million are families with children, 3.5 million are working families, and 1.7 million are families with a full-time full-year worker. Families losing at least $25 per month would lose $146 per month on average ($1,752 for a full-year recipient). At the state level, average monthly benefit losses for families losing at least $25 per month would range from $72 in Kansas ($864 annually) to $231 in the District of Columbia ($2,772 annually).” [Urban Institute, 7/2/25]
- States That Could Not Afford To Pay The New Mandated SNAP Cost Shares May Cut The Program Entirely. According to CNBC, “Additionally, the legislation requires states to pay for a portion of benefit costs, ranging from 5% to 15%, if their payment error rate is at or over 6%. The error rates measure the accuracy of states’ eligibility and benefit payments. In fiscal year 2024, states had a 10.9% average payment error rate, with many states over 6%, according to the Department of Agriculture. States that can’t pay those shares may have to cut SNAP benefits or opt out of the program entirely, according to the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities.” [CNBC, 7/10/25]
¶
Kelly Ayotte Signed A Tax Repeal That Reduced State Revenue And Limited New Hampshire’s Ability To Cover Snap Costs
January 2025: Kelly Ayotte Signed Legislation That Repealed New Hampshire’s Dividends And Interest Tax, Which Weakened New Hampshire’s Ability To Cover The $6 million In Annual SNAP Costs That The Federal Government Would Not Cover. According to The Dartmouth, “State Rep. Russell Muirhead, D-Hanover. […] wrote in an email statement to The Dartmouth that low state taxes will hinder New Hampshire’s ability to pay for food assistance. In January, Ayotte signed a law repealing the New Hampshire dividends and interest tax — which previously generated $184 million of state revenue annually, according to New Hampshire Fiscal Policy Institute. ‘Eliminating the dividends and interest tax in New Hampshire will make it very difficult for the state to pick up the $6 million in annual nutrition assistance costs that the federal government will not be covering,’ Muirhead wrote. The One Big Beautiful Bill Act also changed the SNAP program’s eligibility requirements, requiring all beneficiaries to work at least 80 hours per month. Fifteen thousand New Hampshire residents currently enrolled in SNAP do not meet this requirement and are at risk of losing benefits, according to the Center for Budget and Policy Priorities.” [The Dartmouth, 10/23/25]
- October 2025: New Hampshire State Revenue Fell Below Targets Following The Repeal Of The Interest And Dividends Tax. According to the New Hampshire Fiscal Policy Institute, “State revenues collected in October fell below the State’s target amounts for the month, primarily because of the repeal of the Interest and Dividends Tax resulting in difficult-to-predict final revenues as taxpayers collect refunds. Other revenue sources offered a mixture of signals, with some major revenue sources performing well and others slipping behind expectations. […] Other major revenue sources were closer to their targets. Combined revenues from the two business taxes were $1.1 million (3.1 percent) short of target in October, and are $26.6 million (9.5 percent) below planned amounts for the year thus far. However, October saw a small bump to business tax revenues compared to last year, with receipts rising $2.3 million (7.1 percent) above last October’s collections and reducing the year-over-year deficit in business tax revenues to $18.9 million (6.9 percent) lower than last year. These two major tax revenue sources, which were a primary source of revenue growth in recent budget cycles, remain a drag on today’s State revenue picture.” [New Hampshire Fiscal Policy Institute, 11/6/25]
¶ Approximately 76,000 Granite Staters Relied On SNAP
¶ 76,000 New Hampshire Residents Relied On New Hampshire’s Food Stamp Program
December 2025: 76,000 New Hampshire Residents Relied On New Hampshire’s Food Stamp Program. According to Gene Martin’s commentary on the New Hampshire Bulletin, “As 2025 comes to an end, many Granite Staters are feeling the same things. Groceries cost more. […] Food assistance is also at risk. The food stamp program helps about 76,000 people in New Hampshire afford groceries. Under new rules, the program will cost the state more to run and could penalize people who have trouble meeting new requirements. When people lose health care or food assistance, the impact doesn’t stop with them. Hospitals, local businesses, and communities feel it.” [Gene Martin Commentary – New Hampshire Bulletin, 12/22/25]
- 2025: Federal And State Policy Decisions Drove Higher Costs And Economic Strain For New Hampshire Families. According to the New Hampshire Bulletin, “Part of the reason life feels harder is public policy. Decisions made this year in the New Hampshire State House and Washington, D.C., have impacted family budgets, health care, and economic security, and will continue to in 2026 and beyond.” [Gene Martin Commentary – New Hampshire Bulletin, 12/22/25]
¶ More Than 48,000 Households In New Hampshire Relied On SNAP
October 2025: More Than 48,000 New Hampshire Households Depended On SNAP For Food Assistance. According to The Dartmouth, “Budget cuts and a government shutdown are hitting an estimated 48,000 New Hampshire households that receive food assistance through the federal Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, according to New Hampshire Food Alliance. Specifically, the Trump administration’s July 4 One Big Beautiful Bill Act stipulates that SNAP benefits will no longer be recalculated annually based on cost of living, resulting in a $15 per-person per-month reduction in value by 2034.” [The Dartmouth, 10/23/25]
2023: Across New Hampshire, 35,916 Households Relied On SNAP.
[U.S. Department of Agriculture, SNAP Community Characteristics, Accessed 12/22/25]
¶ While In The U.S. Senate, Kelly Ayotte Voted To Reduce Food Assistance For Millions Of Families
¶ Ayotte Voted To Convert SNAP Into Block Grants, Which Would Cap Funding And Reduce Food Assistance
2013: Kelly Ayotte Voted For Converting State Nutritional Assistance Program (SNAP) Benefits Into A Block Grant Program Beginning In 2016 And Adding Work Requirements As Part Of The FY 2014 Ryan Budget. In March 2013, Ayotte voted for converting SNAP benefits into a block grant program, as part of House Budget Committee Chairman Paul Ryan’s (R-WI) proposed budget resolution covering fiscal years 2014 to 2023. According to the House Budget Committee, the “This budget retools federal aid to low-income families in two ways. First, it eliminates the incentive for states to sign up as many recipients as possible. After employment has recovered, it converts SNAP into a block grant, indexed for inflation and eligibility. […] Second, it calls for time limits and work requirements” The vote was on the House Republicans’ fiscal year 2014 budget resolution, which Senate Budget Committee chairwoman Patty Murray offered as a substitute amendment to the Senate’s fiscal year 2014 budget resolution. The Senate rejected the amendment by a vote of 40 to 59. [Senate Vote 46, 3/21/13; House Budget Committee, 3/12/13; Congressional Actions, S. Amdt. 433; Congressional Actions, S. Con. Res. 8]
- Center On Budget And Policy Priorities: Turning SNAP Into A Block Grant Would Restrict SNAP’s Ability To Respond To Economic Downturns Since State Would Receive Fixed Funding And Federal Funding Would Not Respond To Unemployment Increases. According to the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, “Block granting SNAP would eliminate its ability to respond immediately to fluctuations in the economy. States would receive a fixed amount of funding at the beginning of the year; if unemployment rose and more people qualified and applied for food assistance, federal funding would not respond. As a result, states would have to bear the entire cost of added food assistance themselves (even as state revenues were declining), cut food benefits, eliminate eligibility altogether for some households, or place new applicants on waiting lists despite the downturn.” [Center On Budget And Policy Priorities, 3/30/17]
2013: Kelly Ayotte Voted To Effectively Cut SNAP By Replacing The Program With A Nutrition Assistance Block Grant. In May 2013, Ayotte voted for an amendment that, according to Congressional Quarterly, “would [have] repeal[ed] the federal Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, commonly known as food stamps, at the end of fiscal 2014 and establish[ed] a nutrition assistance block grant program for fiscal 2015 through 2022. It would [have] ma[d]e grants available to states that create nutrition assistance programs that include work requirements and drug testing for beneficiaries. States would [have] be[en] required to report annually on their program’s eligibility requirements, administration costs and participation figures. It would [have] authorize[d] $45.5 billion in grant funds in the first year and would increase funding for the program incrementally through 2022.” The Senate rejected the proposed amendment to the Senate’s 2013 Farm Bill by a vote of 36 to 60. [Senate Vote 132, 5/22/13; Congressional Quarterly, 5/22/13; Congressional Actions, S. 960; Congressional Actions, S. 954]
2012: Kelly Ayotte Effectively Voted For An Amendment That Would Have Changed The Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) Into A Block Grant Program. In June 2012, Ayotte voted against tabling and effectively voted for an amendment, that according to Congressional Quarterly, would have “replace[d] the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program with block grants to states to provide nutrition assistance. The motion would recommit the bill to the committee with instruction to report the bill back immediately with a Reid perfecting amendment no. 2391 that would replace the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program with block grants to states to provide nutrition assistance.” The amendment was to the Senate’s version of the 2012 Farm Bill. The vote was on a motion to table the amendment, so that a vote for the motion was a vote against the amendment. The Senate agreed to the motion by a vote of 65 to 33, killing the amendment. [Senate Vote 120, 6/13/12; Congressional Record, 6/12/12; Congressional Quarterly, 6/13/12; Congressional Actions, S. Amdt. 2392; Congressional Actions, S. Amdt. 2391; Congressional Actions, S. 3240]
2011: Kelly Ayotte Effectively Voted For FY 2012 Ryan Budget, Which Converted SNAP Into A Block Grant Program Beginning In 2015. In May 2011, Ayotte effectively voted for converting SNAP benefits into a block grant program, as part of House Budget Committee Chairman Paul Ryan’s (R-WI) proposed budget resolution covering fiscal years 2012 to 2021. According to the House Budget Committee, the budget would “Convert the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) into a block grant tailored for each state’s low income population, indexed for inflation and eligibility beginning in 2015.” The vote was on a motion to proceed to consider the House-passed budget resolution, which the Senate rejected by a vote of 40 to 57. [Senate Vote 77, 5/25/11; House Budget Committee, 4/5/11; Congressional Actions, H. Con. Res. 34]
- Food Stamp Block Grant Proposals Would Have Capped Overall Funding. According to the Twin Cities Pioneer Press, “The report comes as Republicans, led by GOP vice presidential nominee Rep. Paul Ryan of Wisconsin, push for massive cuts in food stamp-program funding to curb enrollment growth and to help balance the federal budget. The Democratic-controlled Senate also voted in June to cut food stamp funding, but by a smaller amount. […] Republicans in the House have voted to convert food stamps to a block grant in 2015 that would cap funding.” [Twin Cities Pioneer Press, 9/4/12]
¶ Kelly Ayotte Voted For Snap Eligibility Restrictions That Made It Harder For Families To Access Food Assistance
2013: Kelly Ayotte Voted To Preserve A Provision In The 2013 Farm Bill That Tied A $10 Utility Assistance Requirement In Order To Qualify For SNAP Benefits. In May 2013, Kelly Ayotte voted against Senate Amendment 931 to the 2013 Farm Bill, which would have “struck provisions in the bill that required states to provide at least $10 in utility assistance to qualify a household for the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, commonly known as food stamps. The amendment proposed offsetting the cost by limiting federal reimbursement of crop insurance providers’ operating costs to $924 million annually and capping providers’ guaranteed rate of return to 12 percent.” The Senate rejected the amendment by a vote of 26 to 70. [Senate Vote 131, 5/21/13; Congressional Quarterly, 5/21/13; Congressional Actions, S. Amdt. 931; Congressional Actions, S. 954]
2011: Kelly Ayotte Voted To Prohibit Categorical Eligibility For SNAP. In October 2011, Ayotte voted for an amendment, which would, according to Congressional Quarterly, “eliminate categorical eligibility provisions for the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program - commonly known as food stamps. The substitute would provide about $128 billion in discretionary funds for the Departments of Agriculture, Commerce, Justice, Transportation, Housing and Urban Development, and for science programs and other related programs in fiscal 2012.” The amendment was to the fiscal year 2012 appropriations bill funding Agriculture, Commerce, Science, Justice, Transportation, and Housing and Urban Development programs, including the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP). The Senate rejected the amendment by a vote of 41 to 58. [Senate Vote 182, 10/20/11; H.R.2112, 6/21/12; Congressional Quarterly, 10/21/11; Congressional Actions, S. Amdt. 810; Congressional Actions, S. Amdt. 738; Congressional Actions, H.R. 2112]
- Eliminating Broad-Based Categorical Eligibility Would Hinder Efforts To Eliminate Childhood Hunger Because The Policy Helped Families Sync Their Eligibility For Other Anti-Poverty Programs To SNAP. According to No Kid Hungry, “One popular proposal aims to eliminate a policy called Broad Based Categorical Eligibility (BBCE), which helps families with low-incomes cut through red tape so they can access the nutrition assistance they need through programs like SNAP, school meals and summer meals. This could set us back in the fight against childhood hunger. Here’s why: BBCE is not an automatic pathway to SNAP benefits. But it is an effective, practical policy that helps families enroll in SNAP if they’re already participating in other anti-poverty programs. When you sync up the eligibility for these programs, it does a lot of good for families in need. First, it reduces bureaucratic red tape, meaning families in need of benefits receive a streamlined application process. It also helps families decrease their SNAP benefits as their wages begin to grow. Families seeking a way out of poverty while working in low-wage jobs have the time to phase off SNAP rather than grapple with a hard cut-off. It’s estimated that restricting this policy—efforts that were led during the first Trump administration—would result in more than 3 million people, including children, losing access to SNAP benefits.” [No Kid Hungry, 3/19/25]