The Farm Bill is one of the largest domestic spending bills Congress manages. More than 70% of the funds go to nutrition assistance plans like SNAP and NAP, but it also covers conservation, food safety, farm subsidies, research, and rural development. It is intended to be renewed every five years, but the most recent Farm Bill (2018) expired in 2023. Congress has not been able to agree on a new Farm Bill since then.
So far this year, the House has presented its version of the Farm Bill, HR7567. The Senate has been working on its version, but discussions stalled before Congress took its recess.
Puerto Rico and the Farm Bill
Puerto Rico was mentioned once in the text of the House bill as it is shown at Congress.gov. The section on “foreign adversaries” explains that “the term `United States’ means the several States, the District of Columbia, the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands, American Samoa, Guam, the United States Virgin Islands, and any other territory or possession of the United States.”
This is positive, in that it makes it clear that any provisions in the bill which refer to the United States can also apply to Puerto Rico. However, it also means that the bill is missing the important section which Puerto Rican leaders have been working for: the transition from NAP to SNAP.
It is not only Puerto Rican leaders like Jenniffer Gonzalez-Colon and Pablo Jose Hernandez who have been campaigning for that transition. Senators John Fetterman, Kirsten Gillibrand, and Democratic Leader Charles E. Schumer introduced S3958, the Puerto Rico Nutrition Assistance Fairness Act in March 2026. The companion bill, HR5168, was introduced by Resident Commissioner Rep. Hernandez.
NAP and SNAP
Puerto Rico was included in the original food stamp program. However, Congress removed the territory from the program in 1982 as a cost-cutting measure. Quite simply, Puerto Rico has a higher poverty rate than the states, so a higher percentage of Island residents use food stamps to help make ends meet. Congress set up NAP, a replacement program which cost about 75% of the original food stamp program.
NAP is capped, unlike SNAP, which is a reimbursement program that provides more funds when more people need help. NAP has an annual total, and when the funds are gone, they’re gone — unless Puerto Rico can persuade Congress to give more at the end of the year, which sometimes happens. Instead of being able to plan, the Island’s representatives have to go to Congress cap in hand and hope the shortfall can be made up.
In fact, the total funding is not sufficient for the need. A family of 4 in Puerto Rico can receive NAP only if they earn $2,250 or less per month, while a family of 4 in Florida can earn $5,360. The amount given to households in Puerto Rico is also lower. Naturally, this saves the government money.
In fact, the cost of moving Puerto Rico back into the SNAP system is the primary objection from members of Congress. Having SNAP in Puerto Rico would be more expensive; NAP is a cost-saving measure.
Where do the cost savings come from? Puerto Rican families get less food than families living in the states. The Government Accountability Office found that households in Puerto Rico bought less food with NAP than they had previously under SNAP. The change from SNAP to NAP resulted in families in Puerto Rico having less to eat. With food insecurity in Puerto Rico hovering around 40%, compared with 13% in the states, it’s fair to conclude that families in Puerto Rico went hungry after the end of SNAP.
Would statehood help?
No question. First, the Constitution guarantees equal rights for states. Congress can’t decide that Mississippi has too many poor people, so they’re going to withhold food stamps from the state of Mississippi and give them less money for nutrition assistance. The Constitution protects the rights of the states.
But the Constitution does not protect territories as it does states. Congress is allowed to say, “We’re just not going to feed the needy in the territories as much as we do the needy in the states.” Since they can do this, there is a great temptation to do so, especially when they are trying hard to cut costs.
Second, as a state, Puerto Rico would have full representation in the federal government, with voting Members of the House and two senators. They would be able to fight for Puerto Rico just as state legislators fight for their states.
The difference between NAP and SNAP is among the clearest examples of inequity in the treatment of Puerto Rico compared with states. This is not because Puerto Rico is less deserving than the states. It’s because territories can legally be treated worse than states. The temptation is there, and Congress gives in. Puerto Rico should be a state, with the same rights and responsibilities as the current 50 states. Tell your legislators so.
No responses yet