The federal government announced on Thursday, September 17, a 15.04% increase in Bolsa Família, raising the minimum benefit to R$ 691. The first payment at the new amount is scheduled for October 19, one week before the presidential runoff election.
The update, which will cost R$ 5.8 billion for the rest of 2026, aims to make up for inflation accumulated since the last adjustment. The program currently serves more than 19 million families with a monthly income of up to R$ 218 per person.
Costs and comparison with other investments
The additional amount planned for 2026 is equivalent to almost 20,000 New PAC Health projects, including medical units and ambulances. With the same money, it would be possible to build about 2,500 health clinics or buy more than 16,000 SAMU ambulances.
Adjustment details and program rules
With the increase, the minimum benefit rises from R$ 600 to R$ 691, while the average amount per family goes from R$ 675 to R$ 777. Bolsa Família includes a transition rule that lets families whose income rises keep receiving half of the benefit for up to one year, as long as income per person does not exceed R$ 706, easing a gradual exit from the program.
Fiscal challenges for 2027
The biggest financial impact will come in 2027, when the adjustment will reach R$ 22.7 billion a year. Since this expense was not included in the budget approved by Congress, the government will have to make significant cuts in other areas to keep spending within the allowed limit.
Experts say it may be necessary to freeze up to R$ 57.7 billion in spending to meet next year’s fiscal targets. Otherwise, the government risks resorting to accounting maneuvers or raising revenue to balance the public accounts.
Reaction and political controversy
Economists question the government’s decision to implement the adjustment on the eve of the runoff, since accumulated inflation would have justified the increase since the start of the year. Had the benefit been adjusted in January, the impact on purchasing power would have been spread over the months.
The date chosen for the start of payments drew criticism pointing to electoral use of the program, with opponents interpreting the measure as an attempt to win votes at a delicate moment in the race.
