Millions of American households depend on the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) to afford groceries and maintain basic nourishment amid persistent economic pressures. SNAP, formerly the Food Stamp Program, provides monthly benefits via an electronic benefit transfer (EBT) system, helping families with limited income — especially those with children, seniors, or people with disabilities — avoid food insecurity. This safety net program is especially crucial during economic downturns, natural disasters, or times of rising prices, when more households struggle to make ends meet. In 2025, SNAP continued to serve more than 40 million people nationwide, even as advocates and policymakers debated its long‑term structure and spending priorities amid broader legislative shifts.
In July 2025, President Donald Trump signed the One Big Beautiful Bill Act (OBBBA), a sweeping budget and domestic policy law that includes some of the most significant changes to SNAP in decades. This legislation aims to tighten eligibility, expand work requirements, and reduce federal spending on SNAP by an estimated $187 billion through 2034 — the largest cut to the program’s funding in U.S. history. Supporters of the reforms argue they promote employment and fiscal responsibility by reducing long‑term dependency, while critics warn they risk deepening food insecurity for vulnerable families.
One of the most consequential aspects of the OBBBA is the expansion of work requirements for SNAP recipients. Previously, “able‑bodied adults without dependents” (ABAWDs) were required to work, train, or volunteer a set number of hours to maintain benefits beyond a three‑month limit. Under the new law, this requirement now applies to a broader group: adults ages 18 to 64 who are not exempt and whose households do not include a dependent under age 14 must work, train, or volunteer at least 80 hours per month to remain eligible. Exemptions that once shielded older adults, veterans, those experiencing homelessness, and some caregivers are being tightened or eliminated, meaning that many more people newly fall under these mandates starting in late 2025 and into 2026.
The bill also narrows SNAP eligibility in ways that make access more complex for certain populations. For example, immigrant eligibility is restricted — only U.S. citizens, U.S. nationals, lawful permanent residents (LPRs), Cuban and Haitian entrants, and Compact of Free Association citizens remain eligible, eliminating eligibility for many lawfully present refugees or asylees who previously could qualify after a waiting period. States are now onboarding new administrative requirements, including tighter verification and monitoring of incomes, work activity, and exemptions, which increases paperwork and processing burdens. Additionally, the federal government is shifting more administrative cost responsibilities to states, a move that officials predict may strain state budgets and lead to disparities in benefit access across jurisdictions.
Because SNAP administration is shared between federal and state agencies, the OBBBA’s changes are being implemented in diverse ways across the country. States such as Georgia, Oregon, and Michigan have already begun enforcing stricter work requirements and reduced exemptions, and others are preparing for phased rollouts that will affect eligibility documentation and benefit continuity. While proponents argue that state flexibility allows programs to be tailored to local economies and labor markets, critics point out that this decentralization could lead to uneven access and inconsistent enforcement. Many states will also need to invest in technology, staff training, and system upgrades to manage expanded eligibility reviews and work verification processes — a challenge for underfunded social services offices.
The estimated $187 billion reduction in SNAP funding reflects a significant shift toward fiscal austerity, but analysts and advocacy groups warn of substantial social costs. Projections suggest that millions of people — including children, older adults, and individuals with limited work opportunities — could lose benefits or see them reduced. Cutting SNAP benefits and tightening eligibility can increase food insecurity, with well‑documented consequences for physical health, childhood development, and long‑term economic stability. Researchers have also noted that reduced SNAP participation can hinder recession response, as the program historically acts as an economic stabilizer during downturns. As states and the federal government monitor implementation, debates continue about how to balance budgetary savings with the need to maintain a robust safety net, especially in the context of inflation and ongoing economic uncertainty.
