A Republican proposal to tighten work requirements for recipients of the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) could result in millions of low-income people losing access to critical food assistance, according to a new analysis by the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities (CBPP).
The proposal, introduced by Rep. Dusty Johnson (R-S.D.), a member of the House Agriculture Committee, seeks to expand existing work requirements for SNAP participants and significantly reduce states’ flexibility in administering the program. If enacted, the CBPP estimates the changes could place nearly 11 million people—around one in four SNAP participants—at risk of losing at least some of their benefits, including more than 4 million children and over half a million adults aged 65 or older and adults with disabilities.
“This could take food away from millions of people in low-income households who are struggling to find steady work or who face substantial barriers to employment, including families with children,” the CBPP analysis warns.
Currently, SNAP rules require that most adults ages 18 through 54 without children can only receive benefits for three months in a three-year period unless they work at least 20 hours per week or qualify for an exemption, such as a disability. Johnson’s proposal would raise the age limit to 65 and apply the rule to adults with children over the age of seven. It would also “virtually eliminate” the ability of states to waive time limits based on local labor conditions—an authority every state has used in the past.
The Congressional Budget Office (CBO) estimates that under this proposal, between 3 and 3.5 million fewer people would participate in SNAP in an average month. CBPP’s report notes that many of these individuals already face significant employment barriers, including unstable job markets, low wages, and fluctuating hours. “Because research consistently shows that SNAP’s work requirement does not increase employment or earnings,” the authors write, “the vast majority of those losing SNAP due to the expansion of the work requirement—including older adults, parents, veterans, people experiencing homelessness, and young people who have aged out of foster care—would lose the assistance they need to afford groceries with no improvement in their job prospects or income.”
Among the hardest-hit groups would be adults aged 55 to 64 without children, who often face health challenges and age-related discrimination in the workforce. More than 1.4 million in this demographic would be newly subject to the time limit. Even if lawmakers adopt a narrower age increase to 61—as Agriculture Committee Chair Glenn “GT” Thompson has suggested—1.1 million people would still be affected.
Another 3 million adults living with school-aged children would also fall under the revised rules. Since food assistance is calculated for the household, not the individual, a parent’s loss of SNAP would reduce food benefits for the entire family. According to CBPP, over 4 million children aged 7 to 17 live in households that would face reduced or eliminated SNAP benefits.
In one example offered by the report, a single-parent household with two children and no income could see its benefits cut from $768 per month to $536—a 30 percent reduction—if the parent cannot prove steady employment. For two-parent households where neither adult meets the work documentation requirement, the reduction could reach 45 percent.
Veterans, people experiencing homelessness, and former foster youth would also be newly exposed to these requirements. Protections for these groups were codified through bipartisan legislation in 2023, but Johnson’s proposal would remove those exemptions. About 400,000 people currently rely on these waivers. Within the 1.2 million veterans who participate in SNAP, many are under 65, do not live with children, and do not report a disability—making them particularly vulnerable to cuts.
The proposal also targets geographic areas with high unemployment. Under current rules, states can request waivers for regions with insufficient job opportunities. Johnson’s plan would limit this to individual counties with unemployment rates over 10 percent—criteria that currently apply to only ten counties in the entire country. This would immediately disqualify areas like the Navajo Nation, rural communities in Maine, and flood-stricken counties in Kentucky from receiving waivers.
Based on CBPP’s analysis, approximately 1.6 million people living in these regions would be at risk of losing benefits even if they are actively seeking work. “Looking for work does not count toward SNAP’s 20-hour work requirement,” the report emphasizes, “and many unemployed workers need more than three months to find a job even when unemployment rates are relatively low.”
The report also addresses misconceptions about work among SNAP recipients. While USDA’s data is often cited to claim that many recipients do not work, those figures are derived from a “Quality Control” sample offering only a snapshot in time. Census data reveal a more complete picture: in 2023, 82 percent of households with working-age adults without children had earnings during the year. Among households with children, 92 percent reported some income.
Most working-age adults on SNAP are already employed or between jobs. Many work low-wage positions with inconsistent hours and no paid sick leave or benefits. These conditions often result in temporary reliance on SNAP. Because of this volatility, “point-in-time” data often understate work participation. In fact, one study found that 53 percent of people subjected to the current three-month limit lost benefits, regardless of whether they worked previously.
Further complicating the issue is how SNAP screens for exemptions. According to CBPP, state eligibility workers often lack medical training to evaluate disability claims, leading many people with legitimate health conditions to lose benefits. “People who reported having a disability—who likely should have been exempt from the three-month time limit—lost SNAP at the same rate as people without a disability,” the report notes.
With the U.S. economy still experiencing inflation and fears of a potential recession rising, experts argue that now is an especially damaging time to restrict access to food aid. SNAP not only helps prevent hunger but also serves as a proven economic stimulus. The USDA estimates that every $1 in SNAP generates $1.54 in economic activity during economic downturns.
“Cutting off food assistance to millions of SNAP participants if they can’t document compliance with a work requirement would increase food insecurity and hinder SNAP’s ability to stimulate the economy, particularly during recessions,” CBPP warns.
Despite the severe impact outlined in the proposal, Johnson’s plan would cover less than half of the $230 billion in cuts the House Agriculture Committee has been tasked with finding—suggesting even deeper reductions may follow. As pressure mounts, advocates warn that expanding harsh and ineffective rules in the name of budget reduction risks deepening food insecurity while failing to achieve any measurable employment benefit.
COMMENTS