New SNAP work requirements set to go into effect on Feb. 1 with millions at risk of losing benefits

Administrator

Administrator
Staff member
Apr 20, 2025
1,633
348
83

New SNAP work requirements set to go into effect on Feb. 1 with millions at risk of losing benefits

697e0bdaf274b.jpg


Changes to Food Assistance Program Threaten Millions with Loss of Benefits

Millions of Americans might soon lose their food assistance benefits due to new employment prerequisites set for the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP). An estimated 42 million Americans, from low-income families to vulnerable households, currently depend on this federal initiative for help with grocery and other household necessities.

These adjustments were a part of a larger legislative package signed into law by President Donald Trump. The amendments to the employment requirements affect Americans seeking to receive benefits for longer than a three-month period spread over three years.

Changes in Age and Exemption Requirements

The recent legislative changes have raised the upper age limit for those needing to meet employment requirements. This limit has been increased from 54 years old to 64 years old, marking a first for able-bodied adults without dependents. The changes also adjusted exemptions for parents or other family members responsible for a dependent under 18 years old, reducing the age for exemptions to those caring for children under 14 years old.

Impact on Vulnerable Populations

The CEO of the nonprofit organization Hunger Free America, Joel Berg, warned that "Millions of people will unnecessarily be kicked off the rolls. They will lose the food they need, and sometimes family members need. More Americans will go hungry. Soup kitchens and food pantries and the food banks that supply them will not have the resources to meet this need."

Estimates suggest that approximately 1.1 million people will lose their SNAP benefits between 2025 and 2034. This includes 800,000 able-bodied adults through age 64 who don't live with dependents and 300,000 parents or caregivers up to age 64 with children aged 14 and older. Moreover, an additional 1 million people who are able‑bodied adults ages 18 to 54, or 18 to 49 starting in 2031, who do not live with dependents but would have received a waiver from work requirements could also lose benefits.

Exemptions were also removed for homeless individuals, veterans, and young adults who were in foster care when they turned 18 under the new legislation. Berg pointed out that these populations might face significant challenges in not only finding employment but also providing the required documentation to prove they are fulfilling employment requirements. He emphasized that "Some of the most vulnerable populations -- homeless people, veterans and young people who just left foster care -- are going to lose their food, lose their groceries and there is no plan in place to fix that."

Counteracting Factors and Opinions

While these groups will see a decline in SNAP participation, the loss will be somewhat counterbalanced by increased participation among American Indians, who received exemptions under the new legislation. Supporters of the employment prerequisites argue that they are necessary to prevent misuse and exploitation of the SNAP system. They insist that SNAP benefits are designed to be a temporary solution and not a long-term dependency.

However, data shows that the majority of American families receiving SNAP benefits had at least one family member working in the past 12 months. Despite this, employment requirements can lead to a reduction in program participation. A study in 2021 found that SNAP employment requirements could result in up to 53% of eligible adults leaving the program within 18 months.

Berg criticized the changes, stating "These work requirements aren't really about promoting work. They're about dehumanizing people and attacking the 'other.' Most SNAP recipients are pro-work, and most SNAP recipients are already working, or children or people with disability or older Americans. So all this is sort of a diversionary debate."