By Teon Hayes

As Congress works to advance the proposed budget reconciliation bill of 2025, CLASP’s series “The 2025 Budget Reconciliation’s Impact on People with Low Incomes” will examine the policies put forward that have particular resonance for children, families, and communities with low incomes. This is the third blog in the series.

On May 13, the House Agriculture Committee met to mark up its portion of the GOP’s proposed reconciliation bill. One of the main issues under consideration is the Supplemental Nutritional Assistance Program (SNAP), which provides food assistance to families with low incomes.

The proposed changes largely restrict access, tighten eligibility, and shift administrative costs from the federal government to the states. If enacted, this will amount to the largest cut in the program’s history.

Implementing Strict Work Requirements

Most adults who use SNAP either are already working but in jobs that pay low wages and offer unstable hours. They could also be briefly between jobs, have a disability, and/or have significant caregiving responsibilities. The House Agriculture bill proposes raising the age for work requirements from 54 to 64 for able-bodied adults without dependents and redefines “dependent child” to include any child under seven, instead of under 18. It also limits the USDA’s ability to approve state waivers for work requirements only in areas with over a 10 percent unemployment rate and reduces the allowable exempt population from 8 percent to 1 percent. This means that more caregivers and older adults are expected to work to receive SNAP, a change that may disproportionately affect Black and brown families, especially single mothers with school-aged children.

This heartless provision jeopardizes the livelihoods of 6 million adults by putting them at risk of losing SNAP benefits entirely. It could also reduce food assistance for an additional 5 million people in their households, including more than 4 million children between the ages of 7 and 17. That’s about 11 million people in total. Cuts of this scale would have devastating consequences for the most vulnerable. Families in areas with high unemployment could lose protections due to stricter waiver rules, and it would be more difficult for states to protect vulnerable populations during economic downturns or in areas with unemployment rates that are high but not extreme. Simply looking for work doesn’t count toward the requirement, and many unemployed individuals need more than the allotted three months to secure a job, even in strong labor markets.

Research shows that work requirements do not lead to stable jobs or economic security but, rather, cause a large decline in program participation. Work requirements don’t address the real barriers that keep people from finding stable employment—they ignore systemic issues like racial discrimination, lack of child care and transportation, and the shortage of living-wage jobs. Therefore, work requirements push people deeper into a cycle of low-wage, volatile, unstable work. These policies have roots in harmful, racially charged narratives about who is “deserving” of help—narratives that have long targeted Black and brown communities. Work requirements make public benefits more complicated to access and add unnecessary burdens for people who need food. They also cost states millions of dollars. When Arkansas implemented work requirements for Medicaid, the policy ended up costing the state and federal government $26.1 million without achieving its intended employment goals. Basic, life-sustaining support should not depend on meeting a work requirement.

State Match

Currently, the federal government covers 100 percent of SNAP benefits, while states share administrative costs, which are typically split 50/50 with the federal government. The proposed reconciliation bill would require states to gradually cover a minimum of 5 percent of SNAP benefits starting in fiscal year (FY) 2028. States with high SNAP error rates would pay up to 25 percent. The federal share of administrative costs would drop from 50 percent to 25 percent, with states having to contribute up to 75 percent of these costs.

This shift would push states into a cost-containment mindset, giving them financial incentives to restrict eligibility and reduce participation, even if the need for benefits remains high. It would also cost states hundreds of millions of dollars at a time when their budgets are under strain and could lead to stricter eligibility rules, reduced benefit amounts, or both, as well as reduced staffing, services, and program access at state agencies. States that struggle to cover their share may be forced to limit participation, making it harder for families striving for economic security to access the nutrition they need to stay healthy and financially stable. While this change would impact all states, large states like Texas and California, and poor states, primarily in the Deep South, would be disproportionately affected.

Restricting Thrifty Food Plan Updates

This bill also seeks to permanently freeze the Thrifty Food Program (TFP) and adjust it only for inflation. This proposal would lock SNAP benefits to outdated food cost estimates, ignoring both scientific evidence and the actual cost of a healthy diet. This would prevent benefits from keeping pace with rising food prices—repeating the same shortcomings seen during the 50 years before the 2021 update. Even after that update, SNAP benefits remain modest, increasing from just $4.80 to $6.20 per person, per day. As food prices continue to rise and funding for food assistance programs is reduced nationwide, families will be left without enough support to put food on the table, and with fewer community resources like food banks to help fill the gap.

Restricting Immigrant Eligibility
The proposed legislation would deny food benefits to all non-citizens who are not lawful permanent residents, including refugees and people who have been granted asylum. These two categories of immigrants were exempted from restrictions enacted in 1996. In FY23, 434,000 refugees and asylees participated in SNAP.

It’s essential to understand that asylees and refugees have fled persecution and violence, and often carry deep trauma. Instead of supporting their healing, policies that restrict access to food only add to their stress and hardship. In addition, this proposal creates fear and confusion, discouraging even eligible immigrants and U.S. citizen children from accessing food assistance. When immigrant families avoid programs like SNAP due to fear, it deepens hunger and poverty. This change would have a particularly chilling effect on SNAP enrollment among immigrant communities. It could also cause mixed-status families to lose benefits or face confusion and fear around eligibility.

 We must remember the human lives behind these numbers. These harmful cuts will directly impact hardworking adults, parents, children, seniors, and people with disabilities—those who already face some of the most significant barriers to stability. Black and brown communities, who have long been marginalized and disproportionately affected by hunger and poverty, will bear the brunt of these changes. Hunger and access to food should never be treated as political bargaining chips. It is the duty of our elected leaders to protect and uplift the communities they serve. This reconciliation bill does the opposite. It reflects priorities that are out of step with justice, compassion, and basic human dignity, and we must demand better.