Congress has made the decision to remove exemptions from work requirements for certain groups including veterans, homeless individuals, and young people who were foster parents and relied on food assistance.
Initially, House Republicans had intended to keep these exemptions as part of a broader plan aligning with Trump’s tax cuts and spending policies. Meanwhile, Senate Republicans left out significant language in their version of the bill. These exemptions were part of a bipartisan agreement made two years ago.
The Agriculture Committee in the GOP-led Senate confirmed that members of these three groups will no longer be exempt from work requirements.
Notably, this hasn’t received much focus from either political party, even as other significant changes regarding Medicaid and a multi-billion dollar tax package are being discussed.
Even Senate committee members who contributed to the text seem uncertain about the implications of these changes prior to the upcoming vote on the bill.
“I think everyone should be treated equally,” remarked Senate Agriculture Committee Chairman John Boozman (R-Ark.) when asked about the changes. Senate Republican aides pointed out that those deemed “unhealthy” wouldn’t have to fulfill these requirements under the Senate’s proposed plan.
Previously, Congress had reached a temporary agreement on SNAP’s labor requirements for 2023 to limit federal spending and adjust debt limits. This included allowing exemptions until September 2030 for specific individuals facing homelessness, veterans, and young adults transitioning from foster care.
In a recent statement, the Senate committee mentioned Republicans are attempting to foster greater independence through work and training initiatives.
However, their plan takes into account that “individuals who are not physically or mentally able to work, regardless of their group, won’t need to meet the 20-hour work week requirements.”
This shift comes as Republicans in both chambers seek to eliminate “waste, fraud, and abuse” from what they term a “bloated” government program that has been expanding for years.
Other proposals being considered by Republicans for SNAP include requiring states to cover a portion of benefit costs, increasing their share for program management, and limiting federal capability to enhance future profits.
The Senate Agriculture Committee estimates that these changes could yield “approximately net savings of $144 billion” in the coming years, with Republicans advocating for states to manage a significant part of SNAP costs as a means to achieve spending cuts.
This plan is part of a broader effort by both parties to identify measures that can slash federal spending by over $1 trillion in the next decade in conjunction with past tax reforms initiated by Trump in 2017.
Democrats have consistently opposed the changes proposed exclusively by Republicans in both the House and Senate.
In a statement, Sen. Angie Craig, the leading Democrat on the House Agriculture Committee, expressed concern that the Republican bill could deprive food assistance from vulnerable populations, including veterans aging out of the foster care system and the homeless, highlighting the uncertainty they may face regarding their next meal.
“The cuts to food aid will support new tax credits for wealthy individuals and large corporations,” she added.
Experts have echoed these concerns. Kyle Ross, a policy analyst, pointed out, “This is significant. These groups were exempted for specific reasons; they are vulnerable for a reason.” He noted that around 12 million veterans depend on SNAP, many of whom face food insecurity.
On the other hand, some argue that special exemptions may not be necessary. Angela Lachidi from the American Enterprise Institute described the 2023 spending cap deal as a pragmatic compromise, suggesting that Republicans had secured a higher SNAP age threshold in negotiations. Some conservatives had criticized this agreement for its exemptions.
“Many states will exempt individuals due to mental health conditions without requiring doctor’s notes,” she said, claiming there is nothing inherently unique about those unable to work.
Lachidi suggested that eliminating additional levels of assessment could relieve state burdens since they already evaluate shelter status.
Conversely, Lauren Bauer, a fellow at Brookings, pointed out that the elimination of exemptions may lead to increased costs for states, especially concerning program administration.
“The bill also decreases federal support for states to manage and verify exemptions,” Bauer explained, adding that managing work requirements can be costly for state programs and not just for SNAP participants.
