Congress could soon put an end to work requirement exemptions for veterans, homeless individuals and youth that were in foster care who receive food assistance.
While House Republicans preserved the exemptions to work requirements under the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) as part of their broader package to advance President Trump’s tax cut and spending priorities, Senate Republicans omitted the key language in their version of the bill. The exemptions were initially negotiated as part of a bipartisan deal two years ago.
The GOP-led Senate Agriculture Committee confirmed the provision’s absence would mean the exemptions would no longer be retained for members of the three groups.
The move has drawn little attention on both sides of the aisle so far, as other pieces of the Republicans’ megabill take center stage, including significant changes to Medicaid and what some estimates have projected as a multitrillion-dollar tax package.
Even multiple GOP members of the Senate committee that produced the text say they intend to press for more information about the potential change before the upper chamber votes on the bill.
Senate Agriculture Committee Chair John Boozman (R-Ark.) said Wednesday that “everybody ought to be treated the same” when asked about the matter. A Senate Republican aide also noted that individuals who aren’t “able-bodied” wouldn’t “have to meet those requirements” under the Senate plan.
Congress had previously agreed to temporary changes to work requirements for SNAP in 2023 as part of a bipartisan deal to cap annual federal spending and raise the nation’s debt limit. That included measures carving out exemptions through September 2030 for individuals experiencing homelessness, veterans, and young adults who were in foster care at the age of 18.
In a statement on the matter last Friday, the Senate committee said Republicans are working “to encourage greater independence through work and training opportunities.”
However, it noted its plan would still allow for “individuals who are physically or mentally unfit for employment are not required to meet the 20 hours per week work requirement whether in those groups or not.”
The decision comes as Republicans in both chambers are working to root out “waste, fraud and abuse” in what some have described as a “bloated” government program that has seen its spending climb over the years.
Other notable changes Republicans are seeking to make to SNAP include requiring states to cover some of the cost of benefits and front a greater share of administrative costs for the program, as well as limiting the federal government’s ability to increase monthly benefits in the future.
The Senate Agriculture Committee estimates its plan will yield “an approximate net savings of $144 billion” in the coming years, with Republicans’ proposal requiring states to cover some SNAP benefits costs estimated to account for a significant portion of the projected spending reductions.
The plan is part of a larger pursuit by the party to find measures to reduce federal spending by more than a $1 trillion over the next decade that can ride alongside an extension of Trump’s 2017 tax cuts and other tax priorities.
Democrats have come out in staunch opposition to the evolving proposal that is being exclusively crafted between House and Senate Republicans.
“The Republican bill takes food away from vulnerable veterans, homeless people and young adults who are aging out of the foster care system and may not know where their next meal is coming from,” Rep. Angie Craig (Minn.), top Democrat on the House Agriculture Committee, said in a statement on Wednesday.
“Republicans want to make these cuts to food assistance to fund new tax breaks for people who are already wealthy and large corporations,” she added.
Some experts are also sounding the alarm.
“It is a huge deal. These groups were carved out for a reason. They are vulnerable for a reason,” Kyle Ross, a policy analyst for Inclusive Economy at the left-leaning Center for American Progress, said, adding the exemptions apply to “different populations with their own special set of circumstances.”
“There are an estimated 1.2 million veterans receiving SNAP, and veterans are more likely to live in a food insecure household than nonveterans, so they’re really more likely to be in need of some food assistance,” he said, while also pointing to barriers homeless individuals and those aging out of foster care face in the job market.
But others have argued against the need for the special carveouts.
Angela Rachidi, senior fellow at the right-leaning American Enterprise Institute (AEI), described the 2023 spending caps deal as “a political compromise,” noting that Republicans had also secured increases to the age threshold for SNAP as part of the deal under the Biden administration. Some hardline conservatives had also been critical of the deal at the time, while pointing to SNAP’s exemptions.
“Many states would exempt people anyway because of mental health issues and you don’t always necessarily have to have a doctor’s note for it,” she said, while also arguing there wasn’t “anything unique about those populations that make them not capable of work.”
She added that doing away with the carveouts could help lessen states’ burden by removing “another level of screening.”
“They don’t have to assess somebody for their veteran status or foster status, and they would assess them anyway for their shelter status,” she said, while suggesting from a “bureaucratic perspective, it actually might make it easier.”
At the same time, Lauren Bauer, a fellow in Economic Studies at the Brookings Institution, pointed to the added strain states could face if other proposals from Republicans to increase states’ cost share of the program’s benefits and administrative cost also take effect.
“What the bill also does is, on both sides, you know, reduces the support that the federal government gives to states to administer the program and identifying and validating exemptions, the health exemptions, etc. is very expensive,” Bauer said.
“And administering work requirements is also very, very expensive, because it is onerous not only on the SNAP participant, it’s onerous on the state who is managing the program,” she added.
