SNAP work requirement carveouts for vets, homeless caught in crosshairs of Trump bill
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.
'When you have an opportunity to restore dignity and hope and belief back to someone, we're doing something that I think is, is our obligation, you know, we should try to help people that are down under luck and having a hard time,' Sen. Jim Justice (R-W.Va.), a member of the committee, also told The Hill when asked about the matter.
However, he added, 'From the standpoint of the SNAP benefits and everything, if we're doing something that is detrimental to our veterans, shame on us, because they have given us so much it's off the chart.'
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.
Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
32 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Trump's Disastrous Budget Bill Is Even More Expensive Than We Thought
Donald Trump's 'big, beautiful bill' would increase the total U.S. deficit by nearly $2.8 trillion over the next decade, according to a new analysis from the Congressional Budget Office. Previous estimates suggested that the massive spending bill would add $2.4 trillion to the national deficit over the next 10 years, but a 'dynamic' estimate published Tuesday takes into account how the legislation would affect the U.S. economy—and things got even more dire. The CBO projected that an increase in economic output would decrease the primary deficit by $85 billion over the 2025–2034 period, while also significantly boosting interest rates, which would push the federal debt to a whopping $441 billion. 'Incredible—CBO says the House-passed GOP bill pays for only 3.5% of itself,' Bobby Kogan, the senior director of federal budget policy at the Center for American Progress, wrote on X Tuesday. Despite previous damning reports, MAGA Republicans backing the bill have continued to claim that the CBO is biased, rather than make any concessions, and have claimed that the CBO's evaluations of the legislation's cost don't take the revenue from Trump's sweeping global tariffs into effect. In a letter to Democratic lawmakers earlier this month, the CBO projected that Trump's tariffs, as they were in mid-May, could decrease the deficit by $2.8 trillion—but said any projection came with some uncertainty, as Trump's tariffs are ever-vacillating. The newest analysis suggests that the costs will only go up after taking the economy into account. The CBO estimated that over the next decade, the legislation would affect the economy by increasing gross domestic product by an average of 0.5 percent, increasing the interest rates on 10-year Treasury notes by 14 basis points, and increasing inflation 'by a small amount' through 2030, but not afterward.
Yahoo
33 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Trump Lashes Out at Fox News Over Devastating New Poll
Donald Trump slammed a Fox News poll Thursday on Truth Social, accusing the network's pollsters of being 'always wrong and negative.' 'The Crooked FoxNews Polls got the Election WRONG, I won by much more than they said I would, and have been biased against me for years,' Trump wrote, referring to the 2020 election, which Fox correctly said that he lost. 'It's why MAGA HATES FoxNews, even though their anchors are GREAT.' 'I hate FAKE pollsters, one of the Worst, but Fox will never change their discredited pollster!' he added. A Fox News poll released Wednesday shows that a majority of voters disapprove of Trump's job performance by an eight-point margin. The poll, regarded as one of the best in the industry, found that a majority of voters are still feeling pessimistic about the state of the economy. Just Tuesday, the Federal Reserve forecasted higher inflation as business owners and consumers start to feel the impact of the president's sweeping tariffs. On inflation specifically, Trump's job approval is underwater by 30 points, with just 34 percent of voters approving of his performance on the price-level. When it comes to the 'One Big Beautiful Bill Act,' congressional Republicans' sprawling package of tax cuts and health care 'reforms' that the president has put his full weight behind, the poll found Americans oppose the measure by a large margin. According to the poll, nearly three in four independents oppose the measure, as do the vast majority of Democrats. The majority of voters across the spectrum disapprove of the president's job on immigration and foreign policy, as his response to anti-ICE protests in Los Angeles and a collapse in diplomatic negotiations with Iran has dominated headlines.
New York Times
39 minutes ago
- New York Times
The Supreme Court Fails to See Transgender Teens
Imagine you are a transgender teenager. Don't ask me how you know that you are transgender: That question is no more appropriate or relevant than asking people how they know that they are gay or Jewish or Black. Maybe you've always known. Maybe a classmate or a stranger said something that alerted you to it. Maybe you know the way teenagers often know things: As the world came into focus, this thing about yourself became clear as could be. In any case, you know. Like many teenagers, you spend an inordinate amount of time in front of the mirror. You regularly become obsessed with what you perceive as imperfections or, less often, advantages in your appearance. You adopt and abandon hairstyles, items of clothing and affectations. You will shed much of what you are experimenting with now, but some elements will stick. They will form the core of the person you are in the world. Speaking of the world: Moving through it is awkward, because you are a teenager. Being trans can make it more awkward still. Like when you are in a public place — including your school — and you need to use the bathroom. If you want to consider transitioning medically, you have to discuss the most intimate details of your life with doctors and involve your parents. I am asking you to imagine what it's like to be a transgender teenager because that is exactly what the majority of the Supreme Court justices refused to do when they ruled in United States v. Skrmetti on Wednesday, upholding a Tennessee law that bans gender-affirming care for minors. The plaintiffs in the case are three trans teenagers from Tennessee, their parents and a doctor, but there is scarcely a reference to them in the majority or concurring opinions. It's often the case that 'courts enact discrimination through abstraction,' Chase Strangio, a director of the American Civil Liberties Union's L.G.B.T.Q. and H.I.V. Rights Project, who argued the case before the Supreme Court, told me. In Plessy v. Ferguson, the 1896 case that upheld the legality of racial segregation; in Korematsu v. United States, which in 1944 affirmed the internment of Japanese Americans; in Bowers v. Hardwick, the 1986 case that upheld Georgia's sodomy laws; and in Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Organization, which three years ago took away the constitutional guarantee of abortion rights, the Supreme Court seemed blind to the existence of the people who would suffer most from the consequences of its decisions. In Skrmetti, the plaintiffs and the Biden administration said that the Tennessee law should be held to a higher level of scrutiny because it violated the equal protection clause of the 14th Amendment. If a state law creates conditions for treating people differently on the basis of sex, the state must prove that the law serves an important purpose that justifies such discrimination. If the differential treatment is based on race, the level of scrutiny is even higher. Want all of The Times? Subscribe.
