Fact check: What are the eligibility requirements for SNAP benefits in the US?

1. What proponents and official reports say about the basic financial gatekeepers

Congressional and program primers lay out clear numerical thresholds for traditional SNAP eligibility: households must have gross monthly income at or below 130% of the federal poverty level and net monthly income at or below 100% after SNAP-allowed deductions. Asset tests historically limit countable resources—commonly cited around $3,000 for many households—and states may apply additional procedures to verify financial status. These rules reflect federal baseline policy and are described as the primary screen used to determine traditional eligibility, with benefit calculations subsequently based on household size and net income ^[1]. The Hamilton Project primer reiterates the 130%/100% framework and notes that states have some latitude to adjust gross-income rules under certain categorical frameworks ^[2].

2. How categorical eligibility changes the game—and why advocates want reform

Categorical eligibility bypasses some of the traditional financial paperwork by conferring SNAP access to households already enrolled in other means-tested programs, effectively expanding access without strictly applying gross/net income screens or asset limitations. Research analyzing eligibility metrics finds that relaxing or removing asset tests meaningfully increases the pool of eligible households, with analysts arguing that asset thresholds often exclude financially insecure families who lack liquid assets but still face food hardship. This line of evidence underpins calls to reform or eliminate asset tests to reduce administrative burden and broaden coverage, a point highlighted in academic analysis that compares metric choices and the resulting eligible populations ^{[4] [2]}.

3. State flexibility and the politics of raising income cutoffs

The statutory framework permits states discretion in certain areas, including mechanisms that allow states to set higher gross-income thresholds—sometimes up to 200% of the poverty line—for households participating in other programs. Proponents argue that giving states flexibility enables better alignment with local cost-of-living differences and improves benefit take-up among needy families. Critics warn that divergent state rules generate a patchwork of eligibility that complicates administration and could create inequities across state lines. The Congressional Research Service and policy primers document both the baseline federal thresholds and the avenues states can use to expand eligibility, offering empirical grounding for debates over federal uniformity versus state-based innovation ^{[1] [2]}.

4. Work rules, ABAWD time limits, and the real-world participation effects

Work requirements and ABAWD time limits have re-emerged as focal points in policy debates. Recent evaluations of reinstated ABAWD time limits in nine states show substantial drops in SNAP participation among those subject to the limits, with no clear evidence that the policy led to higher employment or earnings. Reform advocates frame work and time limits as necessary to encourage labor attachment, while critics and some empirical studies argue these rules reduce access to nutrition without demonstrable employment gains. Policy summaries and state-level impact studies document both the statutory mechanics—such as 30-hour-per-week work thresholds or engagement in employment and training programs—and the measurable participation declines after reinstatement ^{[5] [3]}.

5. Bottom line: What’s settled, what’s contested, and what policymakers should weigh

The legal architecture of SNAP is settled on several points: gross income below 130% and net income below 100% of the poverty line form the core financial tests, with asset rules and categorical eligibility shaping practical access; states may exercise limited flexibility to raise gross-income thresholds for certain populations ^{[1] [2]}. The contested terrain includes whether asset limits should remain, how broadly categorical eligibility should be used, and the effectiveness and fairness of ABAWD time limits—each choice carries trade-offs between administrative simplicity, program costs, and hunger alleviation. Research shows that removing asset tests increases eligibility and that reinstating ABAWD limits reduces participation without clear employment benefits, facts policymakers must weigh against budgetary and ideological considerations ^{[4] [3]}.