Fact check: What are the current Congressional proposals for reforming the food stamp program in 2025?

1. A Major Overhaul That Could Reshape SNAP’s Federal-State Balance

The One Big Beautiful Bill Act, backed by the House Agriculture Committee, proposes to shift a portion of SNAP benefit costs onto states and to change program responsiveness during economic downturns; this structural move would reduce federal fiscal exposure but create incentives for states to restrict participation or exit the program entirely, potentially decreasing benefits or caseloads ^{[1] [6]}. Policy analysts and committee critics emphasize that transferring cost responsibility undermines SNAP’s traditional role as a countercyclical federal program that expands automatically in recessions; the Congressional Budget Office quantifies the potential human impact by estimating about 4 million people would lose some or all food benefits once the changes are fully implemented ^[2]. Supporters argue state flexibility could spur innovation and budgetary control, while opponents point to historical evidence that state-level fiscal pressures commonly lead to eligibility tightening and administrative barriers, making state cost-sharing a central flashpoint in debates over program design ^[6].

2. Work Requirements Expanded — Who Would Be Affected and How

Multiple provisions in the megabill and related committee proposals would expand SNAP’s work requirements to broader groups, according to committee summaries and policy analyses; new rules would extend reporting and participation obligations to older adults and parents of children 14 and older, shifting administrative burden onto states and recipients ^{[2] [6]}. Critics contend the expanded work reporting is likely to increase erroneous denials and administrative churn, imposing costs on state agencies and increasing food insecurity among people who face barriers to employment such as caregiving responsibilities, transportation gaps, and limited job opportunities. Proponents frame work requirements as promoting self-sufficiency and aligning SNAP with other safety-net programs, but independent budget scores warn that expanded enforcement without commensurate employment supports can lead to benefit losses rather than sustained employment outcomes, making the policy trade-offs highly consequential ^[2].

3. Continuity Proposals Aim to Prevent Payment Disruptions During Shutdowns

Separate from structural reform, Senators and Representatives have advanced measures to ensure SNAP benefits continue uninterrupted during federal funding lapses; Senator Josh Hawley’s Keep SNAP Funded Act would authorize USDA to keep issuing payments during a government shutdown and seeks retroactive coverage for missed payments since September 30, 2025, with substantial bipartisan cosponsorship reported ^[3]. Advocacy groups and the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities argue statutory contingency reserves are legally available to cover regular SNAP benefits during shutdowns and that administrative practice in prior administrations supports this interpretation, countering executive-branch positions that limit use of contingency funds ^[5]. These continuity proposals attract support from members focused on preventing immediate hunger and from state officials who face the practical consequences of halted federal flows, positioning them as near-term fixes rather than long-term reform of program structure ^{[3] [5]}.

4. A Cluster of Targeted Improvement Bills Seeking Benefit Adequacy and Access

Beyond the megabill and shutdown-focused fixes, several named proposals and farm-bill provisions aim to improve benefit adequacy, expand eligibility, and increase access — measures framed as corrective rather than transformational ^[4]. Bills referenced in farm bill discussions include the Closing the Meal Gap Act, Improving Access to Nutrition Act, Enhance Access to SNAP Act, Hot Foods Act, Lift the Bar Act, and Restore Act; these proposals address such issues as updating benefit calculations, expanding categorical eligibility, allowing more food types, and restoring access for certain populations ^[4]. Advocates argue these targeted reforms would strengthen SNAP’s effectiveness without destabilizing federal-state funding relationships, while skeptics note they may face budgetary constraints and political resistance in a polarized Congress; the range of proposals underscores a policy split between incremental improvements and sweeping structural changes.

5. What the Evidence and Scores Say — Who Wins, Who Loses

Congressional Budget Office scoring and independent analyses converge on the conclusion that structural cost-shifting and tighter enforcement will reduce participation and benefits, with the CBO projecting approximately 4 million people losing some or all benefits under the major reform package and policy organizations forecasting state-level cutbacks ^{[2] [1]}. Conversely, continuity legislation and contingency reserve interpretations aim to protect existing beneficiaries from short-term harm during shutdowns, with legal and historical arguments marshaled to support using contingency funds for regular payments ^[5]. The combination of proposals creates sharply divergent outcomes: the megabill risks long-term contraction of the safety net through state fiscal pressure and enforcement expansions, while the targeted and continuity bills primarily focus on minimizing immediate harm and incrementally improving program functioning, framing an electoral and ideological choice that Congress must reconcile before final action ^{[6] [3]}.