What were the proposed work requirements for SNAP recipients during Trump's presidency?
Executive summary
President Trump’s 2025 “One Big Beautiful Bill Act” (a July 2025 budget and tax package) sharply expanded SNAP work rules so many more adults must perform or certify up to 80 hours of “work, school, or volunteering” each month and face a three-month time limit if they don’t comply (reported across major outlets) [1] [2] [3]. The changes raised the ABAWD-like age cap to 64 (from roughly mid‑50s for some rules), doubled the number of people subject to mandates per Brookings, and triggered a chaotic federal rollout and litigation and waiver fights with states [4] [5] [3].
1. What the proposal required: 80 hours a month, broader coverage
The central, repeatedly reported requirement imposed by the July bill and implemented by the administration was that many adult SNAP recipients must work, participate in job training, attend school, or volunteer for roughly 80 hours per month to remain eligible — a standard described as the new baseline in outlets including Fox Business, NBC, AP and local press [1] [4] [3] [6]. Coverage was expanded beyond prior “able-bodied adults without dependents” (ABAWD) categories: the law raised the upper age for mandatory participation to 64 and made parents with older dependents (age 14+) subject to work rules where they previously often were exempt [7] [1].
2. Time limits and enforcement: three‑month clock and certification
The implementation paired the 80‑hour requirement with a three‑month limit on receiving SNAP without meeting the new work conditions — states must count months off‑work toward a time limit and recipients failing to certify compliance beyond three months risk termination [2] [3]. USDA guidance and federal action pushed states to begin checking compliance and certify monthly participation, and the department created teams to track compliance and train employment counselors for the accelerated rollout [2].
3. Scope and expected impact: millions more affected, CBO projection
Analysts and agencies cited that the rule would roughly double the population subject to the mandate and that the Congressional Budget Office projected a reduction in SNAP enrollment — Fox Business cited a CBO estimate of about 2.4 million fewer recipients on average over 10 years linked to the change [5] [1]. News reporting emphasized that about 40–42 million people use SNAP, underlining how changes to adult participation rules could affect a large program [8] [4].
4. Rollout problems, state pushback, and waivers
Implementation was chaotic: counties and states reported being “blindsided” by an accelerated timeline, and some states refused to share data with USDA, triggering threats to withhold federal funds [2] [8]. USDA said it would approve waivers “within its statutory authority” in some cases and court orders and local waiver expirations shaped where the three‑month clock began, leaving parts of the country temporarily exempt based on unemployment metrics [5] [3].
5. Competing perspectives and political framing
Supporters framed the changes as returning SNAP to its employment-assistance purpose and curbing program growth; the administration argued costs and alleged fraud required tighter rules [1]. Opponents — including governors and some state officials — called threatened fund withholding and the accelerated enforcement “morally repugnant” and warned about cutting food for children; New York and other states sued, prompting court-ordered funding restores in some instances [8] [2].
6. What reporting does not settle
Available sources describe the 80-hour monthly standard, expanded age and parent coverage, three‑month time limits, waiver mechanics, and estimated enrollment impacts [1] [2] [3] [5]. Sources do not mention detailed regulatory text defining “qualifying activities” beyond the broad categories, nor do they provide exhaustive lists of exemptions or the full administrative appeals process — those specifics are not found in current reporting (not found in current reporting).
7. Why this matters now: practical consequences and next steps
Journalistic accounts show immediate consequences: counties scrambling to train staff, recipients being required to certify monthly activity starting in December in many places, and litigation and waiver decisions determining who is temporarily spared the three‑month clock [2] [3]. The practical effect depends on state implementation, waiver approvals, and ongoing court rulings — a national policy change whose day‑to‑day impact will vary by locality [2] [5].
Limitations: this summary relies solely on the provided reporting; it cites aggregate impacts and public statements in those pieces and does not substitute for the full statutory or regulatory language that would define precise compliance and enforcement rules [1] [3].