Fact check: What nationality gets EBT?

1. Who the headlines say will still qualify — a focused list that matters now

Multiple recent summaries and analyses converge on a concise eligibility list: U.S. citizens, lawful permanent residents (green card holders) who have satisfied a five-year waiting period, Cuban and Haitian entrants with special parole-like status, and citizens of the Compact of Free Association (the Marshall Islands, Micronesia, Palau). This list appears repeatedly in reporting and explanatory pieces about the 2025 policy changes and is presented as the groups that will remain eligible for SNAP/EBT under the new rules ^{[2] [3]}. The repeated mention across sources suggests this is the core factual pivot of the reform.

2. Who reports say is at risk of losing benefits — specific immigrant categories flagged

Several contemporary reports identify refugees, people granted asylum, survivors of human trafficking and other humanitarian statuses as likely to lose SNAP eligibility under the new federal framework. Coverage highlights that these groups previously accessed benefits without the same five-year wait or other barriers, and the policy change removes or restricts that access, creating an immediate vulnerability for households that relied on SNAP as a primary food-security resource ^{[1] [2]}. The convergence of multiple outlets on these particular groups indicates the reform’s greatest practical impacts center on humanitarian migrants.

3. What the law and legislative summaries emphasize — the One Big Beautiful Bill context

Analyses tied to the One Big Beautiful Bill Act of 2025 summarize SNAP provisions as tightening immigrant eligibility and altering work requirements, though some legislative summaries stop short of enumerating nationalities. Other explanatory pieces explicitly link the bill to the narrowed eligibility list (U.S. citizens, certain LPRs, Cuban/Haitian entrants, COFA citizens), implying the reform’s nationality and status-based distinctions stem from that statute’s language and implementation guidance ^{[4] [3]}. The mixed presentation—some sources focusing on policy shifts and others listing affected nationalities—reflects varying depth and timing of reporting.

4. State guidance and implementation uncertainty — an uneven rollout that matters

State-level materials and government pages signal substantial implementation uncertainty, with at least one state waiting on federal guidance before executing eligibility changes, while others are already preparing to terminate benefits for affected immigrants. Illinois’ government site, for example, described the federal change and warned that individuals who lose eligibility will stop receiving SNAP but could regain benefits if their citizenship status later changes ^[5]. This patchwork suggests outcomes will vary by state administrative action and timing, affecting who actually experiences benefit loss and when.

5. Numbers and projected scale — how many people might be affected

Contemporary reporting and policy analyses estimate large-scale impacts, with one analysis projecting SNAP cuts affecting roughly 4 million people and noting that implementation choices could widen or narrow harm. Coverage also ties program disruptions to federal funding and political dynamics—such as a government shutdown scenario that could delay benefit refills—highlighting that the numeric toll depends on both statutory eligibility changes and funding or administrative interruptions ^{[6] [7]}. The intersection of eligibility rules and fiscal events compounds the uncertainty faced by recipients.

6. Differing emphases and possible agendas in coverage — reading beyond the facts

Sources vary in tone and emphasis: some news stories focus on human impacts (families, veterans, older adults) and the immediacy of benefit loss, while others frame changes as policy tightening to target benefits based on nationality or status. The repeated citation of particular nationalities (Cuban/Haitian entrants, COFA citizens) may reflect legal exceptions rather than preferential treatment, and state pages focus on process and contingency. These differences indicate media agendas range from advocacy for affected populations to analytic descriptions of statutory mechanics ^{[1] [6] [2]}.

7. Practical implications and next steps for impacted people and policymakers

Analyses consistently advise that eligible individuals monitor state guidance, prepare for potential interruptions, and explore alternative food assistance like food banks—while recognizing food banks may not fully substitute SNAP. Reports urge administrative clarity from federal agencies and note that changes could be temporary for some if citizenship status changes, underscoring the importance of legal advice and timely benefit reviews ^{[5] [7]}. Policymakers’ mitigation choices at federal and state levels will determine whether the theoretical eligibility changes translate into sustained food insecurity for affected groups.