Fact check: How many people on snap work

1. How many people does the USDA say will be directly affected — and why that matters

The USDA’s formal projection places the population directly subject to the reinstated or tightened ABAWD work rule at roughly 700,000 to 900,000 people, defined as able-bodied adults without dependents who are not otherwise exempt, and who must perform 80 hours of qualifying activity per month beginning November 1, 2025 ^[1]. This government figure matters because it reflects the specific regulatory cohort targeted by the rule, but it does not capture indirect effects on households, administrative burdens on states, or recipients temporarily exempted yet still destabilized by policy uncertainty. Counting methods and definitions shape whether an individual is counted, and the USDA’s figure is narrower than some advocacy estimates.

2. Why other analyses report larger impacts — different counts, different scopes

Advocates and independent analysts report substantially larger potential impacts—ranging from 1.4 million potentially losing benefits to warnings that the rule could affect “millions” in areas with limited jobs—because they include broader categories of SNAP participants, spillover effects on households with mixed eligibility, and projected declines in participation due to administrative barriers ^{[2] [4]}. These estimates incorporate secondary effects: reduced take-up, logistical barriers for people with unstable schedules, and state-level reinstatements of time limits that multiply the number affected. The larger numbers reflect a broader policy lens than the USDA’s narrow regulatory count.

3. What the 80-hour requirement actually entails and who’s exempt

The rule requires ABAWDs to work, volunteer, or engage in approved training or education for at least 80 hours per month to keep SNAP benefits, with stated exemptions for people with disabilities, pregnant women, caregivers, and other categories recognized by federal and state rules ^[5]. The practical effect depends on state enforcement capacity and the availability of approved programs and jobs; critics note that industries with irregular hours and rural labor markets complicate compliance, while supporters argue the rule promotes labor market attachment. The implementation mechanics—how states document hours and manage exemptions—will shape real-world outcomes.

4. Political and policy debate: fairness vs. harm arguments

Supporters frame the change as restoring work requirements and fairness, asserting that able-bodied adults should engage in work or training to receive benefits ^[4]. Opponents counter that the rule will disproportionately harm the working poor, people with intermittent employment, and those in precarious jobs, and that it is unlikely to improve employment outcomes while risking deeper poverty for vulnerable families ^{[4] [2]}. Both frames are present in the public debate; the empirical contention centers on whether the policy raises employment or mainly exacerbates food insecurity through benefit losses and churn.

5. Broader fiscal context: SNAP funding reductions in 2025 budget actions

The 2025 budget reconciliation process included proposals to cut SNAP spending by large amounts—analysts flagged a potential nearly $187 billion reduction over ten years, which policy experts say would be the largest reduction in the program’s history and could affect over 22 million low-income households when combined with stricter work rules and administrative changes ^[3]. These fiscal measures change the stakes: the work-rule restoration is one mechanism within a suite of measures that could shrink program reach. Budget-driven reform shifts the discussion from narrow regulatory counts to program-level consequences for millions of households.

6. What the evidence says about employment outcomes and likely results

Existing research cited by policy groups indicates most SNAP participants who are able to work already do so at least some of the time—historical data show over half of working-age, non-disabled participants worked in a given month and 74 percent worked within a year of that month—raising questions about how much additional employment the rule will generate ^[6]. Analysts argue that the rule’s administrative costs and rigidity may produce benefit loss rather than meaningful job gains, particularly where jobs are seasonal, part-time, or geographically scarce, suggesting expectations of improved employment should be weighed against likely increases in instability.

7. What to watch next: states, administrative capacity, and short-term shocks

The near-term indicators to monitor are state-level implementation choices, waiver or exemption policies, outreach and documentation processes, and early reports on case closures or participation declines starting November 2025 ^[1]. Changes in SNAP caseloads, local labor market reports, and administrative error rates will reveal whether USDA projections align with on-the-ground effects or whether advocacy estimates of broader disruption prove more accurate. Transparency in state reporting and timely data on caseload declines will be essential to evaluate whether the rule achieves its stated aims or produces larger harms than the official tallies suggest.