Fact check: What are the work requirements for food stamp eligibility in the US?

1. Who exactly faces the new squeeze? — The ABAWD spotlight

The federal changes target ABAWDs, defined as adults without dependents who are physically and mentally able to work; these individuals are now subject to a strict three-month maximum of SNAP benefits in any three-year period unless they meet the 20-hours-per-week standard through work, training, or volunteering. States previously used waivers and broader exemptions during and after pandemic-era flexibilities; the new federal rule curtails those protections and makes the time-limit enforcement nationwide as of November 1, 2025 ^{[1] [3] [4]}. This concentrates program pressure on single adults while leaving longstanding exclusions for caregivers, people with disabilities, and those already working.

2. How the hourly math works — 20 hours a week equals 80 hours a month

The policy defines the participation threshold both weekly (20 hours) and monthly (80 hours) to accommodate variable scheduling and program reporting; meeting either standard through employment, unpaid work, or approved training satisfies the requirement. Federal guidance and state notices repeat the same numeric standard, reflecting an administrative choice to simplify monitoring while aligning with common full-time-part-time distinctions ^{[1] [2] [5]}. Operationalizing those hours—verifying unpaid volunteering or short-term training—will be a practical challenge for caseworkers and recipients and is central to disputes about fairness and administrative feasibility.

3. Who lost or kept exemptions — A reshuffle of vulnerable groups

The rule changes narrow several classes of exemptions that had been used by states: exemptions for homeless individuals, many veterans, and some young adults who aged out of foster care have been limited or removed, while the age ceiling for a different exception was moved to cover individuals up to 65 in some formulations. State descriptions vary, and some versions of the rule differ on exact age cutoffs and which veteran or foster-care cohorts qualify, producing an uneven patchwork of protections that will depend on state enactment and administrative interpretation ^{[6] [7] [5]}. The result is a migration of program risk toward groups previously shielded.

4. What federal and state roles are changing — Costs and compliance pressures

The new rules increase state administrative burdens and potential fiscal exposure because states will be responsible for implementing work-tracking, sanctions, and tailored exemptions; several reports highlight concerns that states will face higher transactional costs and political pressure to seek waivers or expand local training slots ^{[7] [1]}. Federal guidance sets the standard, but state-level capacity—availability of job training, case management, and transportation assistance—will determine how many people actually meet the 80-hour threshold. This structural split shapes likely outcomes more than the headline numeric requirement.

5. Estimates of people affected — Millions at risk, but figures vary

Media and state analyses estimate millions could be affected by the reinstated ABAWD limit; conservative and advocacy sources produce different tallies depending on assumptions about exemptions and state actions. One widely cited projection suggests up to 2.4 million people could lose benefits absent rapid program expansion or waivers ^[2]. Disagreements hinge on how many will qualify for exemptions, find work, or enter training quickly; these operational variables explain divergent estimates rather than conflicting data about the rule's text itself.

6. Administrative and practical obstacles — Verification, jobs, and supports

Meeting 80 hours monthly is conceptually straightforward but practically difficult for many recipients: irregular work schedules, limited local job openings, transportation gaps, childcare needs, and the time required to verify unpaid community service or training participation all complicate compliance. Several state notices and federal guidance acknowledge these logistical barriers and recommend investments in Employment and Training programs, but the scale of investment required to prevent benefit losses is large and unevenly distributed ^{[8] [5]}. Without parallel support services, the rule is likely to cause benefit churn and increased hunger risk.

7. Political and legal headwinds — Litigation, waivers, and debate

The rule has prompted immediate political disagreement and legal scrutiny; opponents argue the reinstated limits will harm vulnerable people and overburden states, while supporters emphasize work incentives and fiscal stewardship. Multiple news outlets report states considering waivers, litigation, or administrative workarounds; legal challenges and congressional responses remain plausible as implementation unfolds and measurable impacts appear ^{[6] [1]}. The interplay of courts, federal agencies, and state governments will shape how strictly the rule affects recipients in practice.

8. Bottom line — A numeric standard with systemic consequences

The new SNAP work requirement is clear in numbers—20 hours per week / 80 hours per month and a three-month limit in a three-year period for noncompliant ABAWDs—but its human impact depends on state implementation, exemption interpretations, and availability of jobs and supportive services. Reports from federal guidance, state announcements, and contemporary journalism agree on the legal mechanics while diverging on projected effects, reflecting an observable rule change with uncertain real-world outcomes that will become clearer only after monitoring of implementation beginning November 1, 2025 ^{[1] [2]}.