Keep Factually independent
Whether you agree or disagree with our analysis, these conversations matter for democracy. We don't take money from political groups - even a $5 donation helps us keep it that way.
What are the work requirements for able-bodied adults to receive SNAP benefits in Florida?
Executive Summary
Florida’s SNAP work rules are contested and multilayered: federal policy reinstated strict ABAWD requirements effective November 2025 requiring 80 hours per month of work or qualifying activities for able-bodied adults without dependents, while Florida state-level measures and reporting show both alignment and divergence—some Florida authorities and reporting describe stricter state rules, including claims of 120 hours per month for certain age groups. The practical effect is that able-bodied adults in Florida face a baseline federal 80-hour requirement with state debates, cost projections, and implementation challenges shaping how that rule is applied and who is exempt [1] [2] [3].
1. What advocates and agencies are claiming — the headline disputes that matter
Recent reporting and state communications present three competing claims about the work hours required for able-bodied adults to keep SNAP benefits. The USDA’s October 2025 guidance reestablishes a nationwide 80-hour-per-month threshold for able-bodied adults without dependents (ABAWDs) and ties enforcement to a November 2025 implementation date, with interim protections for states handling errors [1] [4]. Florida Department of Children and Families materials and USDA summaries consistently describe the 80-hour monthly minimum coupled with exemptions for physical or mental incapacity, pregnancy, homelessness, veterans, and caregivers [5] [2]. By contrast, Florida legislative reporting and watchdog accounts from mid-2024 assert a state law that expands requirements to 120 hours per month for adults 18–59, indicating the state has pursued stricter standards than federal minima [3] [6]. These divergent claims explain public confusion: federal law sets a floor of 80 hours, while state action and reporting suggest Florida explored or enacted tougher thresholds.
2. The federal baseline and the November 2025 timeline everyone references
The USDA issued guidance in October 2025 that rescinds pandemic-era waivers and reinstates the ABAWD time limit and work-hour requirement, explicitly requiring 80 hours of work or qualifying program participation per month for ABAWDs aged roughly 18–64, subject to statutory time limits on benefits for noncompliance. The guidance also included a transitional provision: states would not be held accountable for administrative errors tied to the new enforcement until November 1, 2025, giving state agencies temporary protection while systems are updated [1] [4]. Federal summaries from late 2024 and 2025 reiterate the basic obligations—register for work, participate in SNAP Employment and Training (E&T) or take suitable work when offered—and enumerate common exemptions such as pregnancy, disability, or caregiving responsibilities [2] [5]. The bottom line is that 80 hours is the federal standard reinstated with a clear November 2025 start point.
3. Florida’s state law claims and the 120-hour controversy
Multiple mid‑2024 news items and policy analyses report Florida passed or advanced a state law increasing SNAP work expectations beyond the federal minimum, specifying 120 hours per month of work or training for adults aged 18–59, with exemptions for dependent caregivers and those medically unable to work; these accounts portray the change as motivated by workforce participation goals and a desire to address perceived “benefit cliffs” [3] [6]. Florida’s law reportedly went into effect July 1, 2024, and has been criticized by advocacy groups for potentially increasing food insecurity among vulnerable older adults and others who may struggle to meet a higher hourly threshold [7]. This creates a legal and practical tension: federal funding and enforcement are tied to 80 hours, but state policy ambitions have pushed toward a stricter 120-hour standard that could affect eligibility, administration, and state costs.
4. Costs, administration, and exemptions — why implementation matters
Analyses from October 2025 anticipate significant fiscal and operational consequences for Florida: if Florida’s payment error rates remain elevated, the state could face a roughly $340 million bill tied to expanded work requirements and the federal-state compliance framework [8]. Florida’s agency guidance highlights the complexity of tracking and documenting 80 or 120 hours per month, enrolling participants in E&T programs, and adjudicating exemptions for veterans, pregnant people, those with disabilities, and caregivers. USDA and state materials emphasize registration and E&T participation requirements for mandatory work participants and special age cohorts, underscoring how administrative capacity determines whether policy changes lead to sanctions or unintended benefit losses [5] [8]. Implementation capacity and error rates thus determine real-world impact more than headline hour requirements.
5. Comparison, open questions, and what to watch next
Comparing sources shows a clear federal floor of 80 hours reinstated in November 2025, acknowledged by USDA materials and Florida agency guidance, while Florida’s own legislative actions around 2024 claim a 120-hour standard for certain age ranges—creating a conflict between federal enforcement mechanics and state-level policy aims [4] [3]. Key unresolved questions include whether Florida will enforce the higher hour threshold in ways that affect federal benefits, how payment-error rates will be remedied to avoid state liability, and how exemptions will be applied administratively to mitigate hardship [8] [5]. Observers should watch state rulemaking, DCF guidance, and federal audits through late 2025 to see whether Florida’s 120-hour assertions translate into stricter eligibility or remain aspirational policy rhetoric against the federal 80-hour baseline. The practical outcome will hinge on administrative detail, not just statutory language.