HR-7522-119
Referred to the Subcommittee on Nutrition and Foreign Agriculture.
Sponsored by Alma Adams (D-NC)
What it does
This bill would amend the Food and Nutrition Act of 2008 to repeal the work requirement that currently limits SNAP (food stamp) eligibility for able-bodied adults without dependents (ABAWDs). Under current law, this group must work or participate in job training for at least 80 hours per month to receive SNAP benefits beyond three months in a three-year period. The bill would eliminate that time limit and work requirement entirely, taking effect 180 days after enactment. It also removes related provisions in the Internal Revenue Code and the Workforce Innovation and Opportunity Act that reference the repealed requirement.
Who benefits
Approximately 6.1 million able-bodied adults without dependents currently subject to SNAP work requirements, including those who are unemployed, underemployed, or unable to document compliance. People with undiagnosed or undocumented health conditions that prevent work. Homeless individuals, who the bill's findings note are most likely to leave SNAP when work requirements are in place. Black Americans, who the bill's findings note face disproportionate recent unemployment. Children in extended family households that pool SNAP benefits from adult relatives. State SNAP administrators, who would face reduced paperwork and compliance tracking burdens.
Who is hurt
Federal and state taxpayers who would bear the cost of expanded SNAP enrollment. Employers in low-wage sectors who may face reduced labor supply if some workers no longer need employment to maintain benefits. Workers who currently comply with the requirement and may perceive the change as inequitable. State workforce development agencies that receive funding tied to SNAP work-requirement referrals, which would be eliminated. Businesses that benefit from the Work Opportunity Tax Credit (WOTC) for hiring SNAP recipients subject to work requirements, as a conforming amendment narrows that credit's eligibility criteria.
Supporters argue
Supporters argue that the current work requirement fails its stated purpose: the bill's findings cite studies showing work requirements do not reduce poverty, and research indicates that health impediments — not unwillingness to work — are the primary reason many recipients cannot comply. They further contend that administrative costs associated with tracking compliance actually reduce overall SNAP participation, cutting off food assistance to eligible people who never should have lost it. With 6.1 million people at risk of losing benefits under the current rule, supporters argue the requirement creates food insecurity without producing measurable employment gains.
Opponents argue
Opponents argue that work requirements serve a legitimate purpose by encouraging self-sufficiency and ensuring that a program funded by taxpayers is directed toward those making efforts to become economically independent. They contend that broad exemptions already exist for those with genuine health barriers, and that removing the requirement entirely — rather than strengthening exemptions — expands a permanent entitlement without a corresponding incentive structure. Critics also argue that the bill's cited studies are contested, and that labor force participation effects of work requirements vary significantly by local economic conditions, making a blanket federal repeal an overly blunt response.
Constitutional context
Congress has broad authority to establish and modify federal spending programs under the Spending Clause (Art. I, §8) and the Necessary and Proper Clause. This bill modifies an existing statutory program rather than creating new agency authority, so it does not raise significant Commerce Clause or major questions doctrine concerns under West Virginia v. EPA (2022) or Loper Bright v. Raimondo (2024). No clear enumerated-powers challenge applies to Congress directly amending its own legislation.
Checks and balances
Congress would directly modify the statute, reducing USDA's administrative role in enforcing work requirements; the executive branch retains rulemaking authority over remaining SNAP eligibility rules, and courts retain jurisdiction over any challenges to implementation.
Historical precedent
The 2018 Farm Bill debate included a major legislative effort to expand and strengthen SNAP work requirements, which ultimately failed in the Senate; the current work requirement structure has been in place since the Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act of 1996.