Author: Sage Wong
There’s been a lot of negative talk about the One Big Beautiful Bill Act (OBBBA), like how it’s going to add 3.4 trillion dollars to the national debt over the course of 10 years and cut significant funding for Medicaid and food stamps. Since this is a sweeping policy bill, this article will only cover the section about the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) and how this bill isn’t as devastating as some people think. This article will first cover how SNAP eligibility works and is calculated for background, the expanded work requirements, and some creative cost-cutting measures of the bill.
To be eligible for SNAP, households need to fulfill two of the following criteria: their gross monthly income is at most 130% of the federal poverty level, and their net monthly income is at most 100% of the federal poverty level. Gross monthly income is defined as their total paycheck, or revenue. Net monthly income is defined as your income after subtracting household and utility costs. There are also work requirements; the two main ones are the general work requirements (GWR) and the able-bodied adult without dependents (ABAWD) requirements. They are a bit complex, but the gist of it is that the ABAWD requirement allows you to work (including volunteer / unpaid work) for only 20 hours a week and still get your food stamps, but if you stop working for more than three months, you will be permanently cut off for up to three years. On the other hand, the GWR makes you work for 30 hours per week, but if you miss it once, you can easily hop back into receiving food stamps. These requirements are also not mutually exclusive, so many people end up having to fulfill both.
Since the ABAWD requirement is strict in making you wait several years before you are let back on food stamps, the federal government created some exceptions for people with physical limitations, pregnant people, people living with another person under 18 years old, veterans, homeless people, and certain foster care individuals. Under the Big Beautiful Bill, the only remaining exceptions to this requirement are people with physical limitations and people who are pregnant. This could be viewed as a cut to food stamps, or it could be viewed as a stronger incentive for people to work. This is because if they don’t work for more than 3 months, they will be cut off from food stamps for years. Some could argue that this could negatively impact people who are unable to find a job quickly enough after getting laid off. However, the ABAWD requirement can still be satisfied by any unpaid or volunteer labor, which will still help the community and allow them to keep their food stamps.
There are also some cost-cutting measures: the state matching fund requirements are based on the error rate. Let’s break each part of this down. State matching funds refer to states helping the government pay for SNAP costs. The error rate refers to how accurate the states are paying their SNAP welfare out to their people. As of 2024, the average state incorrectly pays out 9.26% more benefits, and the average state incorrectly pays out 1.67% less benefits, amounting to a total of a 10.93% error rate across the board. Because this ends up wasting money and not giving enough support to the people who need it, states are now incentivized to cut this error rate down so that they won’t have to put money into paying for SNAP. States with an error rate of 6% or lower are exempt from this requirement, while states with an error rate of 6-8% have to pay 5% of SNAP’s costs. States with an error rate of 8-10% have to pay 10% of SNAP’s costs. States with an error rate of 10% or greater have to pay 15% of SNAP’s costs. This seems like a very good plan to incentivize states to reduce money wasting and increase accountability, and could save billions of dollars in wasted money. Additionally, states now have to pay for 75% of their administrative costs related to SNAP as opposed to 50% before, upping the responsibility to the states.
They have also implemented some negative cost-cutting measures, such as cutting off SNAP for asylum and refugee seekers, who also pay taxes, so it doesn’t seem very fair. They are also cutting SNAP-Ed, a program to educate low-income households on nutrition and cooking to allow them to live healthier lives, to save a measly $500 million, which is a very small amount in the grand scheme of the national budget ($6.75 trillion).
Overall, the modifications to SNAP aren’t that bad. It reduces wasteful spending and increases accountability to the states by making them help pay off some of the costs. It also should increase the quality of communities, as more people will be doing community service to maintain their SNAP benefits.
Works Cited
Desilver, Drew. “What the Data Says About Food Stamps in the U.S.” Pew Research Center, 19 July 2023, www.pewresearch.org/short-reads/2023/07/19/what-the-data-says-about-food-stamps-in-the-u-s/. Accessed 25 July 2025.
“How Much Does the Federal Government Spend on SNAP Every Year?” USA Facts, usafacts.org/answers/how-much-does-the-federal-government-spend-on-snap-every-year/country/united-states/. Accessed 25 July 2025.
“H.R.1 – One Big Beautiful Bill Act.” Library of Congress, 20 May 2025, www.congress.gov/bill/119th-congress/house-bill/1/summary/55. Accessed 25 July 2025.
“H.R. 1, One Big Beautiful Bill Act (Dynamic Estimate).” Congressional Budget Office, 17 June 2025, www.cbo.gov/publication/61486. Accessed 25 July 2025.
Keller, Kimberly J.M., et al. “Thirty Years of SNAP-Ed: The Transition of the Nation’s Largest Nutrition Education Program into a Pillar of the Public Health Infrastructure.” Journal of Nutrition Education and Behavior, vol. 56, no. 8, Aug. 2024, pp. 588–96. Science Direct, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jneb.2024.03.011. Accessed 25 July 2025.
“SUPPLEMENTAL NUTRITION ASSISTANCE PROGRAM: PAYMENT ERROR RATES.” Food and Nutrition Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture, fns-prod.azureedge.us/sites/default/files/resource-files/snap-fy24QC-PER.pdf. Accessed 25 July 2025.