The recent end of the federal government shutdown brought relief to millions of Americans who rely on the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP). But reopening the government wasn’t the only major development. With President Trump’s signing of the One Big Beautiful Bill Act of 2025, SNAP is undergoing one of the most significant transformations in its history — changes that will reshape eligibility, funding, and how states administer the program.
These reforms — totaling an estimated $186 billion in spending reductions — have sparked strong reactions across the political spectrum. But beyond the headlines, millions of households are now trying to understand what the new rules actually mean for them. Here is a breakdown of the changes, why they were introduced, and how they may affect individuals and families who depend on SNAP.
SNAP in 2024: A Snapshot of the Program
SNAP is the nation’s largest food assistance program. It serves around 42 million Americans, or about one in eight residents. These beneficiaries represent a wide range of circumstances:
In Fiscal Year 2024, SNAP received $100.3 billion in federal funding. States received about $7 billion of that total to handle administrative duties such as enrollment, verification, appeals, and fraud prevention.
On average, SNAP provided the equivalent of about $6 per day per person, an amount that varies depending on household size, income, and local cost of living.
Although many Americans saw videos online during the shutdown showing individuals with unusually high balances on their Electronic Benefit Transfer cards, these cases were not representative of typical benefits. Most recipients receive modest monthly amounts designed to help supplement, not fully cover, their grocery needs.
What the New Law Changes — And Why It Matters
The One Big Beautiful Bill Act of 2025 introduces a long list of adjustments, some of which expand earlier policies while others significantly tighten eligibility. The overarching goals, according to the law’s supporters, are to reduce costs, increase workforce participation, and streamline program administration. Critics argue the new rules will remove support from vulnerable populations and place additional burdens on states.
Here are the most consequential reforms:
1. Expanded Work Requirements
One of the biggest changes affects Able-Bodied Adults Without Dependents (often referred to as ABAWDs). Previously, these recipients between ages 18 and 54 had to work or participate in an approved activity for 80 hours per month to continue receiving benefits longer than three months within a three-year period.
Under the new law, the upper age limit has increased to 64.
This means more adults will now fall under the work requirement umbrella. The Congressional Budget Office estimates that 2.4 million recipients may lose eligibility if they cannot meet these requirements.
Supporters argue that work requirements encourage self-sufficiency and help reduce fraud. Opponents contend that many individuals face barriers — limited transportation, health issues, unstable job markets — that make consistent employment difficult even if they are willing to work.
2. Removal of Previously Granted Exemptions
In recent years, several groups were exempt from time limits, including:
These exemptions have now been eliminated.
Supporters of the change say that uniform requirements create fairness and reduce loopholes. Critics warn that the change will disproportionately impact people with unstable living conditions or limited support networks.
3. Caregiver Rule Redefined
Previously, caregivers responsible for children under 18 were exempt from time limits. Under the new legislation, that exemption only applies to those caring for children under 14.
This shift may affect single parents the most, particularly those whose children are in their mid-teens but still require oversight.
4. Stricter Criteria for State Waivers
States have historically been allowed to request waivers from work requirements in regions with limited job opportunities. Some states used local or regional data to demonstrate these economic challenges.
Under the new rules:
The new standard significantly narrows the number of regions eligible for waivers.
5. Reduced Federal Cost Share for Administration
The federal government previously covered 75% of administrative costs. Now, that share falls to 50%.
This shift places a larger burden on states, many of which already struggle with tight budgets. Some states may need to hire additional staff to handle increased verification requirements under the new rules, further adding to their expenses.
6. Changes to Eligibility for Non-Citizens
The new law ends SNAP eligibility for approximately 250,000 refugees and individuals with humanitarian visas.
Supporters see this as a measure to prioritize benefits for citizens and legal permanent residents. Critics argue that refugees often rely on SNAP temporarily as they integrate into U.S. communities and that removing this safety net may hinder their long-term stability.
Expected Impact on Enrollment
Government analysts estimate that the combined reforms could remove as many as 3 million recipients from the program.
Most reductions will stem from:
The biggest financial savings, according to supporters, will come from reducing improper payments and tightening oversight. Fraud has been a longstanding concern, though the actual rate of fraud in SNAP has historically been relatively low compared to other programs. Even so, the administration argues that stricter rules will reduce vulnerabilities.
How These Changes May Affect Households
For current and potential SNAP recipients, the effect of the new policies may vary depending on household structure, employment status, and location.
Households Most Likely to Be Affected
Households Least Likely to See Changes
What Comes Next
As the new rules take effect, states will need to update their systems, retrain caseworkers, and begin notifying recipients about upcoming changes. Many SNAP participants will have to navigate new reporting requirements or explore job training and workforce programs.
The goal of expanding workforce participation may succeed for some individuals, especially those who can readily access stable employment. For others, particularly those in low-growth regions or facing personal barriers, the transition may prove more challenging.
Regardless of political perspective, the scale of these reforms means they will shape the landscape of food assistance for years to come. Over the next several months, policymakers, state agencies, and community organizations will be watching closely to understand how the changes affect food security, program efficiency, and the broader economy.
In a dramatic Senate Judiciary Committee hearing on July 16, 2025, Senator John Kennedy (R-La.) delivered a blistering takedown of President Joe Biden’s judicial nominee, Karla Campbell, accusing her of lying under oath about her ties to a radical left-wing organization. The Nashville-based attorney, nominated for the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals, appeared visibly shaken as Kennedy presented damning evidence that contradicted her sworn testimony, leaving spectators and lawmakers stunned at the brazenness of her alleged deception. The confrontation, described as a masterclass in accountability, has reignited debates over the integrity of judicial nominees and the consequences of perjury in high-stakes confirmation hearings.
The controversy erupted when Kennedy questioned Campbell about her involvement with Workers’ Dignity, a Tennessee-based group known for advocating the abolition of police and military forces and condemning Israel’s actions as ethnic cleansing. During earlier questioning by Senator Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa), Campbell flatly denied any significant connection to the organization, claiming she had no advisory role. However, Kennedy, armed with irrefutable documents, revealed that Campbell had served as a legal advisor for the group, directly contradicting her testimony. “You’ve lied to us up and down on this committee,” Kennedy declared, his voice steady but piercing, as he held up emails and records proving her close ties to Workers’ Dignity. Campbell’s nervous demeanor—marked by fidgeting and evasive answers—only amplified the perception of guilt, with onlookers noting her discomfort as Kennedy pressed further.
The senator’s interrogation didn’t stop there. He also confronted Campbell about a $1,500 donation she made to a far-left political candidate who had labeled Senate Republicans as “Jim Crow Senators” and accused them of colluding with the devil. When pressed on why she supported such an extreme figure, Campbell offered a feeble excuse, claiming the donation was merely a “neighborly” gesture. Kennedy’s response was scathing: “Either all of these people are liars, or you are. Given what you’ve told us under oath today, I think the answer is clear.” The room fell silent as Campbell struggled to respond, her credibility unraveling before the committee. Senator Josh Hawley (R-Mo.) later piled on, highlighting the inconsistency in her testimony and questioning her fitness for a lifetime judicial appointment.
The stakes of Campbell’s alleged perjury are immense. As a nominee for a federal appeals court, she would wield significant influence over cases affecting millions of Americans. Critics argue that her apparent willingness to lie under oath, coupled with her ties to radical groups, disqualifies her from such a role. Kennedy, known for his sharp questioning and folksy yet incisive style, emphasized the need for judicial impartiality, stating, “The American people deserve judges who tell the truth, not ones who play fast and loose with the facts.” Posts on X echoed this sentiment, with users calling the exchange “a public humiliation” and demanding Campbell’s nomination be withdrawn.
Democrats on the committee, including Senator Dick Durbin (D-Ill.), defended Campbell, accusing Kennedy of grandstanding and misrepresenting her record. They argued that her legal work with Workers’ Dignity was minimal and that her donation reflected personal ties, not ideological alignment. However, these defenses did little to quell the outrage, as Kennedy’s evidence appeared airtight. The incident has sparked broader calls for accountability, with some conservatives arguing that Campbell should face perjury charges, though legal experts note that prosecutions for lying to Congress are rare.
As the hearing concluded, Campbell’s judicial aspirations hung in the balance. Kennedy’s unrelenting pursuit of the truth has left an indelible mark, raising questions about the vetting process for Biden’s nominees and the integrity of those seeking to shape America’s judiciary. Whether Campbell’s nomination survives this scandal remains uncertain, but the episode underscores the power of a single senator to expose deception and demand accountability on the national stage.