Decide yourself: A case for and against SNAP work requirements

I had two motivations when I began this newsletter back in October. First, I wanted to advocate for policies and actions that will bring us closer to ending hunger. Second, I wanted a way to explore and even challenge my beliefs about hunger and economic inequality more broadly.

Those two goals can and often do overlap. I think my work here does a good job to advocate for policies, and the academic research I read while writing helps me refine my beliefs. But I haven’t been challenging my beliefs as much as I’d like.

So that’s what I’m doing this week.

Last weekend was the Fourth of July, marking 250 years of the American experiment. It was also the anniversary of President Donald Trump signing what has been the signature legislation of his second term: the One Big Beautiful Bill Act.

That tax-and-spending legislation passed by Congressional Republicans last summer made significant cuts to SNAP, among other social safety nets. The first change, which took effect later in 2025, was to expand work requirements for able-bodied adults without dependents. The law raised the upper age limit for work requirements from 54 to 64 and removed exemptions for veterans, the homeless, and former foster youth.

One of my core beliefs — one that has been formed and hardened by mountains of data — is that SNAP is one of our most effective tools for curbing hunger. It also delivers a persuasive one-two punch of stimulating economic growth at the same time.

So, let’s evaluate both sides — two reasons for and two reasons against SNAP work requirements.

Proponents argue that public assistance should be a temporary safety net rather than a long-term substitute for employment. While data shows most SNAP recipients are already off the program within 12 months, proponents argue that formal mandates guarantee this temporary timeline remains the standard.

The core philosophy here is that work provides individuals with purpose, skill development, and a clearer path out of poverty than government aid alone can provide. By attaching work or job-training requirements to benefits, the policy aims to incentivize able-bodied adults to re-enter or remain in the workforce, helping them achieve long-term financial independence. Those in favor often point to the welfare reforms of the 1990s as a successful precedent where work mandates coincided with drops in public assistance dependency.

Advocates in favor of SNAP work requirements often say they want taxpayer resources allocated toward the most vulnerable, like children, the elderly, and the disabled. The foundation of the idea is fiscal responsibility and that benefits being spent on able-bodied adults without dependents who won’t work is irresponsible.

From this perspective, reducing the number of able-bodied individuals on the rolls also prevents program strain, protects the structural integrity of the social safety net, and ensures its political and financial sustainability for future generations.

The argument that stricter work requirements push more people into the labor force is built on economic theory that the prevalence of social safety nets and incentive to work are inversely correlated.

To believe that SNAP encourages anyone to drop out of the labor force requires believing that the average monthly benefit of $188 is enough for anyone to quit working.

This lack of a relationship is consistent with policy evaluation research. A study of Virginia’s 2007–2015 policy changes found that reinstating work requirements had no measurable effect on employment despite cutting SNAP participation sharply.

In fact, another analysis even suggested that SNAP participation modestly increases employment and hours worked. I suppose people are more inclined to work when their mental and physical bandwidth isn’t maxed out.

It’s ironic that the biggest proponents of SNAP work requirements are also those who favor smaller, more efficient government. Adding work requirements to SNAP means adding to the bureaucracy that administers SNAP. And that bureaucracy isn’t free — it generally demands a larger federal workforce to track adherence.

Spending more money on administering SNAP means less money is making it into the hands of people who just need help putting food on the table. If the overall goal of SNAP is to feed the hungry, then adding work requirements makes the program less efficient.

Share

Thank you for reading. If this piece resonated with you, the best way to support my work is by sharing it. Every share helps grow this community of advocates committed to ending hunger and food insecurity in our communities.