States Weigh SNAP Changes Amid New Federal Rules

States Weigh SNAP Changes Amid New Federal Rules

Lawmakers in Maryland and Iowa discuss eligibility rules, nutrition waivers and the challenge of balancing access with accountability.

The federally funded, state-run Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program provides food assistance to eligible low-income households. It accounted for about $101 billion in federal spending in 2025.

Recent changes included in last year's One Big Beautiful Bill Act, also known as HR 1, are reshaping state administration of SNAP. The changes affect eligibility rules, work requirements, payment accuracy and allowable purchases. In the latest installment of "State of Play," a bipartisan video series created by A Starting Point and NCSL, state lawmakers discuss how to comply with new requirements while protecting access for eligible residents.

Maryland Delegate Emily Shetty, a Democrat, says uncertainty is the biggest challenge for states, adding that the program historically has been "an extraordinary positive bipartisan effort to support farmers, retailers and people who are living in hunger."

"That lack of certainty in the stability of the program, the lack of clear guidance post-HR 1, has been really problematic," she says.

Federal rules generally require able-bodied adults ages 16-59 to work at least 80 hours per month, participate in employment training or prove they are looking for work. Recent changes removed general exemptions for some caregivers, veterans, people experiencing homelessness and former foster youth.

Iowa Rep. Michael Bergan, a Republican, says states have a responsibility to administer benefits accurately.

"One of the challenges is simply that we have an obligation to make sure that we prove eligibility-that a person is eligible and receiving the appropriate amount of assistance," he says. "We have an error rate, so if we overfund a family, we have to do a recapture. If we underfund, it also adds to our error rate. So, it's important that we process these applications correctly."

Bergan says while there have been some exceptions, a work requirement has always been a SNAP benefit eligibility component.

"So there's just been a relatively minor tweak," he says.

Shetty views the change differently.

"HR 1 dictates that a huge group of people who are not subject to work requirements for participation in SNAP now be subjected to it," she says. "Many of those categories of individuals already have systemic barriers to employment. So, for example, it is much harder for an unhoused individual to maintain or to gain meaningful employment. Ultimately, it punishes people for being poor and for not being able to navigate a system that for generations has been built against them."

States also are considering what SNAP benefits should cover. Federal law already prohibits using SNAP funds for alcohol, tobacco, vitamins and hot prepared foods.

"The big change for Iowa is that we've asked for a waiver specifically to look at the nutrition aspect," Bergan says. "We've asked specifically that we exclude soft drinks … primarily due to the lack of nutritious aspects. Our studies have shown that nearly 20% of the benefits are spent on those taxable items."

On June 22, a federal judge blocked SNAP soda bans following a lawsuit from SNAP recipients in Iowa, Nebraska, West Virginia, Colorado and Tennessee.

Shetty says she also supports efforts to encourage healthier choices.

"A number of states have actually been able to successfully apply for junk-food waivers where sweet treats, baked goods, as well as sugary beverages are prohibited from using SNAP benefits to cover it," she says. "Personally, I support that. All that we can do to support people's healthy choices, in terms of public policy, we should be doing."

On implementation, Shetty says states need relief from error-rate penalties and clearer federal guidance.

"I really believe strongly that all states would benefit on a pause on SNAP error-rate penalties," she says. "There is a complete misunderstanding of what SNAP error rates are. I think at some point along the way, some individuals started to believe that if there are error rates, that must mean that there is fraud, and that is not the case."

Bergan says Iowa's experience shows accuracy takes time. "In 2018, we had an error rate that exceeded 10%," he says. "We're now just over the 6% mark, and it really took a period of three or four years to work that down to the processes."

Links