President Donald Trump’s administration is proposing new SNAP cuts that could remove an estimated 6.3 million people from food assistance. The changes would come through a federal regulation, separate from restrictions Congress enacted in the “One Big Beautiful Bill.” USDA expects the proposal’s full effects in fiscal 2029, but it has not finalized the rule.

The distinction matters for families trying to understand whether their benefits are changing now. Congress already changed work requirements, benefit calculations and state funding obligations through the law Trump signed July 4, 2025. The new proposal would restrict a different pathway that helps households qualify for the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program.

A family could comply with the law’s work requirements and still lose eligibility under the proposed regulation. Another could keep qualifying for SNAP but receive less because Congress changed how certain expenses affect benefits. Those outcomes involve different rules, deadlines and legal processes.

Two different routes to SNAP cuts

The budget law and USDA’s proposal both would reduce federal food assistance spending, but they operate differently. One changed the statute Congress wrote. The other would change regulations USDA uses to administer that statute.

What the budget law already changed

The Congressional Research Service’s analysis describes eight SNAP provisions in the enacted law. They affect who qualifies, how much households receive and which government pays the costs. Their effects depend on household circumstances and state implementation.

CBO’s original estimate put the nutrition subtitle’s federal spending reduction at approximately $186.7 billion over fiscal 2025 through 2034. That compares projected spending with what the government would have spent under previous law. It includes shifting costs to states, so the entire amount does not represent benefits taken directly from households.

Work rules now reach more adults

SNAP already had work requirements before this law. Congress expanded the population subject to its stricter time limit, which generally requires 80 monthly hours of work or qualifying activities. Without an exemption or other applicable exception, covered adults can receive benefits for only three months within a 36-month period.

The law expanded that population from ages 18 through 54 to ages 18 through 64. It also narrowed the exception for responsibility for a dependent child. A parent whose youngest child is 14 through 17 may now face the time limit unless another exception applies.

Congress also removed specific exceptions for veterans, people experiencing homelessness and certain young adults who aged out of foster care. Those individuals can still qualify for other exceptions, including inability to work because of a physical or mental condition. Veteran status alone no longer provides the exception it previously did.

The law also restricted geographic waivers based on insufficient jobs, while retaining special provisions for Alaska and Hawaii. It added exceptions for certain Native American populations. CBO initially projected that the combined work-rule changes would reduce participation by about 2.4 million people in an average month during 2025–2034.

Benefit calculations can shrink grocery budgets

SNAP calculations consider certain expenses when determining how much income a household has available for food. Congress changed which expenses count. Consequently, a household can receive less assistance even when its paycheck and actual bills stay the same.

One change restricts automatic access to a heating and cooling allowance through energy assistance. For households without an elderly or disabled member, receiving an energy-assistance payment alone no longer establishes eligibility for that allowance. They may still qualify based on heating or cooling expenses they actually incur.

CBO projected that provision would reduce monthly benefits by roughly $100 for about 3% of households, on average, during 2026–2034. A separate prohibition on counting internet expenses would reduce benefits by about $10 monthly for roughly 65% of households. Those estimates describe effects relative to previous policy, rather than identical reductions for every recipient.

Congress also constrained future revisions to the Thrifty Food Plan, which helps determine maximum SNAP benefits. Annual inflation adjustments remain, but future revisions cannot generate the additional increases CBO previously anticipated. CBO projected an average monthly benefit about $14 lower in 2034 than under its earlier forecast.

These changes affect grocery budgets alongside other household pressures, including higher fuel costs. Their individual effects vary because SNAP calculations depend on income, household size and allowable deductions. A lower payment does not necessarily mean someone lost eligibility.

States must shoulder more costs

The law increased states’ share of SNAP administrative costs from 50% to 75%, beginning Oct. 1, 2026. Those expenses include processing applications and determining eligibility. The federal government now generally covers the remaining 25%.

A separate requirement generally begins in fiscal 2028, which starts Oct. 1, 2027. States with payment error rates of at least 6% must contribute toward benefit costs. Required contributions range from 5% to 15%, with delayed implementation available to some states.

A payment error rate measures inaccurate benefit payments, including both overpayments and underpayments. It does not, by itself, establish fraud. Likewise, shifting part of the government’s bill to a state does not automatically reduce every household’s allotment.

CBO nevertheless expected state responses to affect some recipients. Its analysis anticipated a mix of states maintaining assistance, changing eligibility or benefits, or leaving the program. Those were projections of possible state responses, not announcements that particular states had decided to withdraw.

Other eligibility and funding restrictions

The law also narrowed eligibility for legally present noncitizens. For example, refugee or asylum status alone no longer establishes eligibility, although another qualifying immigration category may. Undocumented immigrants were already ineligible for SNAP.

Congress also ended required annual funding for SNAP-Ed, the nutrition education program, beginning in fiscal 2026. That program funds education and related services. Its funding loss is different from reducing the grocery benefits deposited on a household’s EBT card.

What the proposed SNAP cuts would change

USDA’s new proposed rule, published Nov. 10, targets broad-based categorical eligibility. This policy allows states to use eligibility for certain Temporary Assistance for Needy Families benefits to simplify SNAP qualification. Those TANF-funded benefits can include information and referral services, rather than cash payments.

Under this approach, participating states can use higher gross-income limits or eliminate SNAP asset tests. Households still must meet other applicable rules, and agencies must verify income when calculating benefits. The policy does not guarantee everyone the maximum allotment.

USDA wants to limit the TANF pathway to households actually receiving “assistance” under a narrower federal definition. That includes cash and certain qualifying noncash help for ongoing basic needs. Merely receiving a referral service or informational brochure would no longer establish that eligibility.

Households losing the pathway would face the regular SNAP financial tests. For many households, those include gross income at or below 130% of federal poverty guidelines and net income at or below 100%. Gross income comes before allowable SNAP deductions; net income reflects those deductions. Different income rules apply to households with elderly or disabled members.

Asset tests would also return for more households, although exclusions remain for assets such as a home and certain retirement accounts. Losing categorical eligibility would not automatically disqualify everyone using it. Households that pass the regular tests could still receive SNAP.

For example, a working household could meet the law’s hours requirement but have countable savings above the regular asset limit. Under the proposal, that household could lose benefits despite satisfying the work rule. This illustrates the distinction; it is not a determination about any particular family.

How USDA can act without another vote

Congress has already given the agriculture secretary authority to issue SNAP regulations. That authority requires regulations consistent with the governing law and compliance with federal rulemaking procedures. It does not allow the administration to disregard statutory eligibility protections.

USDA argues that its proposed definition better reflects Congress’ original purpose for categorical eligibility. The department says the change would create more consistent standards and focus assistance on households meeting federal limits. Whether a final rule stays within the agency’s authority could become a question for the courts.

The process requires public notice, an opportunity to comment and consideration of relevant comments before a final decision. A final rule would specify implementation requirements and could face judicial review. Congressional oversight and the Congressional Review Act provide additional mechanisms for reviewing agency action.

Trump’s first administration proposed a related restriction in 2019, which the Biden administration withdrew in 2021. The current proposal revisits that policy through a different definition. It is not a provision newly enacted by Congress.

Adding to the confusion, USDA published a separate work-requirements proposal on Nov. 10. That action would codify changes from the budget law and make additional regulatory revisions. It is distinct from the categorical-eligibility proposal producing the 6.3 million estimate.

Why the SNAP cuts estimates cannot simply be added

USDA estimates that the categorical-eligibility proposal would remove 3.2 million households containing 6.3 million people in fiscal 2029. It projects approximately $44.6 billion less in federal SNAP benefit spending during fiscal 2027–2031. Those figures describe the proposed rule’s expected effects.

CBO’s $186.7 billion estimate covers the budget law’s nutrition provisions over a different, 10-year period. Its 2.4 million participation estimate concerns the work-rule changes in an average month across 2025–2034. Neither is a count of unique people already removed from SNAP.

Adding 2.4 million to 6.3 million would therefore create a misleading combined head count. The estimates use different periods, policy assumptions and potentially overlapping populations. CBO specifically warns that its estimates for individual provisions cannot simply be summed because affected populations overlap.

School meals face a separate disruption

SNAP participation can automatically establish a child’s eligibility for free school meals. USDA estimates that approximately 1.78 million children would lose that automatic eligibility under the new proposal. Most would still qualify for free or reduced-price meals through another route.

USDA projects that about 1.66 million would continue receiving free meals. Approximately 93,000 would move to reduced-price meals, while 28,000 would pay full price. Some families would need to complete another application or eligibility process.

The distinction matters because losing automatic certification is different from losing all meal assistance. Nevertheless, additional paperwork creates another requirement for families and schools to navigate. USDA estimates that schools would process approximately 197,000 additional meal applications.

What the SNAP cuts could mean for Alabama

Alabama’s Department of Human Resources uses expanded categorical eligibility through TANF-funded information and referral services. Its eligibility manual exempts qualifying households from the asset test. That connects Alabama directly to the pathway USDA proposes to restrict.

For most participating Alabama households, the pathway already uses a 130% gross-income threshold. The manual provides different treatment for households consisting entirely of elderly or disabled members. Consequently, the state’s exposure cannot be measured simply by counting households above the standard gross-income limit.

The return of asset tests could also affect households with low incomes and countable savings. An Alabama-specific estimate was not available in the materials reviewed for this article. Applying the national projected loss rate to Alabama’s entire caseload would not establish a reliable state total.

What happens next

USDA is accepting comments on the categorical-eligibility proposal through Dec. 10 under docket FNA-2026-0661. The department must complete rulemaking before adopting the change. Its fiscal 2029 projection identifies the expected year of full effects, rather than a final effective date.

Meanwhile, the budget law’s enacted provisions continue to operate on their own schedules. Families still need to follow existing reporting requirements, renewal deadlines and notices from their state agency. A proposed federal restriction does not itself change an individual household’s eligibility today.