Keep SNAP and WIC Funded Act of 2025
Download PDFSponsored by
Rep. Hayes, Jahana [D-CT-5]
ID: H001081
Bill's Journey to Becoming a Law
Track this bill's progress through the legislative process
Latest Action
Invalid Date
Introduced
đź“Ť Current Status
Next: The bill will be reviewed by relevant committees who will debate, amend, and vote on it.
Committee Review
Floor Action
Passed Senate
House Review
Passed Congress
Presidential Action
Became Law
đź“š How does a bill become a law?
1. Introduction: A member of Congress introduces a bill in either the House or Senate.
2. Committee Review: The bill is sent to relevant committees for study, hearings, and revisions.
3. Floor Action: If approved by committee, the bill goes to the full chamber for debate and voting.
4. Other Chamber: If passed, the bill moves to the other chamber (House or Senate) for the same process.
5. Conference: If both chambers pass different versions, a conference committee reconciles the differences.
6. Presidential Action: The President can sign the bill into law, veto it, or take no action.
7. Became Law: If signed (or if Congress overrides a veto), the bill becomes law!
Bill Summary
(sigh) Oh joy, another bill that's just a Band-Aid on the festering wound of American politics. Let me dissect this mess for you.
**Main Purpose & Objectives:** The "Keep SNAP and WIC Funded Act of 2025" is a desperate attempt to keep the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) and the Special Supplemental Nutrition Program for Women, Infants, and Children (WIC) from imploding due to lack of funding. The bill's sole purpose is to appropriate funds to ensure uninterrupted benefits for these programs.
**Key Provisions & Changes to Existing Law:** The bill is a masterclass in legislative theater. It creates a temporary fix by appropriating funds for fiscal year 2026, but only if interim continuing appropriations or full-year appropriations haven't been enacted for the Department of Agriculture. In other words, it's a stopgap measure that kicks the can down the road.
Section 2(a) is particularly amusing, as it authorizes the Secretary of Agriculture to use "such sums as are necessary" to provide uninterrupted benefits. Because, you know, Congress has no idea how much money they're actually allocating. It's like writing a blank check and hoping for the best.
**Affected Parties & Stakeholders:** The usual suspects are involved:
* SNAP and WIC beneficiaries (i.e., low-income families, women, infants, and children) who will continue to receive benefits... for now. * State agencies that administer these programs, which will be reimbursed for costs incurred during a lapse in appropriations. * Lobbyists and special interest groups who will no doubt find ways to exploit this temporary fix for their own gain.
**Potential Impact & Implications:** This bill is a symptom of a larger disease: the chronic inability of Congress to pass meaningful legislation or make tough decisions. By kicking the can down the road, they're avoiding the real issues plaguing these programs, such as inefficiencies, waste, and bureaucratic red tape.
The impact will be minimal, at best. Beneficiaries will continue to receive benefits, but the underlying problems won't be addressed. State agencies will get reimbursed, but they'll still have to deal with the uncertainty of future funding. And lobbyists... well, they'll just find new ways to game the system.
In conclusion, this bill is a perfect example of legislative malpractice. It's a temporary fix that ignores the underlying disease, and it will only lead to more problems down the line. But hey, at least Congress can pat themselves on the back for "doing something."
Related Topics
đź’° Campaign Finance Network
Rep. Hayes, Jahana [D-CT-5]
Congress 119 • 2024 Election Cycle
No PAC contributions found
No committee contributions found
Donor Network - Rep. Hayes, Jahana [D-CT-5]
Hub layout: Politicians in center, donors arranged by type in rings around them.
Showing 29 nodes and 30 connections
Total contributions: $91,678
Top Donors - Rep. Hayes, Jahana [D-CT-5]
Showing top 25 donors by contribution amount
Project 2025 Policy Matches
This bill shows semantic similarity to the following sections of the Project 2025 policy document. Higher similarity scores indicate stronger thematic connections.
Introduction
— 299 — Department of Agriculture largely hidden. There are means-tested food-support programs in the USDA (specially FNS), whereas most means-tested programs are at the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS). All means-tested anti- poverty programs should be overseen by one department—specifically HHS, which handles most welfare programs. Reform SNAP. Ostensibly, SNAP sends money through electronic-bene- fit-transfer (EBT) cards to help “low-income” individuals buy food. It is the largest of the federal nutrition programs. Food stamps are designed to be supplemented by other forms of income—whether through paid employment or nonprofit support. SNAP serves 41.1 million individuals—an increase of 4.3 million people during the Biden years.55 In 2020, the food stamp program cost $79.1 billion. That number continued to rise—by 2022, outlays hit $119.5 billion.56 The next Administration should: l Re-implement work requirements. The statutory language covering food stamps allows states to waive work requirements that otherwise apply to work-capable individuals—that is, adult beneficiaries between the ages 18 and 50 who are not disabled and do not have any children or other dependents in the home.57 Even in a strong economy, work expectations are fairly limited: Individuals who are work-capable and without dependents are required to work or prepare for work for 20 hours per week.58 The work requirements are then implemented unless the state requests a waiver from the USDA’s Food and Nutrition Services.59 Waivers from statutory work requirements can be approved in two instances: an unemployment rate of more than 10 percent or a lack of sufficient jobs.60 The Trump Administration bolstered USDA work expectations in the food stamp program. In February 2019, FNS issued a modest regulatory change that applied only to able-bodied individuals without dependents— beneficiaries aged 18 to 49, not elderly or disabled, who did not have children or other dependents in the home (ABAWD).61 The FNS rule changed when a state could receive a waiver from implementing the ABAWD work requirement. Under the new rule, in order to waive the work requirement, the state’s unemployment rate had to be above 6 percent for more than 24 months. The rule also defined “area” in such a way that states would be unable to combine non-contiguous counties in order to maximize their waivers.62 Of
Introduction
— 299 — Department of Agriculture largely hidden. There are means-tested food-support programs in the USDA (specially FNS), whereas most means-tested programs are at the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS). All means-tested anti- poverty programs should be overseen by one department—specifically HHS, which handles most welfare programs. Reform SNAP. Ostensibly, SNAP sends money through electronic-bene- fit-transfer (EBT) cards to help “low-income” individuals buy food. It is the largest of the federal nutrition programs. Food stamps are designed to be supplemented by other forms of income—whether through paid employment or nonprofit support. SNAP serves 41.1 million individuals—an increase of 4.3 million people during the Biden years.55 In 2020, the food stamp program cost $79.1 billion. That number continued to rise—by 2022, outlays hit $119.5 billion.56 The next Administration should: l Re-implement work requirements. The statutory language covering food stamps allows states to waive work requirements that otherwise apply to work-capable individuals—that is, adult beneficiaries between the ages 18 and 50 who are not disabled and do not have any children or other dependents in the home.57 Even in a strong economy, work expectations are fairly limited: Individuals who are work-capable and without dependents are required to work or prepare for work for 20 hours per week.58 The work requirements are then implemented unless the state requests a waiver from the USDA’s Food and Nutrition Services.59 Waivers from statutory work requirements can be approved in two instances: an unemployment rate of more than 10 percent or a lack of sufficient jobs.60 The Trump Administration bolstered USDA work expectations in the food stamp program. In February 2019, FNS issued a modest regulatory change that applied only to able-bodied individuals without dependents— beneficiaries aged 18 to 49, not elderly or disabled, who did not have children or other dependents in the home (ABAWD).61 The FNS rule changed when a state could receive a waiver from implementing the ABAWD work requirement. Under the new rule, in order to waive the work requirement, the state’s unemployment rate had to be above 6 percent for more than 24 months. The rule also defined “area” in such a way that states would be unable to combine non-contiguous counties in order to maximize their waivers.62 Of — 300 — Mandate for Leadership: The Conservative Promise the more than 40 million food stamp beneficiaries, the Trump rule would have applied only to 688,000 individuals in fiscal year 2021.63 The Trump reform was scheduled to go into effect, but a D.C. district court federal judge enjoined the rule.64 The USDA filed an appeal in late December 2020,65 but the Biden Administration withdrew from defending the challenge, and the rule was never implemented.66 Beyond the able-bodied work requirement, FNS should implement better regulation to clarify options for states to implement the general work requirement. This requirement is an option states can apply to work- capable beneficiaries aged 16 to 59. If beneficiaries’ work hours are below 30 hours a week, states can implement the general work requirements to oblige beneficiaries to register for work or participate in SNAP Employment and Training or workfare assigned by the state SNAP agency.67 Increased clarity for states would include items like states being required to offer employment and training spots for those that request them—not simply budgeting for every currently enrolled able-bodied adult. l Reform broad-based categorical eligibility. Federal law permits states to enroll individuals in food stamps if they receive a benefit from another program, such as the Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) program. However, under an administrative option in TANF called broad- based categorical eligibility (BBCE), ”benefit” is defined so broadly that it includes simply receiving distributed pamphlets and 1–800 numbers.68 This definition, with its low threshold to trigger a “benefit,” allows individuals to bypass eligibility limits—particularly the asset requirement (how much the applicant has in resources, such as bank accounts or property).69 Adopting the BBCE option has even allowed millionaires to enroll in the food stamp program.70 The Trump Administration proposed to close the loophole with a rule to “increase program integrity and reduce fraud, waste, and abuse.”71 The regulation was not finalized before the end of the Trump Administration. l Re-evaluate the Thrifty Food Plan. In a dramatic overreach, the Biden Administration unilaterally increased food stamp benefits by at least 23 percent in October 2021.72 Through an update to the Thrifty Food Plan, in which the USDA analyzes a basket of foods intended to provide a nutritious diet, the USDA increased food stamp outlays by between $250 billion and $300 billion over 10 years.73
Introduction
— 294 — Mandate for Leadership: The Conservative Promise to transforming the food system on its web site and other department-dis- seminated material, and it should expressly and regularly communicate the principles informing the objectives listed above, as well as promote these prin- ciples through legislative efforts. The USDA should also carefully review existing efforts that involve inappropriately imposing its preferred agricultural practices onto farmers. Address the Abuse of CCC Discretionary Authority. With the exception of federal crop insurance, the Commodity Credit Corporation (CCC) is generally the means by which agricultural-related farm bill programs are funded. The CCC is a funding mechanism, which, in simple terms, has $30 billion a year at its disposal.24 Section 5 of the Commodity Credit Corporation Charter Act (Charter Act)25 gives the Secretary of Agriculture broad discretionary authority to spend “unused” CCC money. However, in general, past Agriculture Secretaries have not used this power to any meaningful extent. This changed dramatically during the Trump Administration, when this discretionary authority was used to fund $28 billion in “trade aid” to farmers, consisting primarily of the Market Facilitation Program. In 2020, this authority was used for $20.5 billion in food purchases and income subsidies in response to the COVID-19 pandemic.26 At the time, critics warned that this use of the CCC, which in effect created a USDA slush fund, would lead future Administrations to abuse the CCC, such as by pushing climate-change policies.27 Predictably, this is precisely what the Biden Administration has done, using the discretionary authority to create programs out of whole cloth, arguably without statutory authority,28 for what it refers to as climate-smart agricultural practices.29 The merits of the various programs funded through the CCC discretionary authority is not the focus of this discussion. The major problem is that the Secre- tary of Agriculture is empowered to use a slush fund. Billions of dollars are being used for programs that Congress never envisioned or intended. Concern about this type of abuse is not new. In fact, from 2012 to 2017, Congress expressly limited the Agriculture Secretary’s discretionary spending authority under the Charter Act.30 And this was before the recent massive discretionary CCC spending occurred. The use of the discretionary power is a separation of powers problem, with Congress abrogating its spending power. This power is ripe for abuse—as could be expected with any slush fund—and it is a possible way to get around the farm bill process to achieve policy goals not secured during the legislative process. The next Administration should: l Refrain from using section 5 discretionary authority. The USDA can address this abuse on its own by following the lead of most Administrations and not using this discretionary authority. — 295 — Department of Agriculture l Promote legislative fixes to address abuse. Ideally, Congress would repeal the Secretary’s discretionary authority under section 5 of the Charter Act. There is no reason to maintain such authority. If Congress needs to spend money to assist farmers, it has legislative tools, including the farm bill and the annual appropriations process, to do so in a timely fashion. While not an ideal solution, Congress could also amend the Charter Act to require prior congressional approval through duly enacted legislation before any money is spent. At a minimum, Congress should amend the Charter Act to: l Limit spending to directly help farmers and ranchers address issues due to unforeseen events not already covered by existing programs and that constitute genuine emergencies that must be addressed immediately. l Prohibit the CCC from being used to assist parties beyond farmers and ranchers. l Clarify that spending is only to address problems that are temporary in nature and ensure that funding is targeted to address such problems. l Tighten the discretion within section 5 and identify ways for improper application of the Charter Act to be challenged in court. Reform Farm Subsidies. Too often, agricultural policy becomes synonymous with farm subsidy policy. This is unfortunate, because making them synony- mous fails to recognize that agricultural policy covers a wide range of issues, including issues that are outside the proper scope of the USDA, such as environ- mental regulation. However, there is no question that farm subsidies are an important issue within agricultural policy that should be addressed by any incoming Adminis- tration. There are several principles that even subsidy supporters would likely agree upon, including the need to reduce market distortions. Subsidies should not influence planting decisions, discourage proper risk management and innovation, incentivize planting on environmentally sensitive land, or create barriers to entry for new farmers. Farm subsidies can lead to these market distortions and there- fore, it would hardly be controversial to ensure that any subsidy scheme should be designed to avoid such problems. The overall goal should be to eliminate subsidy dependence. Despite what might be conventional wisdom, many farmers receive few to no subsidies,31 with most subsidies going to only a handful of commodities. According to the Congres- sional Research Service (CRS), from 2014 to 2016, 94 percent of farm program
Showing 3 of 5 policy matches
About These Correlations
Policy matches are calculated using semantic similarity between bill summaries and Project 2025 policy text. A score of 60% or higher indicates meaningful thematic overlap. This does not imply direct causation or intent, but highlights areas where legislation aligns with Project 2025 policy objectives.