The bill has two linked agendas. Title I directs the Census Bureau to augment the Current Population Survey with administrative data from benefit-administering agencies (including income-tax information and personally identifiable reports from States) and to produce an alternative poverty measure that values noncash benefits using the personal consumption expenditure price index.
It also creates a short-lived Commission to recommend valuation methods and requires biennial GAO comparisons of the new data to existing measures.
Title II rewrites large parts of the Food and Nutrition Act: it raises or tightens multiple work-hour and age thresholds; phases in a State administrative matching requirement that reaches 50 percent by FY2033; conditions SNAP eligibility on prior receipt of a means-tested benefit (at least $50 for six consecutive months); imposes new EBT authorized-user rules and progressive suspensions for unauthorized use; expands vendor disqualification authority and civil-penalty options; and lets States retain a larger share of recouped funds for fraud work. The package shifts data, fiscal, and enforcement burdens to States and administrating agencies while producing new federal measures of anti-poverty effectiveness.
At a Glance
What It Does
Requires the Census Director to obtain administrative benefit and tax data from Federal and State administering agencies, produce tables and an alternative poverty measure using those data and the PCE price index, and protect that information under Census confidentiality rules. Amends the Food and Nutrition Act to add stricter work-hour rules, a phased State match for administrative funds, an eligibility screen tied to prior means-tested benefit receipt, EBT user registration and stepped suspensions for unauthorized uses, vendor disqualification/civil-penalty authority, and a larger State retention of recaptured funds.
Who It Affects
Federal statistical agencies, State SNAP and administering agencies, tax and benefit data custodians, SNAP recipients (via new eligibility and fraud-cooperation rules), retail food stores and wholesale concerns (via disqualification and risk-based reauthorization), and EBT processors and vendors who must implement authorized-user controls.
Why It Matters
This bill simultaneously alters the measurement of poverty (potentially changing how Congress and agencies view need and program performance) and shifts real administrative and fiscal responsibilities to States and vendors. For program administrators and policy shops, the bill creates new data flows and operational tasks; for providers and recipients, it imposes compliance and enforcement costs that could change access to benefits.
More articles like this one.
A weekly email with all the latest developments on this topic.
What This Bill Actually Does
Title I is a statistical and reporting overhaul. The Census Director must augment the Current Population Survey’s Annual Social and Economic Supplement by obtaining administrative participation and value data from the agencies that run Federal benefits, plus income-tax data where relevant.
The Director must publish tables and graphs that show total resource-unit income, earned income, benefit values, tax burdens, and—starting in 2027—poverty rates calculated under an alternative measure that uses the PCE price index and incorporates the newly collected data. The bill also instructs OMB not to replace the official poverty line with the new inputs and preserves Census confidentiality protections while imposing felony penalties for unlawful disclosure of personally identifiable information.
To support valuation choices, the bill creates a temporary Commission on Valuation of Federal Benefits housed in the Census Bureau. The eight-member commission must recommend methods to assign dollar values to noncash benefits and report its methodology within 270 days; Congress receives a public report and the commission sunsets 90 days after filing.
Separately, the GAO must produce a comparative report beginning January 1, 2028, and every two years thereafter, comparing conventional CPS-based poverty measures to those built from the supplemental administrative data.Title II tightens SNAP program rules and shifts money and enforcement responsibilities. It amends the declaration of program purposes and narrows the statutory definition of ‘food’ to items the Secretary deems essential.
It increases or modifies various age and hour-based work-requirement thresholds, clarifies that in-person supervised job search counts, changes geographic definitions for exemptions to the county level tied to Bureau of Labor Statistics unemployment rates, and adds a combined-hours rule for married couples with children. The Secretary must report to Congress on employment-and-training program outcomes for SNAP participants using five years of data within one year of enactment.The bill imposes a phased State administrative match on SNAP administrative funds, starting at 10 percent in FY2025 and rising to 50 percent by FY2033.
It creates a new eligibility screen that requires households to have received a cash or noncash means-tested public benefit for at least six consecutive months with a value of not less than $50 to be deemed eligible. It conditions participation on cooperating with fraud investigations and requires State agencies to register authorized EBT card users (with a five-user cap), including an authorized representative, and to apply progressive suspensions for repeated unauthorized uses.Vendor and recovery provisions tighten enforcement and incentives.
Medium- or high-risk retailers face annual reauthorization; State agencies may permanently disqualify retailers convicted of trafficking or exchanging EBT for firearms/ammunition/explosives/controlled substances, though the State can instead permit continued participation with civil penalties up to $10,000 per violation (and reporting obligations). States may retain up to 50 percent of recaptured SNAP funds (up from 35 percent) and must use the excess above 35 percent for fraud investigations on the program.
The Five Things You Need to Know
State administrative-match schedule: States must contribute 10% of SNAP administrative funds in FY2025, ramping to 50% by FY2033 and thereafter.
Census will receive administrative and tax data (including income tax returns where required) from benefit-administering agencies and must publish alternative poverty rates using a PCE-based measure starting in 2027.
SNAP eligibility condition added: to be eligible under new subsection language a household must have received a cash or noncash means-tested public benefit valued at $50 or more for at least six consecutive months.
EBT authorized-user regime: States must register at least one household member and may register up to five authorized users per EBT card; repeated unauthorized uses trigger mandatory counseling and progressively longer benefit suspensions (1 month, 3 months, then 1 month per additional unauthorized use).
States may retain 50% of funds recovered from SNAP overpayments or trafficking, with amounts retained above 35% required to be used for fraud investigations.
Section-by-Section Breakdown
Every bill we cover gets an analysis of its key sections.
Census access to administrative benefit and tax data
This provision authorizes the Census Director to obtain participation, benefit-value, market income, entitlement income, tax-payment, and related data from Federal and State administering agencies to supplement the CPS ASEC. It also defines core terms such as ‘‘total resource unit income’’ and ‘‘market income’’ so the Director can calculate alternative resource-based poverty metrics. Practically, agencies that run benefits will need to establish data-sharing pipelines and reconciliation processes, and the Census will have to build systems to ingest and link administrative records to survey respondents while preserving confidentiality.
State reporting and publication requirements
States that administer Federal benefits must annually submit reports identifying each receiving resource unit by PII and the cash or cash-equivalent amount of benefits; the Census must publish implementation findings (due Jan 1, 2026) and produce tables/graphs and an alternative poverty rate starting in 2027. The statute explicitly prohibits OMB from treating the new inputs as the official poverty line, but it does require public dissemination of comparisons among official, supplemental, and alternative measures—creating new public metrics policymakers will use to assess program effects.
Commission on Valuation of Federal Benefits
The bill creates an eight-member commission inside the Census Bureau (bicameral appointments) to recommend dollar valuation methods for noncash benefits; the commission has a 270‑day reporting deadline, must publish its methodology, and receives $1 million of authorization. Its output will directly shape how benefit values are imputed in the alternative poverty measure and thus influence future public and legislative debate over program reach and effectiveness.
GAO comparative reporting
GAO must deliver a comparative report by Jan 1, 2028, and every two years thereafter, evaluating poverty and related measures produced by the ASEC against measures constructed using the supplemental administrative data. These mandated comparisons institutionalize oversight and create periodic opportunities to judge how much the new administrative inputs change poverty estimates.
Work requirements and program purpose changes
Amends the Food and Nutrition Act to add employment, marriage-promotion, and self-sufficiency objectives; tightens the statutory definition of food to 'essential' items as determined by the Secretary; increases or alters multiple age/hour thresholds (e.g., numeric changes from 60 to 65 and 55 to 64 in cross-referenced paragraphs), clarifies that in-person supervised job search counts toward required hours, shifts geographic exemption tests to county-level unemployment figures, and adds a combined-hours cap for married couples with children. These changes will require States to update work-activity tracking, case management, and exemption determinations.
Employment-and-training reporting and State matches
The Secretary must report within one year on five years of outcomes for SNAP recipients who participated in employment and training, disaggregated by state and including job attainment and retention metrics. Separately, States face a phased-in administrative match for SNAP program administration, starting at 10% in FY2025 and rising to 50% by FY2033—this shifts a growing share of administrative costs to States and will likely affect program staffing and capacity unless federal funds or state revenues are adjusted.
Eligibility, fraud cooperation, and EBT user controls
Adds an eligibility prerequisite tying SNAP access to prior receipt of a means-tested benefit (six consecutive months at $50 minimum), requires cooperation with fraud investigations and administrative hearings, and mandates that State agencies register authorized EBT users (minimum one registrant, maximum five). It also prescribes graduated sanctions for unauthorized use—mandatory review after two incidents, a one-month suspension after four, three months after six, and a one‑month-per-use suspension for seven or more—creating operational steps for caseworkers and EBT processors.
Vendor oversight, disqualification, and civil penalties
Expands scrutiny of medium- and high-risk retailers with annual reauthorization, allows State agencies to permanently disqualify vendors convicted of trafficking or exchanging benefits for firearms/ammunition/explosives/controlled substances, but permits States to substitute civil penalties (capped at $10,000 per violation and $40,000 per investigation) when continuing participation avoids participant hardship. States that use the exception must report to USDA and USDA must compile an annual Congressional report—introducing both stronger retailer sanctions and a formal exception-and-reporting pathway.
Retention and targeted use of recaptured funds
Raises the portion of recaptured SNAP funds States may retain from 35% to 50% and requires that the portion retained above 35% be used for fraud investigations. The change creates a financial incentive for aggressive recoupment and investigation activity but also reallocates funds that might otherwise be returned federally or used for other program purposes.
This bill is one of many.
Codify tracks hundreds of bills on Social Services across all five countries.
Explore Social Services in Codify Search →Who Benefits and Who Bears the Cost
Every bill creates winners and losers. Here's who stands to gain and who bears the cost.
Who Benefits
- Federal statisticians and policy analysts — they gain richer administrative data and an alternative PCE-based poverty metric that values noncash benefits, improving measurement of program reach and effectiveness.
- States with strong fraud-recovery programs — they can retain up to 50% of recaptured funds and must use the excess over 35% for fraud work, supplying resources to expand investigations and enforcement.
- Employment-and-training providers and employers — required reporting on outcomes could produce more transparent demand signals and funding justification for successful training pathways if the Secretary’s report emphasizes effective models.
- Retailers with robust compliance systems — annual reauthorization and clearer authorized-user rules reward vendors that invest in controls and may reduce retailer-level fraud exposure over time.
- Program evaluators and researchers — the Commission’s valuation methodology and mandated GAO comparisons create new published inputs and benchmarks for rigorous impact analysis.
Who Bears the Cost
- State SNAP administering agencies — the phased match (rising to 50%) shifts substantial administrative costs to States and will pressure staffing, IT, and local service delivery budgets.
- Small and rural retailers — enhanced vendor oversight, annual reauthorization, and stiffer disqualification rules raise compliance costs and legal exposure for small stores with limited resources.
- SNAP recipients with tenuous benefit histories — the new eligibility screen (six months of a $50+ benefit) and stricter work/cooperation rules could reduce or delay access for some households.
- Census and data-holding agencies (including IRS and benefit administrators) — obligated to build secure data-sharing, linkage, and storage systems, and to manage legally sensitive PII under tight confidentiality and criminal-penalty provisions.
- State and local courts and administrative hearing systems — increased fraud investigations, mandatory cooperation requirements, and vendor penalty cases will likely increase adjudication and appeal workloads.
Key Issues
The Core Tension
The central dilemma is between obtaining accurate, administrable measures of poverty (which requires extensive administrative data sharing and valuation of noncash benefits) and preserving privacy, program accessibility, and feasible administration: better measurement and tougher enforcement both depend on complex new data flows and added State capacity, yet those same changes can increase administrative cost, create exclusionary eligibility mechanics, and produce enforcement incentives that risk harming the very households the programs intend to help.
The bill tries to do two things at once—improve measurement and tighten program rules—and that creates several implementation frictions. First, the Census-driven data model requires reliable cross-agency linkages (including tax return data) and accurate matching of administrative records to survey respondents.
Building secure ingestion pipelines that conform to section 6103 and Census confidentiality rules is technically complex and costly; the statute’s felony penalty for disclosure raises the stakes for operational error and may deter timely data sharing. Second, requiring States to file PII-identified lists of resource units to Federal administering agencies is a major legal and privacy move that will trigger lengthy systems work, potential state-law conflict checks, and heightened scrutiny over consent and access controls.
Operationally, the phased State match and expanded enforcement tools are likely to shift the locus of decision-making to the States. While increased retention of recaptured funds funds fraud work, it also creates an incentive structure that could encourage aggressive recoveries and disputes—raising questions about due process for recipients and the balance between deterrence and over‑enforcement.
The eligibility screen linking SNAP access to prior receipt of a separate means-tested benefit (six months at $50+) is administrable only because of the enhanced data flows the bill creates, but it also risks excluding families who need timely emergency assistance and could increase short-term food insecurity. Finally, the EBT authorized-user limits and stepped suspensions balance fraud control against household convenience; the rules assume robust outreach and casework capacity that many State agencies lack today.
Try it yourself.
Ask a question in plain English, or pick a topic below. Results in seconds.