H.R. 7522 removes the specific statutory work requirement that disqualifies able‑bodied adults without dependents (commonly called ABAWDs) from Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) eligibility by striking subsection (o) of section 6 of the Food and Nutrition Act of 2008. The bill also removes a tied funding incentive in section 16(h)(1)(E) that directed additional allocations to States that ensured availability of work opportunities, and makes several conforming edits in the Internal Revenue Code and the Workforce Innovation and Opportunity Act.
The changes would broaden eligibility for SNAP by eliminating the ABAWD time limit and associated administrative enforcement, but they create immediate operational issues for USDA and State agencies because the bill phases in changes 180 days after enactment and contains a narrow exception tied to a 90‑day hire period whose practical meaning is ambiguous. The bill does not include offsetting appropriations; eligible recipients, State administrators, training providers, and fiscal planners will need to account for changed program flows and potential shifts in state‑level work‑funding incentives.
At a Glance
What It Does
The bill repeals subsection (o) of section 6 of the Food and Nutrition Act (the statutory ABAWD work/time‑limit) and deletes section 16(h)(1)(E) that directed extra SNAP allocations to States that ensured work opportunities. It also cleans up cross‑references in the Internal Revenue Code and the Workforce Innovation and Opportunity Act.
Who It Affects
Directly affects able‑bodied adults without dependents who are subject to the ABAWD time limit, State SNAP agencies and their IT/administrative systems, USDA/Food and Nutrition Service (FNS), and organizations that provide work‑training slots tied to SNAP. The text also changes statutory hooks used by tax and workforce statutes.
Why It Matters
Removing the ABAWD rule changes eligibility for millions of people and shifts program administration away from work‑enforcement toward universal eligibility for that population. Deleting the state allocation incentive removes a funding lever states used to expand work placements, creating a trade‑off between reducing eligibility barriers and sustaining job‑placement capacity.
More articles like this one.
A weekly email with all the latest developments on this topic.
What This Bill Actually Does
At its core, H.R. 7522 takes the single, targeted step of erasing the statutory work/time limit that has been applied to able‑bodied adults without dependents within SNAP. Practically, that means the Congress would eliminate the federal rule that allowed States to limit SNAP receipt for certain adults to a fixed number of months unless they worked, volunteered, or were in qualifying training.
By striking subsection (o) from section 6, the bill removes that disqualifying provision from federal law.
The bill also removes an incentive in section 16(h)(1)(E) that directed additional federal allocations to States that ensured availability of work opportunities. In combination, those two moves both widen eligibility and remove a federal incentive that some States used to fund work‑search, employment, or training slots tied to SNAP participation.
H.R. 7522 contains technical edits to other federal laws to excise references to the repealed work requirement so statutory cross‑references do not point to an inoperative rule.Timing and transition are central to how this would play out on the ground. The statute becomes effective 180 days after enactment, but the bill preserves finality for allotments issued before that date and adds an unusual clause saying the repeal does not apply to individuals "hired" before the end of a 90‑day period starting at the effective date.
That carve‑out is terse and fact‑specific; it will force administrators and courts to decide who counts as "hired" and whether the clause preserves pre‑existing obligations for specific program participants or staff in work programs.Operationally, States will need to update eligibility rules, notices, IT systems, and reporting. Workforce providers and programs that depended on SNAP‑linked referrals or bonus funds will face a sudden change in the incentive landscape.
The bill does not appropriate new funds to support these transitions or to compensate for any increase in SNAP caseloads, so fiscal and operational impacts will fall to existing agency budgets and State administrators to reconcile.
The Five Things You Need to Know
The bill strikes subsection (o) of section 6 of the Food and Nutrition Act of 2008 (7 U.S.C. 2015), removing the statutory ABAWD time‑limit and related work requirement language.
It removes subparagraph (E) of section 16(h)(1) (7 U.S.C. 2025(h)(1)(E)), eliminating an allocation bonus intended to encourage States to provide work opportunities for SNAP recipients.
H.R. 7522 makes conforming deletions in the Internal Revenue Code (26 U.S.C. 51(d)(8)(A)(ii)) and in two provisions of the Workforce Innovation and Opportunity Act (29 U.S.C. 103(a)(2) and 121(b)(2)(B)) to excise references to the repealed requirement.
The Act takes effect 180 days after enactment, but it does not apply to any SNAP allotment issued before the effective date, preserving pre‑existing allotments.
A narrow transitional rule says the amendments in section 3(a) (the repeal) "shall not apply to individuals hired before the expiration of the 90‑day period" beginning on the effective date, a drafting choice that creates operational ambiguity about who is covered by the repeal.
Section-by-Section Breakdown
Every bill we cover gets an analysis of its key sections.
Short title
Establishes the act's name as the "Improving Access to Nutrition Act of 2026." This is purely stylistic but is the label under which the subsequent statutory changes are organized and cited in later references and analyses.
Congressional findings
Lists empirical and equity‑focused findings that the sponsor uses to justify repeal: SNAP's role in health and education, studies on work requirements' limited poverty reduction, and disproportionate impacts on Black Americans and people experiencing homelessness. These findings do not create legal obligations but frame legislative intent, which can influence rulemaking, administrative interpretation, and litigation about statutory purpose.
Repeal of the ABAWD work/time‑limit (7 U.S.C. 2015(o))
Deletes subsection (o) from section 6 of the Food and Nutrition Act, which is the statutory basis for limiting SNAP receipt for able‑bodied adults without dependents through a time limit tied to work or participation in certain activities. Removing that text directly eliminates the statutory disqualification, so unless replaced elsewhere, States could no longer deny or terminate SNAP benefits on that statutory ground. Administration will require changes to eligibility determinations, notices, and recertification procedures that previously tracked the time‑limit framework.
Removal of state allocation incentive and housekeeping changes
Strikes the special allocation language in section 16(h)(1)(E) that had provided additional funds to States that ensured availability of work opportunities. It also makes several technical adjustments in section 7(i)(1) and section 16(h) of the Food and Nutrition Act to remove now‑obsolete cross‑references. The practical implication is a dual policy shift: broader eligibility for individuals paired with elimination of a federal lever States used to expand slots tied to employment‑focused activities.
Conforming amendments and implementation timing
Makes parallel deletions in the Internal Revenue Code and the Workforce Innovation and Opportunity Act to remove references to the repealed SNAP work requirement, reducing statutory inconsistency. The Act becomes effective 180 days after enactment, does not affect SNAP allotments issued before that date, and contains a targeted transitional rule exempting from the repeal any "individuals hired" before the close of a 90‑day period after the effective date. That combination establishes a delayed, but legally complex, phase‑in and leaves concrete questions for implementers about the scope of the 90‑day hire exception.
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
- Able‑bodied adults without dependents (ABAWDs): They gain relief from the federal time‑limit and work/training disqualification, expanding eligibility and reducing the risk of benefit termination tied to that single statutory ground.
- Households relying on pooled family resources: Extended family members who previously could not claim or who were subject to ABAWD time limits face lower risk of losing SNAP support that families used for shared household nutrition.
- State administrators with limited enforcement capacity: States that found ABAWD administration costly or error‑prone will see a reduction in the specific paperwork, tracking, and sanctioning processes tied to the federal work/time‑limit.
- Local food retailers and local economies: By removing a barrier to SNAP participation, the bill can stabilize or increase SNAP spending in communities that rely on that consumer demand, supporting retailers and local supply chains.
Who Bears the Cost
- Federal budget/fiscal planners: Broader eligibility typically increases program caseloads and outlays; absent offsets, the federal share of SNAP costs could rise and will be reflected in budgetary planning and potential pressure on appropriations.
- States that used the allocation bonus: States that relied on section 16(h)(1)(E) allocations to expand work placements or subsidize employer slots lose that dedicated incentive and may struggle to replace those dollars, potentially reducing local work‑placement capacity.
- Workforce and training providers tied to SNAP referrals: Organizations that received referrals, placement subsidies, or payment tied to the prior rules could see reduced referrals or funding streams if States stop or scale back programs formerly supported by the deleted allocation incentive.
- USDA/FNS and State IT systems: Agencies must redirect existing administrative resources to reprogram eligibility systems, notices, and reporting flows—one‑time transition costs that are not funded in the bill.
Key Issues
The Core Tension
The central dilemma is between maximizing food access and maintaining incentives for labor market attachment: repeal removes a disqualifier that blocked many vulnerable people from SNAP, but it also eliminates a funding incentive States used to build work‑placements; the choice eases access in the short term while potentially shrinking structured employment pathways that some recipients rely on.
Two implementation points create the clearest operational and legal headaches. First, the 180‑day effective date plus the carve‑out preserving allotments issued before that date means States must operate under two sets of rules during the transition window; that will complicate eligibility systems and case notices.
Second, the 90‑day "hired" exception to the repeal is compact and undefined. The statute does not say who counts as "hired" (hired into what — employment, a work placement, a training slot?) or whether the clause preserves pre‑existing obligations for participants, employees of work programs, or just particular program hires.
Expect disputes about scope and likely litigation or administrative guidance to resolve it.
The other major trade‑off is policy: removing work‑based disqualification reduces a regulatory barrier and administrative burden but eliminates a federal funding lever that encouraged States to create work or training slots tied to SNAP participation. That could improve access for people who face health and logistical barriers to work while simultaneously reducing opportunities for those who benefit from structured work‑training placements financed by the deleted allocation.
Finally, the bill's conforming edits to the tax and workforce statutes reduce cross‑reference confusion but also erase legal hooks States and local programs had used to coordinate SNAP with tax credits and workforce funding, meaning interagency coordination will require new memoranda and policy design rather than statutory alignment.
Try it yourself.
Ask a question in plain English, or pick a topic below. Results in seconds.