The Training and Nutrition Stability Act of 2025 amends section 5 of the Food and Nutrition Act of 2008 to exclude from SNAP income any payments, allowances, or earnings received by household members from specified employment and training programs. The statutory change adds a new paragraph to section 5(d) that lists four categories of programs whose payments will not count as income for SNAP eligibility and benefit calculations.
This change targets payments from work programs, employment and training programs established under section 6(d), vocational rehabilitation under the Workforce Innovation and Opportunity Act, and refugee employment programs under INA section 412(c). The bill carves out an explicit exception: payments from work programs established under certain veterans’ education laws (Post‑9/11 GI Bill and the Colmery Act) and the COVID‑19 Veterans Rapid Retraining Assistance Program remain countable as income.
The bill also removes an existing subsection in section 5 and makes a conforming cross‑reference change in section 6(s)(2).Why it matters: excluding these payments will typically raise net SNAP benefits and can change eligibility for households with members in training or rehabilitation, with knock‑on effects for state SNAP administrative workloads and federal outlays. The amendment uses existing statutory definitions (section 6(o)(1), 6(d)(4), WIOA §3, and INA §412(c)), so the practical boundary lines will rest on how those definitions are applied in state administration and federal guidance.
At a Glance
What It Does
The bill adds paragraph (20) to 7 U.S.C. 2014 (section 5(d)) to exclude as income "any payment, income, allowance, or earnings" derived from four classes of programs: (A) work programs (with limited exceptions), (B) employment and training programs under 6(d)(4), (C) WIOA‑defined vocational rehabilitation programs, and (D) refugee employment programs under INA 412(c). It also removes an existing subsection and adjusts a cross‑reference in section 6(s)(2).
Who It Affects
Directly affects SNAP applicants and recipients who participate in work, employment and training (E&T), vocational rehabilitation, or refugee employment programs; state SNAP administering agencies that must apply the new exclusion; workforce and refugee program operators whose participants’ payments will be treated differently for SNAP; and USDA/FNS for guidance and fiscal forecasting. Veterans programs referenced in the bill remain treated separately.
Why It Matters
By removing certain training and program payments from countable income, the bill incentivizes participation in workforce and rehab programs and can increase SNAP benefits for participating households. That design shifts both short‑term federal benefit costs and state administrative work, while relying on program definitions that may create edge cases and require prompt federal guidance.
More articles like this one.
A weekly email with all the latest developments on this topic.
What This Bill Actually Does
The bill makes a surgical change to how SNAP counts income. Where SNAP currently treats many forms of cash payments to household members as countable income, the amendment tells SNAP to ignore payments that come from certain job‑related programs.
The statute lists four sources: payments tied to ‘‘work programs’’ (subject to a narrow veterans exception), payments from SNAP employment and training programs defined in section 6(d)(4), payments from vocational rehabilitation as defined in WIOA, and payments from refugee employment programs under INA section 412(c. )
Because the amendment changes the statutory definition of income in section 5, excluded payments will not increase a household’s reported income for either eligibility thresholds or benefit calculations. The bill’s text expressly defines the scope of the exclusion by referencing other statutory definitions—so whether a particular stipend or allowance is excluded will often turn on whether the payment is derived from a program that fits the referenced statutory definitions.The bill preserves an exception for certain veterans’ education programs: if a work program is established under the Post‑9/11 GI Bill, the Harry W.
Colmery Act, or the COVID‑19 Veterans Rapid Retraining Assistance Program, payments from that work program do not receive the exclusion and therefore remain countable income. The bill also removes one subsection of section 5 and redesignates two others; while the text does not say why, those procedural edits can affect cross‑references elsewhere in the statute.Finally, the bill includes a conforming amendment to section 6(s)(2) to update cross‑references caused by the redesignation.
Practically, implementation will require USDA/FNS guidance to states about (1) which specific payments qualify for the exclusion, (2) verification and documentation standards, and (3) any reporting changes between SNAP and the workforce, vocational rehab, and refugee program administrators.
The Five Things You Need to Know
Adds a new paragraph (20) to 7 U.S.C. 2014 (section 5(d)) that excludes "any payment, income, allowance, or earnings" from specified work and training programs from SNAP income calculations.
Specifically excludes payments from: (A) work programs (as defined in 6(o)(1)), (B) employment and training programs under 6(d)(4), (C) vocational rehabilitation programs as defined in WIOA §3 (29 U.S.C. 3102), and (D) refugee employment programs under INA §412(c).
Creates an explicit exception: payments from work programs established under the Post‑9/11 Veterans Educational Assistance Improvements Act (Public Law 111–377), the Harry W. Colmery Veterans Educational Assistance Act (Public Law 115–48), or the COVID‑19 Veterans Rapid Retraining Assistance Program remain countable and are not excluded.
Removes subsection (l) of section 5 and redesignates subsections (m) and (n) as (l) and (m), respectively—triggering a conforming amendment to section 6(s)(2)'s cross‑references.
Implementation will hinge on statutory cross‑references: the bill depends on the definitions found in section 6(o)(1), 6(d)(4), WIOA §3, and INA §412(c) to define the scope of excluded payments, so administrative guidance will be necessary to resolve practical edge cases.
Section-by-Section Breakdown
Every bill we cover gets an analysis of its key sections.
Short title
Names the bill the "Training and Nutrition Stability Act of 2025." That is purely a caption, but it signals the bill’s policy intent: to stabilize nutrition benefits by insulating work‑related training payments from SNAP income calculations.
New income exclusion for training and work‑related payments
This is the substantive change: the bill inserts a new paragraph (20) into section 5(d) of the Food and Nutrition Act (7 U.S.C. 2014). It tells administrators to exclude from countable SNAP income any payments to household members that are derived from four categories of programs: (A) work programs (with three named veterans program exceptions), (B) SNAP employment and training programs defined in 6(d)(4), (C) vocational rehabilitation programs as defined in WIOA §3, and (D) refugee employment programs under INA §412(c). For practitioners, the critical operational point is that the exclusion applies to the source of the payment (payments "derived from" these programs), so states will need to map specific stipends, allowances, or earnings back to program authorities to determine treatment.
Deletes subsection (l) and shifts subsequent subsections
The bill directs the statutory deletion of subsection (l) of section 5 and redesignates subsections (m) and (n) as (l) and (m). That is a mechanical but consequential edit: any internal or external regulations, guidance documents, or state statutes that reference the old lettering will require updates. Analysts should check what subsection (l) contained prior to this change to ensure no substantive material is being removed inadvertently.
Adjusts cross‑reference created by redesignation
Because the bill changes subsection lettering in section 5, it amends 7 U.S.C. 2015(s)(2) to correct the list of lettered subsections referenced there. This is a limited textual fix, but necessary to avoid internal inconsistency in the statute; administrators should confirm that the resulting cross‑references in implementing regulations and IT systems align with the new lettering.
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
- SNAP households with members in E&T, work, vocational rehab, or refugee employment programs — their program stipends and allowances will not count as income, which can increase benefit amounts or preserve eligibility.
- Participants in workforce and vocational rehabilitation programs — removing payments from income calculations reduces the earnings disincentive to enroll and can increase take‑up of training opportunities.
- Refugees and recent entrants using INA §412(c) employment programs — the explicit inclusion of refugee employment programs protects transitional supports from reducing food assistance.
Who Bears the Cost
- USDA Food and Nutrition Service — must issue interpretive guidance, update policy materials, and revise fiscal estimates and benefit models; higher projected SNAP outlays are likely if exclusions raise benefits or enrollments.
- State SNAP administering agencies — will face upfront operational costs to change eligibility systems, train caseworkers, and reconcile program reporting from workforce and refugee service providers.
- Federal budget/treasury — excluding additional forms of income from SNAP calculations will, all else equal, increase federal spending on SNAP benefits relative to current law; absent offsets, it raises program costs.
Key Issues
The Core Tension
The central dilemma is straightforward: the bill seeks to encourage participation in training, rehabilitation, and refugee employment programs by ensuring associated payments don’t reduce SNAP benefits, but doing so increases program costs and complicates administration. Policymakers must choose between lowering barriers to workforce participation and preserving the simplicity, fiscal predictability, and fraud controls of the SNAP income calculation; the bill leans toward the first but shifts the burden of managing the resulting fiscal and operational complexity to USDA and state agencies.
The bill draws sharp lines by reference; the practical consequences will turn on definitional boundaries. Because it excludes payments "derived from" programs identified by cross‑reference, agencies will need to determine whether specific payments (for example, transportation stipends, small living allowances, performance bonuses, or employer reimbursements) count as derived from the listed programs.
That determination is not always straightforward: many workforce supports are layered (federal grant funding distributed by states, employer contributions, or locally administered stipends), which could create inconsistency across state administrations and disputes at the case level.
The veterans exception is administratively awkward. The bill excludes payments from work programs generally but then preserves income treatment for work programs established under two veterans education statutes and a COVID‑era retraining program.
That carve‑out will produce differential treatment on the basis of program provenance rather than the economic effect of the payment, creating potential fairness questions and complexity for caseworkers who must identify a payment’s originating authority. Finally, deleting subsection (l) without commentary risks unintended gaps if that subsection contained substantive rules or an exclusion that other parts of the statute rely on; implementers must verify what was removed and whether additional conforming edits are needed in federal regulation or state policy manuals.
Try it yourself.
Ask a question in plain English, or pick a topic below. Results in seconds.