The backlash was inevitable, but the facts remain stubborn: President Donald Trump’s new SNAP policy—requiring able-bodied adults without dependents to work at least 80 hours per month in exchange for food assistance—isn’t cruel or extreme. It’s a long-overdue recalibration of a program that ballooned far beyond its original intent.
Under Trump’s “big, beautiful bill,” signed on July 4 and implemented December 1, the age threshold for work requirements was raised from 49 to 64. Predictably, media outlets found voices of discontent. “I don’t think it’s fair,” one woman told FOX Local. “It’s definitely going to hurt a lot of people. Because you never know.”
It’s a sentiment designed to tug at the heartstrings—but it avoids the question that matters: Should taxpayers be required to subsidize food for able-bodied individuals who choose not to work even part-time?
Let’s be clear—80 hours per month is the equivalent of 20 hours per week. That’s part-time employment. In a labor market still riddled with “Help Wanted” signs and employers begging for workers, it’s hard to argue that this requirement is unreasonable.
Participation in SNAP has exploded—from 17.2 million monthly recipients in 2000 to nearly 42 million in 2024. Annual costs have more than tripled in that span, nearing $100 billion per year.
And while defenders point to poverty and food insecurity, critics are rightly concerned about waste and abuse. In fiscal year 2023 alone, $10.5 billion was paid out improperly, with a significant portion flagged as fraud. That’s not a rounding error—it’s a systemic flaw.
And even when the benefits are used legally, the spending habits reveal troubling patterns. According to the USDA, over 20% of SNAP funds go toward sugary snacks, soda, and prepared desserts—not basic nutrition. It’s a reality that complicates the narrative of a program purely designed to help the needy stay healthy and fed.
During the 43-day shutdown—now the longest in U.S. history—the Trump administration made the controversial but legally upheld decision to withhold SNAP funds. Critics called it heartless. The Supreme Court called it constitutional. It was a battle over priorities, not just policy.
The new work requirement isn’t punitive. It’s principled. It assumes that most Americans, regardless of economic standing, are capable of contributing to society in some form. And it sets a standard that aligns assistance with effort—an idea deeply rooted in American values.
