SNAP Benefits: 20 States Push Back Against Eligibility Changes – Newsweek

Report on Proposed USDA SNAP Eligibility Changes and Implications for Sustainable Development Goals

Executive Summary

A coalition of attorneys general from 20 states and the District of Columbia has formally challenged guidance issued by the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) concerning the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP). The challenge centers on new eligibility rules for noncitizens stemming from the One Big Beautiful Bill Act. The implementation of this guidance is identified as a significant threat to the advancement of several Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), primarily SDG 2 (Zero Hunger), SDG 1 (No Poverty), and SDG 10 (Reduced Inequalities).

Background of the Dispute

The SNAP program is a critical component of the United States’ social safety net, providing food assistance to approximately 42 million low-income individuals and directly supporting the objectives of SDG 2 (Zero Hunger). Recent legislative changes in the One Big Beautiful Bill Act have altered the Food and Nutrition Act of 2008, impacting the eligibility of certain noncitizen groups.

In response, a formal letter was submitted to the USDA outlining significant concerns. The core arguments presented by the attorneys general include:

• The USDA guidance misinterprets federal law by incorrectly stating that individuals who enter the U.S. as refugees, asylees, or humanitarian parolees are outright ineligible for SNAP.
• The guidance fails to clarify that these individuals can become eligible for SNAP upon obtaining lawful permanent resident status, a distinction protected by law.
• The USDA has erroneously suggested a five-year waiting period for these individuals after gaining permanent residency, contrary to legal statutes that grant them immediate eligibility.

Analysis of Legal and Procedural Failures

The attorneys general contend that the USDA’s guidance creates a direct conflict with established law and undermines the principles of SDG 16 (Peace, Justice and Strong Institutions) by failing to provide clear, accurate, and accountable governance. The primary failures identified are:

1. Legal Misinterpretation: The guidance inaccurately categorizes certain lawful permanent residents as ineligible, risking the wrongful denial of essential food aid and contravening the goal of reducing inequality (SDG 10).
2. Procedural Irregularities: The USDA released its guidance on October 31, 2025, and mandated a transition period that ended just one day later, on November 1, 2025. This contradicts federal rules requiring a 120-day transition period for new mandatory policies, thereby preventing states from implementing the changes correctly and justly.

California Attorney General Rob Bonta stated that if the guidance is not corrected, “certain legal permanent residents could needlessly go hungry,” highlighting the direct impact on human well-being.

Impact on Sustainable Development Goals

The implementation of the USDA’s guidance poses a direct threat to progress on multiple SDGs:

• SDG 2 (Zero Hunger): By creating barriers to food assistance for vulnerable, legally residing immigrants, the policy directly increases the risk of food insecurity and hunger among these populations.
• SDG 1 (No Poverty): Denying access to food assistance removes a critical support for low-income families, potentially pushing them further into poverty.
• SDG 10 (Reduced Inequalities): The policy specifically targets and disadvantages noncitizens, including refugees and asylees, thereby exacerbating inequalities based on origin and immigration status.
• SDG 3 (Good Health and Well-being): Food security is a prerequisite for good health. The denial of nutritional support can lead to negative health outcomes, placing additional strain on public health systems.

Related Policy Changes and Cumulative Impact

The contested guidance is part of a broader set of changes to SNAP enacted by the One Big Beautiful Bill Act. These include tightening work requirements under the Able Bodied Adults Without Dependents (ABAWD) rule, which now extends to adults up to age 65 and eliminates exemptions for vulnerable groups such as homeless individuals, veterans, and youth aging out of foster care. These cumulative changes further undermine efforts to achieve Zero Hunger (SDG 2) and Reduce Inequalities (SDG 10) by increasing hardship for a wide range of low-income populations.

Conclusion and Next Steps

The coalition of attorneys general has urged the USDA to take immediate corrective action to align its guidance with federal law. The resolution of this issue is critical to ensuring that states can administer SNAP benefits lawfully and prevent the wrongful denial of food assistance to thousands of eligible residents. Failure to amend the guidance will have significant negative consequences for food security, public health, and the nation’s commitment to achieving the Sustainable Development Goals. The USDA has not yet issued a public response.

Analysis of the Article in Relation to Sustainable Development Goals

1. Which SDGs are addressed or connected to the issues highlighted in the article?

The article discusses issues related to food security, poverty, inequality, and legal governance, which directly connect to several Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs). The primary SDGs addressed are:

• SDG 1: No Poverty – The article focuses on the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP), a social protection system designed to assist low- and no-income individuals, which is a core component of poverty reduction strategies.
• SDG 2: Zero Hunger – The central theme is access to food assistance through SNAP. The proposed changes directly impact the ability of vulnerable populations to afford groceries, which is fundamental to ending hunger and ensuring food security.
• SDG 10: Reduced Inequalities – The debate over SNAP eligibility specifically targets vulnerable and marginalized groups, including noncitizens (refugees, asylees), homeless individuals, and veterans. The attorneys general argue that the USDA’s guidance creates discriminatory outcomes for these groups.
• SDG 16: Peace, Justice and Strong Institutions – The article details a conflict between state governments and a federal agency (USDA) over the interpretation and implementation of law. It highlights issues of institutional accountability, transparency, and the enforcement of non-discriminatory policies.

2. What specific targets under those SDGs can be identified based on the article’s content?

Based on the specific issues discussed, the following SDG targets can be identified:

1. Target 1.3: Implement nationally appropriate social protection systems and measures for all, including floors, and by 2030 achieve substantial coverage of the poor and the vulnerable.
   • Explanation: The article is entirely about SNAP, which is a key social protection system in the U.S. The debate over eligibility changes directly concerns the program’s ability to provide “substantial coverage” for vulnerable populations, as attorneys general warn the new guidance would “wrongfully deny eligibility for food assistance to thousands.”
2. Target 2.1: By 2030, end hunger and ensure access by all people, in particular the poor and people in vulnerable situations… to safe, nutritious and sufficient food all year round.
   • Explanation: The article states that SNAP helps “around 42 million low- and no-income Americans and legal non-citizens with affording groceries.” The proposed changes threaten this access for specific vulnerable groups, including refugees and asylees, putting them at risk of food insecurity.
3. Target 10.3: Ensure equal opportunity and reduce inequalities of outcome, including by eliminating discriminatory laws, policies and practices and promoting appropriate legislation, policies and action in this regard.
   • Explanation: The attorneys general argue that the USDA’s guidance “misstates the law” and creates an inaccurate interpretation that would “wrongfully deny eligibility” to specific groups like refugees and asylees who become permanent residents. Their letter is an action aimed at rectifying a policy they see as creating a discriminatory inequality of outcome.
4. Target 16.6: Develop effective, accountable and transparent institutions at all levels.
   • Explanation: The article highlights a failure in institutional process. The attorneys general point out that the USDA issued “late guidance that actually contradicts the Big Beautiful Bill” and provided only a one-day transition period instead of the required “120-day transition period,” indicating a lack of effective and transparent implementation.

3. Are there any indicators mentioned or implied in the article that can be used to measure progress towards the identified targets?

The article provides several explicit and implicit indicators that can be used to measure progress:

1. Indicator for Target 1.3: The number of beneficiaries of social protection programs.
   • Evidence: The article explicitly states that “SNAP helps around 42 million low- and no-income Americans and legal non-citizens.” Changes in this number, particularly a decrease resulting from the new eligibility rules, would serve as a direct indicator of the program’s coverage.
2. Indicator for Target 2.1: The number of individuals from vulnerable groups at risk of losing food assistance.
   • Evidence: The article identifies specific groups whose access to food is threatened: “refugees, asylees, or humanitarian parolees,” “homeless individuals, veterans, and young adults who aged out of foster care.” Tracking the number of individuals from these groups who are denied SNAP benefits would be an indicator of rising food insecurity within these populations.
3. Indicator for Target 10.3: The existence and enforcement of policies that prevent discrimination.
   • Evidence: The letter from the “Attorneys general from 20 Democratic states, plus the District of Columbia” is a concrete action to challenge and rectify a policy they deem discriminatory. The outcome of this legal challenge serves as an indicator of whether discriminatory practices are being successfully eliminated.
4. Indicator for Target 16.6: Adherence to established administrative procedures and timelines.
   • Evidence: The article points to a clear violation of procedure, stating that “federal rules call for a 120-day transition period after a new mandatory policy is issued. Instead, the USDA said that the transition period ended on November 1, 2025—just one day after releasing the guidance on October 31.” This discrepancy is a measurable indicator of institutional ineffectiveness or lack of transparency.

4. Summary Table of SDGs, Targets, and Indicators

Source: newsweek.com