New national requirements to qualify for the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program — a government program that provides money for groceries, also known as food stamps — are beginning to take effect in D.C. this month, requiring some applicants to demonstrate they are working 20 hours per week or 80 hours a month. The change in requirements could cause 2.4 million people per month to lose their SNAP benefits nationally, and the D.C. Department of Health estimates about 18,000 residents could see their SNAP eligibility change. As someone whose family uses SNAP benefits, and who personally benefited from SNAP in D.C. as a college student, I understand how crucial this assistance can be for people in financial need who are struggling with food insecurity. Adding in more barriers for people who are already facing financial hardship or who all have different, nuanced financial situations will only further exacerbate financial stress and the stigma that people who use government assistance programs are taking advantage of benefits.

The work requirements are the result of the One Big Beautiful Bill, President Donald Trump’s marquee piece of legislation passed last summer, which stipulates that able-bodied adults aged 18 to 64 must work, volunteer or participate in job training 20 hours per week or 80 hours per month. These work requirements have real consequences for households that may already be struggling to put food on the table. Nationwide, about 13.7 percent of households were food insecure, totaling about 18 million people who actively worry about their accessibility to food. The new law would more than likely put people in an already vulnerable financial situation in an even more precarious financial position by adding more logistical barriers to getting the aid they need. The OBBB expanded existing SNAP work requirements, boosting the age limit to 64 from the previous 54 and removing previous exemptions for unhoused and veteran populations.

While the new law is seemingly trying to ensure that people who are receiving SNAP benefits aren’t taking advantage of the program and are actively working — which most SNAP households are — this could end up specifically depriving people of benefits who are struggling to find a job in a difficult job market or are working but not completing the necessary hours to qualify for the program. These work requirements are harmful, because even though many SNAP households are working, it creates additional paperwork and red tape and make it generally more inaccessible for people. Not to mention that people who receive SNAP benefits are often in low-paid jobs with unpredictable hours and may find it difficult to fulfill the work requirement. And perhaps the most glaring issue with this work requirement is that it does not actually address the issues that low-income individuals face or help them get a job, instead, it just doubles down on their financial hardship. Critics of the requirements have also warned that people who qualify for exemptions to the requirements could still lose their eligibility and fall through the cracks if they don’t know they qualify for an exemption. 

I am concerned about how these new work requirements will potentially harm Americans across the country. I know firsthand how much of a difference these benefits can make to individuals or households that are struggling, and narrowing eligibility for the program only serves to hurt the most vulnerable populations. I remember when I first applied for SNAP benefits in D.C. as a college student and had it for a few months before I no longer qualified due to not having a job, and how worried I felt. Most of the money I received from my family was for tuition and did not account for needing groceries or meals in a pinch — since my first semester at GW, the meal plan consisted of credits rather than meal swipes. At the time I had applied, I wanted to stay ahead of the curve and ensure that I would not be facing any food insecurity while I was thousands of miles away. When I had food stamps, I was able to not worry about food and ensure that I was actually eating full meals rather than depending on snacks or stretching out groceries. This is actually one of the main reasons I have prioritized continuing to live in on-campus housing; knowing that the meal plan and housing would be paid in full before the semester started and I would not have to worry about making ends meet. 

Growing up, my family had often faced food insecurity and had to compromise other expenses to afford groceries, so I have always worried about ensuring that accessibility to food would never be an issue. I vividly remember that day when my family started receiving food stamps because it meant we would no longer have to stretch food to the extent that we used to. We no longer had to decide whether we should prioritize gas money or buying more groceries. And I don’t think that should ever be something families have to worry about or make decisions on, but the reality is that these work requirements can end up putting more families in those positions. 

When I first heard about the new working requirements, my first thought was about the number of people who would be affected by this. I remembered how it felt when I had lost my SNAP benefits and the extra stress it caused me in my first year of college, and I can only imagine hundreds of people across the country will be feeling this due to these new working requirements. And while fulfilling the work requirement is possible, it still adds further stress to complete the work requirements and prioritize them. In my own family, I have been encouraged multiple times to quit my position at The Hatchet because it is unpaid and instead look for a paid position anywhere else — regardless if it is connected to my career path. If these are decisions I have had to consider, I can imagine that others might end up making difficult decisions on how they are spending their time. If the SNAP requirements were less strict or did not emphasize the 80 hours a month of work it would be easier for me and others to be eligible.

We live in a country that already has disproportionate rates of food insecurity considering our overall wealth. These requirements only add barriers and make it more difficult to offer support to those struggling with making ends meet to the point where they require governmental assistance to afford a basic necessity like food. These additional requirements, meant to make eligibility more difficult for Americans, are making food less accessible. But that is particularly disturbing when food is not a luxury item but an inherent human necessity. Creating more and more restrictions will not address the core issue of food insecurity or financial issues and will only serve to exacerbate them.

Andrea Mendoza-Melchor, a senior majoring in journalism and mass communication and creative writing, is the opinions editor.