New SNAP restrictions suspend benefits for out-of-state purchases, bar store owners
H.R. 1398 — Securing Strictly Needy Americans’ Pivotal (SNAP) Benefits Act of 2025 · Filed by David Rouzer (R-NC) · 4 cosponsors · Introduced Feb 18, 2025 · Referred to committee
Your members of Congress
Enter a ZIP to see where your representative and both senators stood on this bill.
Looked up on this device — your ZIP is never stored on our servers.
What it does
This bill adds two restrictions to SNAP (food stamp) benefits: (1) it suspends EBT cards for households making purchases exclusively out-of-state for more than 60 days until they prove residency, and (2) it bars households whose members own grocery stores or wholesale food businesses from using SNAP benefits at those same businesses. Both rules take effect one year after enactment.
Why we flagged it
The bill's operative mechanism is to narrow the conditions under which SNAP benefits can be used and accessed, imposing new administrative burdens and purchasing restrictions on recipients. It is not a benefit expansion, fraud-prevention measure with clear targeting, or administrative clarification—it is a tightening of eligibility and use rules.
What the text implies
- Out-of-state purchase suspension may disproportionately affect migrant workers, seasonal laborers, and families with members working across state lines, who may legitimately need to purchase food in multiple states.
- Residency-proof requirement creates administrative burden on recipients and state agencies; unclear what documentation suffices or how long verification takes, potentially leaving households without benefits during investigation.
The full analysis lists 4 implications of this text.
Who it affects
Low-income households face new barriers to accessing food benefits: mandatory account suspension and residency proof requirements for out-of-state purchases, and a blanket prohibition on shopping at stores owned by household members. These restrictions reduce flexibility and access for vulnerable populations without clear evidence of fraud or abuse, and may force recipients to travel farther or pay more to shop elsewhere.