Sponsors (5)
Want the plain-English version? I'll explain what this bill does.
This is not an official government website.
Copyright © 2026 PLEJ LC. All rights reserved.
Suspends SNAP/Electronic Benefit Transfer (EBT) accounts when every purchase on the household’s EBT card happens outside the household’s home state for more than 60 days, until the household proves it still lives in-state or an investigation confirms residency. Bars households that include a person who owns an approved retail food store or wholesale food concern from using SNAP benefits at that owner’s store (exceptions for publicly owned corporations or government-owned stores). The law takes effect one year after enactment.
State agency must suspend accounts of households when EBT card transactions are made exclusively out-of-State for a period longer than 60 days.
The trigger for suspension is that EBT transactions are made exclusively out-of-State for a period longer than 60 days.
Suspendions must remain in effect until the household affirmatively provides substantiating evidence that members who are program participants still reside in the State from which they receive benefits.
Alternatively, suspensions must remain in effect until an investigation is conducted and conclusively determines that the members who are program participants still reside in the State from which they receive benefits.
Adds a new subsection (k) to Section 9 of the Food and Nutrition Act of 2008 (7 U.S.C. 2020) that creates a limitation on redemption of SNAP benefits by households that include owners of approved retail food stores or wholesale food concerns.
Who is affected and how:
SNAP recipients and low‑income households: Households that use SNAP are directly affected. If all EBT purchases are recorded outside their home State for more than 60 days, the household faces an automatic suspension of benefits until they prove residency or an investigation clears them. That can interrupt food access for families who travel, temporarily live out-of-State (students, seasonal workers, some caregiving or medical relocations), or who shop across State lines.
State SNAP administering agencies: States must detect out-of-state-only EBT activity, carry out suspensions, request documentation, and complete investigations. That increases administrative workload, requires transaction-location monitoring, case management, and possibly new policy and IT updates. Because the law does not provide funding, states may face unfunded mandates to implement these new duties.
Retailers and small grocery/wholesale owners: The ban on using SNAP benefits at stores owned by a household member prevents self-redemption at owner-run stores. This affects small, family-owned grocery or wholesale operations where an owner is also in a SNAP-participating household. Publicly owned corporations and government-owned stores are exempt. Retail authorization systems and point-of-sale processes will need updates to enforce the new ban.
Mobile or cross-border shoppers: Households living near State lines or who regularly cross into neighboring States for shopping risk investigations and suspensions if all EBT purchases fall outside the State for a continuous 60-day period. This could disproportionately affect rural residents who travel to the nearest market across a State border.
Program integrity and legal risk: While the measures aim to reduce potential fraud and self-dealing, they introduce due-process and error-risk concerns. Wrongful suspensions could exacerbate food insecurity. Enforcement may raise privacy and administrative appeals issues if verification is burdensome or unclear.
Overall impact: The bill tightens program use rules and shifts enforcement and verification burdens to State agencies and SNAP participants, likely reducing some forms of misuse but also increasing the risk of benefit disruption for eligible households and administrative costs for states and retailers.
Expand sections to see detailed analysis
Referred to the House Committee on Agriculture.
Introduced February 18, 2025 by David Rouzer · Last progress February 18, 2025
Referred to the Subcommittee on Nutrition and Foreign Agriculture.
Referred to the House Committee on Agriculture.
Introduced in House