Improving Access to Nutrition Act of 2026
- Sponsor
- Rep. Adams, Alma S. [D-NC-12]
- Committees
- Agriculture Committee (primary)
- Last action
- Mar 20, 2026
Bottom line
The bill aims to expand access to SNAP benefits by eliminating a federal work requirement for certain adults, potentially increasing participation and reducing administrative burdens for states.
What it actually does
This bill amends the Food and Nutrition Act of 2008 to repeal the specific work requirement that disqualifies able-bodied adults without dependents (ABAWDs) from eligibility to participate in the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP). It also makes conforming amendments to the Internal Revenue Code and the Workforce Innovation and Opportunity Act to remove references to the repealed SNAP work requirement.
Proponents argue
Supporters argue that repealing the work requirement will restore access to healthy food, improve overall health, and reduce poverty, citing studies that show work requirements do not effectively reduce poverty. They contend that these requirements disproportionately affect vulnerable populations, including Black Americans and individuals experiencing homelessness, and create unnecessary administrative bureaucracy.
Opponents contend
Opponents typically argue that work requirements encourage self-sufficiency, reduce reliance on public assistance, and ensure that taxpayer-funded programs are used responsibly. They might contend that removing such requirements could disincentivize work and lead to increased program costs and potential dependency on government aid.
The bill is short and clearly written, making it accessible for a quick evaluation by an informed reader.
Section 3(a)
Repeal of Work Requirement for Able-Bodied Adults Without Dependents (ABAWDs)
This provision directly strikes subsection (o) from Section 6 of the Food and Nutrition Act of 2008. This subsection currently mandates that able-bodied adults without dependents (ABAWDs) must work or participate in a work program for at least 80 hours per month to receive SNAP benefits for more than three months in a 36-month period. Its repeal means these individuals would no longer be subject to this specific federal work requirement to maintain SNAP eligibility.
Supporters argue
Supporters argue that this repeal will ensure food security for vulnerable populations, reduce poverty, and eliminate an administrative burden that often prevents eligible individuals from receiving benefits. They cite studies indicating work requirements do not reduce poverty and disproportionately harm certain groups.
Critics contend
Critics would contend that removing this requirement could reduce incentives for work, potentially increasing reliance on public assistance and the overall cost of the SNAP program. They might argue that work requirements promote self-sufficiency and responsible use of taxpayer funds.
Tradeoffs
The provision balances the goal of providing a robust social safety net and ensuring food security against concerns about promoting work and managing program costs.
Section 3(b)
Elimination of State Incentive for Work Opportunities
This section amends the Food and Nutrition Act of 2008 by striking subparagraph (E) from Section 16(h)(1). This subparagraph currently provides additional federal allocations to states that ensure the availability of work opportunities for individuals subject to the work requirements under Section 6(o). Its repeal removes this specific financial incentive for states to create or maintain such work programs.
These sections make various technical and conforming amendments to the Food and Nutrition Act of 2008, the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, and the Workforce Innovation and Opportunity Act. Specifically, they strike references to the repealed Section 6(o) work requirement and related provisions, ensuring consistency across federal statutes. For example, Section 51(d)(8)(A)(ii) of the Internal Revenue Code, which relates to the Work Opportunity Tax Credit, is amended to remove references to the SNAP work requirement. Similarly, sections 103(a)(2)(D) and 121(b)(2)(B)(iv) of the Workforce Innovation and Opportunity Act, which likely refer to specific populations or services related to the SNAP work requirement, are struck.
Sections 3(c) and 4
Why it matters:This is standard legislative practice to ensure legal consistency when a core provision is repealed or amended. It is not necessarily evasive but requires detailed legal knowledge to fully trace.
Case for: Supporters argue these amendments are essential for legal clarity and to prevent conflicting statutory language. Without them, the repeal of the work requirement could lead to confusion or unintended legal interpretations in other federal programs.
Case against: No specific opposition is typically raised against purely technical or conforming amendments, as they are necessary to align the legal code with the primary policy change.
Estimated impact: Ensures legal consistency across federal programs, preventing confusion and potential legal challenges.