PlainBillCongress, translated.Legislation. Context. Public interest.Referred to the Subcommittee on Nutrition and Foreign Agriculture.
Congressional Research Service
Version 00 · Introduced in House · Feb 18, 2025
Securing Strictly Needy Americans’ Pivotal (SNAP) Benefits Act of 2025
This bill establishes additional limitations on the use of Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) benefits.
The bill requires that a state agency suspend a SNAP household account when the Electronic Benefits Transfer (EBT) card transactions are made exclusively out-of-state for a period longer than 60 days. The state agency must maintain the suspension until (1) the household affirmatively provides substantiating evidence that the participating household members still reside in the state from which they receive benefits, or (2) an investigation conclusively determines that the participating household members still reside in the state from which they receive benefits.
In addition, a SNAP household may not redeem SNAP benefits at a SNAP-approved retail food store or wholesale food concern that is owned by a household member. This does not apply to a retail food store or a wholesale food concern that is owned by a publicly owned corporation or a government.
People & committees
Rep. Rouzer, David [R-NC-7] · R–NC
Legislative record
A procedural vote is different from passage. Passage in one chamber does not establish enactment. Explore the glossary.
Referred to the Subcommittee on Nutrition and Foreign Agriculture.
Referred to the House Committee on Agriculture.
Introduced in House
Introduced in House
Primary sources
Text links open the official source. We also preserved the text version used in the PlainBill explanation below.
No related bills are listed in this snapshot. This does not establish whether the proposal has appeared in earlier Congresses.
Source last updated: Dec 17, 2025. Consult Congress.gov for the current record.
AI Conversation Starters
Choose a perspective, copy a prompt, and paste it into your preferred AI. Each prompt includes the bill version and available official source links, and asks for counterarguments as well as supporting evidence.
Analyze H.R.1398 as objectively as possible. Explain its main provisions, who would be affected, possible benefits and harms, implementation, exceptions, and uncertainties. Present the strongest arguments for and against it, and identify evidence needed to assess its public impact.
Examine H.R.1398 through a progressive lens, focusing on fairness, access, economic inequality, and effects on vulnerable communities. Explain potential benefits, costs, and unintended consequences. Consider the strongest counterarguments and distinguish stated goals from demonstrated outcomes.
Examine H.R.1398 through a conservative lens, focusing on fiscal responsibility, institutional stability, federalism, and the scope of government. Explain potential benefits, costs, and unintended consequences. Consider the strongest counterarguments and any provisions that challenge this perspective.
Examine H.R.1398 through a civil-liberties and limited-government lens. Consider individual rights, privacy, voluntary choice, accountability, and government power. Explain tradeoffs, possible safeguards, and the strongest counterarguments without assuming the proposal is beneficial or harmful.
PlainBill explanation
Based on the full Introduced in House · 2025-02-18 text. This explanation has not received human editorial review. This overview describes the proposal’s major provisions; it does not establish what its real-world effects would be.
The proposed Securing Strictly Needy Americans’ Pivotal (SNAP) Benefits Act of 2025 would restrict use of food assistance benefits. State agencies would suspend household accounts after more than 60 days of exclusively out-of-state electronic benefit transfer (EBT) card transactions, until evidence or an investigation establishes participating members’ continued residency in the state providing benefits. Households with a member who owns an approved food retailer or wholesaler could not use Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) benefits at that business, except where it is owned by a publicly owned corporation or government.
This Act may be cited as the Securing Strictly Needy Americans’ Pivotal (SNAP) Benefits Act of 2025.
The State agency shall suspend the accounts of households for which EBT card transactions are made exclusively out-of-State for a period longer than 60 days, until— (1) the household affirmatively provides substantiating evidence that the members of the household who are program participants still reside in the state from which they receive benefits; or (2) an investigation is conducted and conclusively determines that the members of the household who are program participants still reside in the state from which they receive benefits.
(1) A household that includes a member who is an owner of an approved retail food store or wholesale food concern may not redeem supplemental nutrition assistance program benefits at such store or such concern. (2) Paragraph (1) shall not apply with respect to a retail food store, or a wholesale food concern, that is owned by a publicly owned corporation or by a government.
Section 2 would add a mandatory account-suspension rule to section 501 of the specified part of the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2023. The trigger is exclusively out-of-state EBT card transactions for longer than 60 days; a single out-of-state purchase would not by itself meet that condition.
Section 501 of title IV of division HH of the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2023, is amended by adding at the end the following: (f) Exclusively out-of-State purchases The State agency shall suspend the accounts of households for which EBT card transactions are made exclusively out-of-State for a period longer than 60 days
The suspension would last until either the household supplies substantiating evidence that its participating members still live in the state providing benefits, or an investigation conclusively establishes that residency. These are alternative ways to satisfy the residency requirement.
until— (1) the household affirmatively provides substantiating evidence that the members of the household who are program participants still reside in the state from which they receive benefits; or (2) an investigation is conducted and conclusively determines that the members of the household who are program participants still reside in the state from which they receive benefits.
Section 3 would amend the Food and Nutrition Act of 2008 to prohibit a household from spending SNAP benefits at an approved retail food store or wholesale food business owned by one of its members. This provision restricts where the household may spend benefits; it does not itself terminate the household’s eligibility.
Section 9 of the Food and Nutrition Act of 2008 (7 U.S.C. 2020) is amended by adding at the end the following:
(1) A household that includes a member who is an owner of an approved retail food store or wholesale food concern may not redeem supplemental nutrition assistance program benefits at such store or such concern.
The restriction on spending benefits at a household member’s business would not apply to a retail food store or wholesale food business owned by a publicly owned corporation or government.
(2) Paragraph (1) shall not apply with respect to a retail food store, or a wholesale food concern, that is owned by a publicly owned corporation or by a government.
If enacted, the bill and its amendments would take effect one year after enactment.
This Act and the amendments made by this Act shall take effect 1 year after the date of the enactment of this Act.
The supplied official-actions snapshot, updated December 17, 2025, records introduction in the House and referral to the House Committee on Agriculture on February 18, 2025, followed by referral to the Subcommittee on Nutrition and Foreign Agriculture on March 20, 2025.
Source snapshot updated 2025-12-17T09:06:31Z. 2025-03-20: Referred to the Subcommittee on Nutrition and Foreign Agriculture. 2025-02-18: Referred to the House Committee on Agriculture. 2025-02-18: Introduced in House
A closer look
Reviewed version: Introduced in House · 2025-02-18. These findings describe provisions and who may benefit; they are not judgments of waste, corruption, or motive.
This review covers the supplied bill text. “None identified” does not rule out provisions in later versions or accompanying reports and disclosures.
Provisions outside the bill’s main subject, or policy changes attached to appropriations.
None identified in the reviewed text
No unrelated provision or policy change attached to an appropriation was identified in the complete supplied introduced text. Its provisions concern restrictions on benefit use and implementation. This conclusion is limited to this version and does not establish absence in other versions or accompanying materials.
Spending directed to particular recipients or places outside ordinary competitive or formula-based allocation.
None identified in the reviewed text
No congressionally directed spending for particular recipients or places was identified in the complete supplied introduced text. This conclusion is limited to this version and does not establish absence in other versions or accompanying materials.
Narrow exceptions, exemptions, or preferential treatment that warrant a closer look.
Findings to examine
The supplied introduced text contains an ownership-based exception to a proposed restriction. Identifying this exception does not establish that it is improper or unjustified.
Stores and wholesale food businesses owned by publicly owned corporations or governments receive an exception from the proposed prohibition on households spending SNAP benefits at a business owned by a household member. A household otherwise covered by that prohibition could therefore use benefits at a qualifying business. This is a targeted exception within the bill’s main policy.
(1) A household that includes a member who is an owner of an approved retail food store or wholesale food concern may not redeem supplemental nutrition assistance program benefits at such store or such concern. (2) Paragraph (1) shall not apply with respect to a retail food store, or a wholesale food concern, that is owned by a publicly owned corporation or by a government.
Full text preserved for this analysis. Legislative record snapshot: Dec 17, 2025. How PlainBill uses AI