TRENTON, N.J. — New Jersey Gov. Mikie Sherrill is urging Congress and the Trump administration to roll back portions of the federal SNAP overhaul that expanded work requirements, tightened eligibility standards, and shifted more financial accountability to states, arguing the changes could burden New Jersey taxpayers and disrupt food assistance programs.
Her position has drawn criticism from supporters of the 2025 federal reforms, who say the new rules strengthen oversight, reduce fraud risks, and ensure taxpayer-funded benefits remain focused on eligible American citizens and legal residents.
The dispute centers on provisions included in the “One Big Beautiful Bill Act,” passed by Congress in 2025, which introduced sweeping changes to the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program ahead of full implementation in 2026.
Sherrill Targets SNAP Cost-Sharing Rules
In a statement released this week, Sherrill and New Jersey Human Services Commissioner Stephen Cha called on federal officials to eliminate or delay new SNAP cost-sharing provisions tied to state payment error rates.
“Because of the Trump Administration’s policies – namely H.R. 1 – our progress in driving down food insecurity is at risk,” Sherrill said. “Rather than creating unnecessary red tape and barriers to benefits, we prioritize real payment accuracy and streamlining.”
She repeatedly identifies Trump in her statement, but the bill was passed by both the U.S. Congress and U.S. Senate in majority votes. The new rule also exempts undocumented migrants from the program.
The administration argued that the federal government’s use of Payment Error Rates, or PER, unfairly penalizes states and could force New Jersey to absorb “hundreds of millions of dollars” in SNAP-related costs beginning later this decade.
Cha said the new standards “do not improve payment accuracy nor address waste, fraud, and/or abuse,” while adding administrative burdens on state and county agencies.
Critics of Sherrill’s stance argue the reforms were specifically designed to address longstanding concerns about improper payments, inconsistent eligibility enforcement, and expanding program costs.
Under the federal changes, states with SNAP payment error rates above 6% could begin sharing benefit costs starting in fiscal year 2028, ending decades of nearly full federal responsibility for benefit payments.
Key Points
• Congress expanded SNAP work requirements to adults ages 18–64 beginning in 2026
• Several states now restrict soda, candy, and some processed foods from SNAP purchases
• New Jersey Gov. Mikie Sherrill wants federal officials to delay or reverse parts of the overhaul
New Rules Tighten Eligibility and Work Standards
The 2025 reforms significantly expanded work requirements for able-bodied adults without dependents, often referred to as ABAWD recipients.
Beginning in 2026, adults between ages 18 and 64 must complete at least 80 hours per month of work, training, or approved community engagement activities to maintain benefits beyond a three-month limit over three years.
Previous federal standards generally applied to adults up to age 54.
Congress also narrowed exemptions tied to dependent children. Households now qualify for broader exemptions only if they have children younger than 14, down from the previous threshold of 18.
Additional automatic exemptions for veterans, homeless individuals, and some former foster youth were removed under the legislation, though those groups may still qualify through other eligibility pathways depending on state administration.
Supporters of the changes say the stricter standards reinforce workforce participation while helping preserve SNAP resources for the most vulnerable recipients.
Republican lawmakers backing the overhaul argued the program had drifted beyond its original intent and needed stronger accountability measures as enrollment and federal costs climbed in recent years.
The law also tightened eligibility standards for some non-citizens. Refugees and asylum-seekers without permanent resident status may face new restrictions depending on federal interpretation and state implementation, while lawful permanent residents generally remain eligible after meeting existing waiting periods.
Opponents of Sherrill’s position argue reversing those restrictions would weaken safeguards designed to prioritize benefits for citizens and legally eligible residents.
States Expand Restrictions on SNAP Purchases
At the same time, multiple states have begun implementing “Make America Healthy Again” initiatives that limit certain purchases made with SNAP benefits.
States including Florida, Texas, Iowa, Nebraska, Utah, and West Virginia have announced restrictions targeting soda, candy, energy drinks, and some processed foods beginning in January 2026.
Supporters say the policy aligns taxpayer-funded food assistance with nutritional goals while reducing spending on products viewed as unhealthy.
Critics argue the restrictions could create confusion at checkout counters and limit consumer choice for low-income households.
The SNAP overhaul also reduced the federal government’s share of state administrative costs from 50% to 25%, a change states like New Jersey warn could increase pressure on local budgets.
Despite the stricter rules, maximum SNAP benefits increased for 2026. A family of four in the contiguous United States can now receive up to $994 per month under updated federal benefit levels.
Political Battle Over Food Assistance Intensifies
The debate over SNAP changes has become part of a broader national argument over welfare reform, immigration policy, and federal spending priorities ahead of the 2026 midterm elections.
Supporters of the congressional reforms say requiring work participation, tightening eligibility checks, and reducing improper payments are necessary to maintain public confidence in federal assistance programs.
Sherrill and other Democratic officials maintain the changes could increase bureaucracy and create barriers for low-income residents seeking food assistance.
The federal SNAP reforms remain scheduled to continue rolling out through 2028 unless Congress changes the law or implementation deadlines are delayed.
