The proposed rule, published Tuesday and open for public comment until next month, would end the practice of automatically qualifying some recipients of Temporary Assistance for Needy Families for the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program. TANF provides federal grants to states, which set their own eligibility rules for cash and other benefits to low-income families with children.

SNAP, the country's largest food aid program, generally limits benefits to households earning below 130% of the poverty level — a little over $1,700 a month for an individual and nearly $3,600 for a family of four. But for years, people already receiving TANF have been able to qualify for SNAP automatically, though they still must apply, a setup designed to reduce duplicative paperwork.

Some states have used that automatic eligibility to extend food benefits to people who might not otherwise qualify. In 2009, the Obama administration encouraged states to offer a minimal TANF-funded benefit — such as an informational pamphlet or a telephone hotline — as a way to qualify people for SNAP. Forty-one states and the District of Columbia now have some form of broad-based categorical eligibility, according to a USDA report last year.

The first Trump administration proposed to clamp down on such tactics in 2019, but the Biden administration withdrew that proposal in 2021. The new plan is more sweeping, according to David Super, a Georgetown University law professor who studies the food aid program.

"The administration here is basically proposing to eliminate the flexibility that Congress gave the states to serve working poor people," Super said. He noted the rule could prevent states from basing SNAP eligibility on TANF-funded benefits such as job-related counseling or one-time vouchers for vehicle repairs so recipients can get to work.

The change would not take full effect for about two years if finalized. It comes on top of a sharp decline in SNAP enrollment: as of July, 36 million people were receiving benefits, down 13% from a year earlier, after a federal work requirement was expanded to more enrollees, including those ages 55 to 64 and parents whose youngest children are at least 14.

Trump's 2025 tax and policy law, which broadened that work requirement, also requires states to shoulder about three-fourths of the cost of running SNAP, up from half, and to pay some benefit costs if their error rates exceed certain thresholds. Congressional Democrats are pushing to delay that change.

The new rule "is just one of many things right now that states are grappling with that would reduce access to SNAP," said Carolyn Vega, director of policy analysis for the advocacy group Share Our Strength.

The Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, a left-leaning research institute, warned in an analysis that the eligibility change could raise state error rates, forcing states to pay more of the cost of benefits. The group also tied the proposal to the political moment, saying voters had signaled they want officials to focus on affordability.

"The public indicated they want their elected officials to focus on making life affordable," the center said. "Yet the Trump Administration is doubling down on making it harder for people to feed their families."

The proposal also has implications for children. Being in a household that receives SNAP makes schoolchildren eligible for free meals. The Agriculture Department says nearly 1.8 million children would lose that eligibility if their families lose SNAP, though 97% of them would still qualify for free or reduced-price school meals through another process. The government acknowledges some children would miss the meals if their families do not apply.

Not everyone is opposed. Patricia Anderson, an economics professor at Dartmouth College, said that among the administration's various efforts to reduce SNAP, "this one seems the most reasonable" because some higher-income people qualify through categorical eligibility. But she said there is a separate conversation to be had about whether SNAP's eligibility guidelines are too strict.

The public comment period runs until next month, after which the administration could finalize the rule.