Prologue – Conditioning Food Stamp Eligibility On Compliance Conditions
Suggest listening to the following New York Times podcast which is based on the this New York Times article about access to food stamps.
https://www.nytimes.com/2026/08/05/podcasts/the-daily/arizona-food-stamp-snap.html
What is striking is the interaction among sanctions imposed on the State as the administrator of the the program, eligibility for food stamps conditioned on meeting difficult compliance requirements and access to food stamps.
Although not focused on forms on compliance, this podcast makes it very clear that requirements must be defined in a way that makes it possible for individuals to comply.
The story is remarkably similar to implementation of FATCA and the impact on foreign banks and Americans abroad.
In both cases we have individuals needing a service from a third party when that third party can be sanctioned by the U.S. government for failing to meet standards of due diligence in providing that service. Americans abroad need bank accounts. Arizona residents need food stamps.
For those interested in more, read on …
Part A – The role of food stamps in American life and culture
It is reported by Pew Research that approximately one in eight American families receive food stamps in order to meet their basic nutritional needs. As a person who lives outside the United States, I find this hard to believe. This apparently translates into approximately 42 million U.S. residents.
To put it another way:
It is normal and common for what is (by some metrics) the richest country in the world for one in eight people to rely on government assistance to eat.
Although an analysis from Harvard University is hardly necessary to understand the importance of nutrition, here is one such analysis.
Bottom line: Food stamps are vitally important to feeding the nation!
Part B – The role of the U.S. Federal Government in “Food Stamp” Administration
As part of the “Big Beautiful Bill” (AKA “The Revenge Tax Bill“) the United States (under the guise of preventing fraud) imposed significant “due diligence” requirements on the States (who administer the Food Stamp programs). Of course, mistakes would subject the States to penalties. As you can imagine, this results in States worrying about being sanctioned/penalized for failing to comply with specific requirements. It is job of the state to ensure that individuals receiving “food stamps” meet the eligibility requirements.
For a range of articles and sources describing exactly how the July 2025 “One Big Beautiful Bill” imposed barriers to accessing “food stamps”, simply search:
“what sections of the big beautiful bill made it more difficult for individuals to receive food stamps?”
Part C – Where can I read the “One Big Beautiful Bill” and see exactly what the government did?
The “One Big Beautiful Bill” is actually P.L. 119-21. You can find it here. You should look to Subtitle A – specifically Sec. 10102, which reads: “Modifications to SNAP work requirements for able-bodied adults”. As you might expect, this imposes requirements to make it harder to access food stamps.
The exact text of this section is reproduced in Appendix A of this post. You would need a lawyer to read and understand this.
What is clear, is that:
- the States administering the program understand it to impose additional penalty laden costs on them; and
- the individuals in need of the program understand it to impose additional eligibility and compliance costs on them
These effects are explored in the New York Times article.
Part D – Complexity, Sanctions, Compliance and Access – The NY Times Article
The following article recently appeared in the New York Times:
I was struck by two things about the article:
- It describes the policy of the U.S. Federal Government in imposing sanctions on a State, that does not do proper due diligence (as prescribed in the “One Big Beautiful Bill”) to determine entitlement to “food stamps”; and
- The inability of the individuals in need of food stamps to understand and properly complete the “forms” required to secure the “food stamps”.
The failure to comply with procedural requirements results in a denial of food stamps!
While reading the article I immediately was reminded of:
- The U.S. imposing a FATCA sanction on non-U.S. banks that do NOT perform acceptable “due diligence” in looking for and identifying (possible) “U.S. Persons” (to determine whether they should be filing U.S. taxes); and
- The inability (or reluctance) of individuals abroad in need of bank accounts to provide Social Security Numbers (that they may never have had) or in cases of entity ownership (think Form W-8BEN-E) to understand the form that is required.
The failure to comply means the denial of a bank (or other financial) account!
Notice that in both cases, the U.S. Government is imposing the compliance costs directly on the State, the bank and/or the individual needing the benefit.
Excerpts from the New York Times article include:
“Many of the 440,000 Arizonans dropped from the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program — food stamps — remain eligible for help. But the new law establishes steep penalties on states that make too many mistakes when awarding benefits. To avoid those costs, which are so large that state officials say they could end the program, Arizona increased the paperwork that applicants must file, even as it cut the staff to review it.”
JR Commentary: The FATCA equivalent is the decision of foreign banks to not offer accounts to those who either are or are suspected of being U.S. citizens.
…
“To avoid errors and the resulting penalties, Arizona quickly demanded proof of information it had generally accepted without documentation unless there was reason to doubt it. Previously, applicants could simply declare who was part of the household. Now many had to get signed letters from neighbors or friends. Caseworkers mostly stopped taking wage data from employers by phone.”
Connor Erickson, who manages a Phoenix SNAP office, said the quest for audit-proof verification reached an extreme in the case of panhandling income, when the office asked for records of donated cash it knew most applicants could not get. In the end, it accepted their best-guess estimates, but “we had to make them go through these hurdles.”
“Yes, it’s ridiculous,” he said.
Processing the paperwork was especially hard since Arizona had just laid off a third of its caseworkers after losing a federal grant, and its computer technology is antiquated. At a Phoenix office last month, screens announced that wait times for clients had reached five hours.”
JR Commentary: It’s not that the law has changed. It’s that the standard for what it means to comply has changed.
…
“But Mr. Wisehart, the state official who runs SNAP, said the decline “is not an indicator of fraud at all” but a reflection of “really burdensome” paperwork prompted by federal law.”
JR Commentary: Think of all the Americans abroad who simply cannot afford to file Form 3520, Form 5471, Form 8938, etc. (if they even know these things are required).
…
“Then the events of recent months made sense. Told a high error rate could cost the state hundreds of millions of dollars, Ms. McDonald wore a look of sudden understanding. “It’s the pressure from the administration not to make a mistake,” she said.
“We’re feeling it,” she added. “Everything is just 10 times more difficult.””
JR Commentary: The non-U.S. banks operate in fear of the 30% confiscation of USD payments sent to them. What happens if they don’t or can’t comply? This is an example of sanctioning person A if they don’t (at the request of the U.S. Government) sanction person B.
Part E – Conclusion – The Tyranny of “FORMPlexity”
Tyranny takes many forms!
The Tyranny Of Complexity: Many people don’t or can’t understand the laws that apply to them.
The Tyranny Of FORMplexity: Even when people do understand the laws or requirements they can’t comply.
The interaction of complexity, sanctions, and compliance (or not) is an amazing thing!
Appendix A – The text of Sec. 10102
SEC. 10102. MODIFICATIONS TO SNAP WORK REQUIREMENTS FOR ABLE-BODIED ADULTS. (a) EXCEPTIONS.—Section 6(o) of the Food and Nutrition Act of 2008 (7 U.S.C. 2015(o)) is amended by striking paragraph (3) and inserting the following: ‘‘(3) EXCEPTIONS.—Paragraph (2) shall not apply to an individual if the individual is— ‘‘(A) under 18, or over 65, years of age; ‘‘(B) medically certified as physically or mentally unfit for employment; ‘‘(C) a parent or other member of a household with responsibility for a dependent child under 14 years of age; ‘‘(D) otherwise exempt under subsection (d)(2); ‘‘(E) a pregnant woman; ‘‘(F) an Indian or an Urban Indian (as such terms are defined in paragraphs (13) and (28) of section 4 of the Indian Health Care Improvement Act); or Deadline. Effective dates. Time period. Expiration date. Guam. Virgin Islands. Hawaii. Alaska. 139 STAT. 82 PUBLIC LAW 119–21—JULY 4, 2025 ‘‘(G) a California Indian described in section 809(a) of the Indian Health Care Improvement Act.’’. (b) STANDARDIZING ENFORCEMENT.—Section 6(o)(4) of the Food and Nutrition Act of 2008 (7 U.S.C. 2015(o)(4)) is amended— (1) in subparagraph (A), by striking clause (ii) and inserting the following: ‘‘(ii) is in a noncontiguous State and has an unemployment rate that is at or above 1.5 times the national unemployment rate.’’; and (2) by adding at the end the following: ‘‘(C) DEFINITION OF NONCONTIGUOUS STATE.— ‘‘(i) IN GENERAL.—In this paragraph, the term ‘noncontiguous State’ means a State that is not 1 of the contiguous 48 States or the District of Columbia. ‘‘(ii) EXCLUSIONS.—The term ‘noncontiguous State’ does not include Guam or the Virgin Islands of the United States.’’. (c) WAIVER FOR NONCONTIGUOUS STATES.—Section 6(o) of the Food and Nutrition Act of 2008 (7 U.S.C. 2015(o)) is amended— (1) by redesignating paragraph (7) as paragraph (8); and (2) by inserting after paragraph (6) the following: ‘‘(7) EXEMPTION FOR NONCONTIGUOUS STATES.— ‘‘(A) DEFINITION OF NONCONTIGUOUS STATE.— ‘‘(i) IN GENERAL.—In this paragraph, the term ‘noncontiguous State’ means a State that is not 1 of the contiguous 48 States or the District of Columbia. ‘‘(ii) EXCLUSIONS.—In this paragraph, the term ‘noncontiguous State’ does not include Guam or the Virgin Islands of the United States. ‘‘(B) EXEMPTION.—Subject to subparagraph (D), the Secretary may exempt individuals in a noncontiguous State from compliance with the requirements of paragraph (2) if— ‘‘(i) the State agency submits to the Secretary a request for that exemption, made in such form and at such time as the Secretary may require, and including the information described in subparagraph (C); and ‘‘(ii) the Secretary determines that based on that request, the State agency is demonstrating a good faith effort to comply with the requirements of paragraph (2). ‘‘(C) GOOD FAITH EFFORT DETERMINATION.—In determining whether a State agency is demonstrating a good faith effort for purposes of subparagraph (B)(ii), the Secretary shall consider— ‘‘(i) any actions taken by the State agency toward compliance with the requirements of paragraph (2); ‘‘(ii) any significant barriers to or challenges in meeting those requirements, including barriers or challenges relating to funding, design, development, procurement, or installation of necessary systems or resources; ‘‘(iii) the detailed plan and timeline of the State agency for achieving full compliance with those requirements, including any milestones (as defined by the Secretary); and Determination. Compliance. PUBLIC LAW 119–21—JULY 4, 2025 139 STAT. 83 ‘‘(iv) any other criteria determined appropriate by the Secretary. ‘‘(D) DURATION OF EXEMPTION.— ‘‘(i) IN GENERAL.—An exemption granted under subparagraph (B) shall expire not later than December 31, 2028, and may not be renewed beyond that date. ‘‘(ii) EARLY TERMINATION.—The Secretary may terminate an exemption granted under subparagraph (B) prior to the expiration date of that exemption if the Secretary determines that the State agency— ‘‘(I) has failed to comply with the reporting requirements described in subparagraph (E); or ‘‘(II) based on the information provided pursuant to subparagraph (E), failed to make continued good faith efforts toward compliance with the requirements of this subsection. ‘‘(E) REPORTING REQUIREMENTS.—A State agency granted an exemption under subparagraph (B) shall submit to the Secretary— ‘‘(i) quarterly progress reports on the status of the State agency in achieving the milestones toward full compliance described in subparagraph (C)(iii); and ‘‘(ii) information on specific risks or newly identified barriers or challenges to full compliance, including the plan of the State agency to mitigate those risks, barriers, or challenges.’’