Congress is debating stricter SNAP and Medicaid work requirements—but research shows they don’t work

As congressional Republicans begin to fill in the details of President Donald Trump’s economic agenda, one proposal is expanded work requirements for the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) and Medicaid. This raises a critical question: Are lawmakers forming policy through evidence-based decisions or through ideological preconceptions about poverty that ignore the complex and harsh realities low-income Americans face?  

Proponents of work requirements argue that they incentivize employment and promote self-sufficiency. But decades of economic research tell a different story: Work requirements do little to increase employment and often strip essential benefits from society’s most vulnerable, while also adding bureaucratic barriers that disproportionately harm those already struggling. Other research consistently finds that stricter work requirements for both SNAP and Medicaid fail to increase labor market participation—undermining popular claims that they promote self-sufficiency.  

From a policy perspective, work requirements encourage a punitive view of welfare—framing it as a liability rather than an integral investment in economic support for low-income communities. This piece examines recent economic research studying the efficacy of work requirements for SNAP and Medicaid on labor market outcomes and program participation rates. 

The partisan divide in America’s welfare system: Ideology versus evidence-based policymaking  

American politics has historically been divided on welfare philosophy, with Republicans and Democrats holding contrasting views on government assistance, what it constitutes, and why we need it. As the country now faces a new wave of proposed cuts to public expenditure that would disproportionately impact low-income Americans and favor the wealthy, we are reminded of the divisiveness of this debate and its harsh consequences for vulnerable citizens.  

The country’s uniquely polarized political views on what constitutes welfare stems from an economic system that is centered around individualism and market-based solutions. Compared to countries at similar levels of development, the American model positions welfare assistance and market efficiency as opposing forces. This framing turns welfare into a moral battleground rather than a practical policy tool, making it difficult to create stable, effective systems that protect vulnerable citizens while promoting broader social and economic goals. 

Republicans typically favor limited, conditional assistance with work requirements, viewing welfare as a temporary safety net that risks creating dependency. Democrats generally support more comprehensive programs with fewer restrictions, seeing welfare as essential protection against structural inequalities, economic exclusion, and unconstrained capitalism. This partisan divide creates a pendulum effect on policy, in which welfare programs expand or contract based on which party holds power, rather than evolving through evidence-based, deliberate, and responsive policymaking processes. When ideological battles supersede thoughtful, evidence-based policy design, the most vulnerable Americans often fall through the cracks. 

Many developed nations approach welfare differently. For example, European social democracies generally accept a baseline responsibility to provide health care, housing assistance, and income support as fundamental rights. These societies tend to view welfare as social insurance that benefits the entire community—not just welfare recipients.  

Work requirements for Medicaid and SNAP are built on the assumption that recipients avoid work and need bureaucratic pressure—or a “stick”—to enter the workforce. However, research shows otherwise. Most SNAP and Medicaid recipients who can work are already working. Research consistently shows that additional work requirements do little than create administrative burdens and reporting systems that may push eligible participants out of the safety net. For example, an Arkansas experiment found that additional mandates led to significant coverage loss and no gains in employment outcomes. These unintended consequences occur when the state overlooks the complex nature of poverty and the systemic inequalities that create and sustain vulnerability in the first place. 

Similar research on SNAP work requirements finds that additional mandates do not increase labor force participation, but instead reduce program uptake and disproportionately harm vulnerable groups such as those facing unstable employment situations. Economic analyses suggest that removing work requirements would be a more efficient way to support low-income individuals, as these policies primarily act as screening mechanisms that deny assistance rather than improve self-sufficiency. 

Stricter SNAP work requirements don’t increase employment 

Able-bodied adults without dependents (ABAWDs) constitute almost 12% of all SNAP recipient households, with most already employed. SNAP helps workers by supplementing low or sporadic earnings and supporting them temporarily while they look for jobs. In fact, most ABAWDs on SNAP work in occupations or industries with low pay and unstable hours, which makes them eligible in the first place.  

Research on work requirements for SNAP points at consistent patterns: Work requirements do not increase employment, have negligible impacts on earnings, and significantly reduce program participation.  

For example, recent research on SNAP work requirements reveals significant reductions in program participation but little impact on employment outcomes. Using linked administrative data and a regression discontinuity design, the study found that work requirements led to a 23-percentage-point increase in program exits, meaning that 64% of eligible participants subject to the requirements (ABAWDs) left the program. Overall participation dropped by 53%, with homeless individuals disproportionately excluded. The study found no significant increase in employment rates and negligible evidence of increasing earnings around the eligibility threshold.  

Another recent study found similar results, with no meaningful effects of general work requirements or “employment and training” requirements on labor supply of SNAP recipients.¹ Overall, these findings suggest that work requirements only add to the compliance costs for the most vulnerable individuals and risk excluding those who need to be protected.  

Neoclassical economic theory predicts that safety-net programs will prompt individuals to reduce labor supply in order to qualify for transfers. However, recent behavioral economics research negates this theory in the context of SNAP work requirements, finding that work requirements do not necessarily encourage labor force participation, and instead force many individuals off assistance without securing stable employment. Taken collectively, research finds that stricter work requirements are effective in reducing program participation, and their ability to meaningfully improve long-term employment outcomes is questionable. 

The administrative burden of work requirements further complicates the labor supply response. SNAP participants are required to submit periodic recertifications (typically every six to 12 months), which involves substantial documentation of earnings, expenses, and compliance with work rules. Most program attrition (or exit) occurs at these deadlines—not because recipients have gained stable employment, but due to bureaucratic obstacles and reporting failures. The most stringent version of work requirements (the “ABAWD” rule) restricts benefits to able-bodied adults aged 18 to 49 without dependents unless they work 80 hours per month. Those who fail to meet this threshold are limited to just three months of benefits within a three-year period. Research shows that these restrictions disproportionately increase program exit.  

Given these findings, the entire debate about stricter work requirements functions more as a cost-cutting mechanism rather than an effective policy for increasing labor market participation and economic mobility for low-income populations. 

Medicaid work requirements disproportionately harm disadvantaged groups 

Advocates of stricter work requirements for Medicaid argue that tying health coverage to employment would encourage labor force participation and reduce dependency on welfare assistance. However, the vast majority of low-income Americans are largely excluded from the health care system, and restricting Medicaid would only deepen this exclusion, placing millions of low-income Americans in a precarious situation.  

About two-thirds of non-elderly adults on Medicaid are already working, while most others are not in a position to work since they are either disabled or have caregiving responsibilities. We can look at the Arkansas experiment to ascertain the effectiveness of work requirements for Medicaid. In the 2018 experiment, 18,000 low-income individuals lost coverage in under a year—not necessarily because they failed to meet the 80-hour work requirement, but because they struggled with the complex reporting system. A subsequent study in Health Affairs found no significant increase in employment, but those who lost coverage faced severe consequences: 50% reported serious medical debt, 56% delayed care due to costs, and 64% postponed taking prescribed medications.   

Moreover, Medicaid work requirements disproportionately harm people with disabilities, women, rural residents, and individuals with unstable, low-wage jobs, according to research from the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities (CBPP). Even with exemptions for some groups, evidence from states that implemented work requirements shows that many eligible individuals still lost coverage due to administrative hurdles, lack of internet access, or difficulty proving their exemptions. The Congressional Budget Office similarly concluded that Medicaid work requirements in a 2023 House bill would lead to coverage loss with “no change in employment or hours worked.” 

Given the overwhelming evidence that work requirements fail to increase employment while stripping vital health coverage, critics argue that Medicaid should be seen as a work support rather than a work disincentive—ensuring that low-income individuals can maintain their health, financial stability, and ability to participate in the workforce. 

Stricter work requirements are a barrier to access, not a path to self-sufficiency  

The persistence of work requirements is not rooted in evidence, but rather in a deep-seated American ideology that treats poverty as a moral failing rather than a systemic issue. Since the 1970s, welfare debates have been shaped by racialized and classist stereotypes—popularizing myths of the “welfare queen” or the “lazy poor” who must be nudged or disciplined into work.  

This narrative ignores the reality that most safety net recipients are already working or face legitimate barriers to employment. By framing public assistance as an obstacle rather than a support system, work requirements reinforce exclusion rather than opportunity, punishing those who are struggling instead of empowering them to succeed. Poverty is not just about who loses out in the economic system, but why the system produces losers in the first place. If the goal is to help low-income individuals become productive members of the workforce, the answer is not a stick, but a ladder—one that provides the necessary resources for stability and upward mobility for those excluded from the gains of capitalism.  

Rather than punitive measures that assume people are unwilling to work, policies should focus on removing structural barriers to employment, such as investing in job training programs, expanding access to affordable child care, providing transportation assistance, and adopting a livable minimum wage. These initiatives have been shown to increase labor force participation and economic mobility far more effectively than coercive welfare restrictions.