Referred to the House Committee on Agriculture.
This bill, the Ensuring Fee-Free Benefit Transactions Act of 2025, amends the Food and Nutrition Act of 2008 to permanently prohibit States and their agents, contractors, or subcontractors from imposing fees on SNAP-authorized retailers for EBT transactions, including switching or routing of benefits, and for costs to implement specified statutory subsections. The prohibition does not apply to costs associated with equipment rentals.
Who pays for EBT switching/routing and related implementation costs (federal funding vs state/recovery through fees).
Relative to its intended legislative type, this bill is a focused substantive amendment that clearly accomplishes a specific legal prohibition by directly amending the Food and Nutrition Act of 2008 and setting an effective date.
This bill, the Ensuring Fee-Free Benefit Transactions Act of 2025, amends the Food and Nutrition Act of 2008 to permanently prohibit States and their agents, contractors, or subcontractors from imposing fees on SNAP-authorized retailers for EBT transactions, including switching or routing of benefits, and for costs to implement specified statutory subsections.
The prohibition does not apply to costs associated with equipment rentals.
The amendment is written to supersede provisions of title IV of division HH of the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2023 (and agency actions under that authority).
A concise, technical amendment affecting program administration has a reasonable chance of enactment because it is narrow and not highly ideological. Potential obstacles include opposition from entities that would lose fee revenue, federalism concerns from States, and the need to overcome Senate procedure or reconcile with prior law. Lack of new spending or big structural change improves prospects.
Relative to its intended legislative type, this bill is a focused substantive amendment that clearly accomplishes a specific legal prohibition by directly amending the Food and Nutrition Act of 2008 and setting an effective date. It integrates with existing statutory text and explicitly supersedes a named prior provision.
Who pays for EBT switching/routing and related implementation costs (federal funding vs state/recovery through fees).
These are examples from the analysis, not a ranked list of the most-affected groups.
Who pays for EBT switching/routing and related implementation costs (federal funding vs state/recovery through fees).
This persona would view the bill positively as a consumer- and retailer-protective measure that prevents costs associated with EBT transactions from being passed on to low-income SNAP participants or to the small retailers that serve them.
They would see making the moratorium permanent as reinforcing access to benefits and reducing barriers in grocery deserts and small-store food access.
They may note the equipment rental exception and seek tighter guardrails so it cannot be used to impose de facto fees.
This persona will see the bill as a straightforward consumer-protection measure that reduces friction in benefit use and simplifies rules for retailers, but will have practical questions about who pays for EBT system costs that states previously could recoup.
They will appreciate clear federal preemption of provisions that allowed fees but will look for fiscal and administrative details — such as how upgrades, routing/switching costs, and equipment rentals will be funded and audited.
If accompanied by funding or a reasonable transition plan, a centrist is likely to support the measure; absent that, they will want safeguards or sunset/phase-in provisions.
This persona is likely to be skeptical of making permanent a federal prohibition that constrains state and private-sector contracting choices.
They will emphasize concerns about federal preemption of state authority and the potential for unfunded mandates if states cannot recover legitimate infrastructure or administrative costs.
They may accept the goal of protecting beneficiaries from direct fees but object to removing flexibility or to superseding provisions of recent appropriations law without a funding plan.
Reached or meaningfully advanced
Reached or meaningfully advanced
Still ahead
Still ahead
Still ahead
A concise, technical amendment affecting program administration has a reasonable chance of enactment because it is narrow and not highly ideological. Potential obstacles include opposition from entities that would lose fee revenue, federalism concerns from States, and the need to overcome Senate procedure or reconcile with prior law. Lack of new spending or big structural change improves prospects.
The bill has not accumulated any surfaced votes yet.
Who pays for EBT switching/routing and related implementation costs (federal funding vs state/recovery through fees).
A concise, technical amendment affecting program administration has a reasonable chance of enactment because it is narrow and not highly id…
Relative to its intended legislative type, this bill is a focused substantive amendment that clearly accomplishes a specific legal prohibition by directly amending the Food and Nutrition Act of 2008 and setting an effec…
Go beyond the headline summary with full stakeholder mapping, legislative design analysis, passage barriers, and lens-by-lens tradeoff breakdowns.