A Democratic bill with 3 Republican cosponsors · See all 12 cosponsors
Last activity — Referred to the Subcommittee on Nutrition and Foreign Agriculture.
In committee
Introduced and handed to a committee in the chamber it started in.
The committee holds it, and most bills are never heard from again. A hearing or a committee vote would be news; silence is the usual outcome, and it kills the bill without anyone voting against it.
Its path through Congress
- Introduced
- In Committee
What this bill would do
This bill is known as the RESTORE Act of 2025. It changes the rules from an older law passed in 1996. The bill allows individuals with drug offenses to receive benefits under the supplemental nutrition assistance program. It stops any State law, policy, or regulation from using a controlled substance conviction to deny supplemental nutrition assistance program eligibility. It also modifies the definition of a household under the supplemental nutrition assistance program to include incarcerated individuals who are scheduled to be released from an institution within 30 days.
Yes· 3 of 18
- Scored +8
Would households on low incomes be better off under this?
Provides direct food assistance to a previously excluded low-income population.
- Scored +7
Is this likely to lift people out of poverty?
Expands access to SNAP benefits for individuals previously excluded due to drug convictions.
- Scored +5
Would Black Americans be better off under this?
Addresses disparities in drug-related convictions that have historically limited access to benefits.
The opposite
- Scored -3
Does this leave more decisions to the states?
Removes the authority of states to restrict SNAP eligibility based on controlled substance convictions.
Who it would affect, and how
Potential Positive Impacts for People
-
Access to SNAP for individuals with drug offenses: Section 2(b) ensures that any State law, policy, or regulation that imposes conditions on supplemental nutrition assistance program eligibility based on a drug-related conviction shall have no force or effect. This is positive because it allows individuals with drug offenses to receive supplemental nutrition assistance program benefits.
-
SNAP eligibility for soon-to-be-released incarcerated individuals: Section 2(c) modifies the definition of a household under the Food and Nutrition Act of 2008 to include incarcerated individuals who are scheduled to be released from an institution within 30 days. This is positive because it helps these individuals access food assistance as they prepare to re-enter society.
Potential Negative Impacts for People
- The provided text does not contain any specific sections or provisions outlining negative consequences or burdens for individuals or groups of people in the United States.
Groups and Interests Ranking
Every group the model scored this bill for, from -10 to +10. Tap or hover a score for the reason it gave.
- Demographic And Interest Groups
- Would households on low incomes be better off under this? — Provides direct food assistance to a previously excluded low-income population. Would Black Americans be better off under this? — Addresses disparities in drug-related convictions that have historically limited access to benefits. Would Hispanic Americans be better off under this? — Addresses disparities in drug-related convictions that have historically limited access to benefits. Would Native Americans be better off under this? — Increases access to food assistance for those with drug convictions. Would Asian Americans be better off under this? — Increases access to food assistance for those with drug convictions. Would men be better off under this? — Increases food security for men with drug-related convictions. Would people in middle age be better off under this? — Increases support for individuals reentry into society who may have drug convictions. Would people in rural areas be better off under this? — Positive impact on low-income rural populations affected by drug conviction barriers. Would people in cities be better off under this? — Positive impact on low-income urban populations affected by drug conviction barriers. Would veterans be better off under this, taking everything together? — Increases access to food assistance for veterans with drug convictions. Would white Americans be better off under this? — Increases access to food assistance for those with drug convictions. Would women be better off under this? — Increases food security for women with drug-related convictions. Would people in their twenties and thirties be better off under this? — Increases support for individuals reentry into society who may have drug convictions.
- Social Issues And Justice
- Is this likely to lift people out of poverty? — Expands access to SNAP benefits for individuals previously excluded due to drug convictions. Does this narrow racial gaps in how people are treated? — Reduces systemic barriers to food assistance for those disproportionately affected by drug offense convictions. Is this likely to reduce homelessness? — Provides food security for formerly incarcerated individuals, reducing a primary driver of homelessness.
- Healthcare
- Does this do more about addiction and overdose deaths? — Increases food security for individuals with drug-related convictions, supporting recovery.
- Governance And Ideology
- Does this give the federal government more power? — Overrides state laws and policies that limit SNAP eligibility based on drug convictions. Does this leave more decisions to the states? — Removes the authority of states to restrict SNAP eligibility based on controlled substance convictions.
- 10/1/2026
- 1 Cosponsor added.
- 9/24/2026
- 1 Cosponsor added.
- 9/14/2026
- 2 Cosponsors added.
- 6/18/2026
- 1 Cosponsor added.
- 5/20/2026
- 1 Cosponsor added.
- 5/11/2026
- 1 Cosponsor added.
- 3/3/2026
- 2 Cosponsors added.
- 2/20/2026
- 2 Cosponsors added.
- 12/5/2025
- Referred to the Subcommittee on Nutrition and Foreign Agriculture.
- 9/9/2025
- Referred to the Committee on Agriculture, and in addition to the Committee on Ways and Means, for a period to be subsequently determined by the Speaker, in each case for consideration of such provisions as fall within the jurisdiction of the committee concerned.
- 1 Cosponsor added.
- Introduced in House
One bill Congress.gov lists as related to this one — companions in the other chamber, earlier versions, and bills this one absorbed or was folded into.
Alma AdamsDemocrat · North Carolina
Don BaconRepublican · Nebraska
Everton BlairDemocrat · Georgia
Yvette ClarkeDemocrat · New York
Donald DavisDemocrat · North Carolina
James McGovernDemocrat · Massachusetts
Gwen MooreDemocrat · Wisconsin
Carol MillerRepublican · West Virginia
Eleanor NortonDemocrat · District of Columbia
John RutherfordRepublican · Florida
Bennie ThompsonDemocrat · Mississippi
Marc VeaseyDemocrat · Texas