literally the 1st 3 sentences: About a half-million students could lose access to free school meals under a Trump administration proposal to limit the number of people who qualify for food stamps, drawing protests from congressional Democrats who say it could harm needy schoolchildren. The change, proposed over the summer, would cut an estimated 3 million people from the Supplemental Nutritional Assistance Program. It is intended to eliminate eligibility for people who get food stamps because they have qualified for other forms of government aid, even though they may have savings or other assets.
And where does it mention that these individuals can get right back to SNAP by applying the right way? Where does it mention that states are incented to allow people to get benefits through this loophole? Where does it discuss the loophole at all? You know full well the sensationalism in your post - including the thread's title itself - is designed to draw the reader in to thinking this will take away food from hungry children. You did this before with the original thread I responded to. Same narrative pushing. Pretend all you want, but everyone here sees the attempt. Trump to steal 1/2 million kids' school lunches... And now they see the typical H4M shuffle, back peddling to claim "its a factually correct article! no narrative is intended!"
So if the law is changed to require voter ID to voters who did not have an ID last election, can they still vote without one? If the law is changed to restrict gun ownership to those that undergo rigorous psych evaluation, can they still own one without one? The article isn't about the hoops people have to jump to restore benefits, it's about the benefits being taken away.
Both of your examples change the ability of people to obtain the same benefits they had before the previous law's change. In other words, the requirement to vote or own a gun would be different under the new law, and people who previously qualified might not qualify under the new law. Requirements changed. This is not nearly the case with the SNAP change. The closing of the loophole doesn't change - at all - the requirement of each state (each state is different) for obtaining benefits. All it does is prevent states from bypassing the income test because they qualified for other benefits the state offers. It is like saying "Ah, since you qualify for welfare, you MUST qualify for SNAP. Lets auto enroll you!" This isn't true, because the income requirement is different for SNAP. Instead, if you truly qualify for SNAP, you will still qualify for SNAP. Nothing has changed. You just don't auto enroll through the loophole.