States would struggle to administer food stamp benefits under Republican tax bill
WASHINGTON (Reuters) -U.S. states will not be able to fully administer food stamp benefits for millions of the nation's poor if a proposal in the Republican tax bill forcing them to shoulder billions of dollars in new costs is signed into law, according to state officials, local government associations and policy experts.
More than 41 million people receive benefits from the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, the nation's largest food aid program, which cost about $100 billion in 2024.
The tax bill passed on May 22 by the U.S. House of Representatives and backed by President Donald Trump would shift some $22 billion in administrative and benefit costs to state and local governments, according to a Reuters analysis.
Supporters of the move say it will promote accountability and reduce waste in the program. But states fear it will backfire.
"No state is going to be able to simply absorb that," Kentucky Governor Andy Beshear, a Democrat, told Reuters.
Officials from North Carolina, Oregon and Michigan also said their states did not have the resources to easily take on the spending requirements in the proposal, which is now before the Senate.
Some states could be forced to shrink SNAP eligibility or to leave the program altogether, according to letters sent in May to Congressional and agriculture committee leadership from state and county legislatures and health officials.
"Shifting the financial burden of SNAP onto states is fiscally unsustainable and risks harming the very individuals and families the program is designed to support," said one letter from the National Conference of State Legislatures.
Other letters were sent by the National Association of Counties, National Association of County Human Services Administrators and the American Public Human Services Association.
A USDA spokesperson said that Agriculture Secretary Brooke Rollins supports Trump's agenda and that the agency will continue to provide technical assistance to states.
Republicans have long supported reduced spending on SNAP, arguing that the program creates a dependence on federal support and should be more narrowly targeted to the most vulnerable.
Reuters could not reach a representative from the Republican Governors Association or from Texas, Florida or Georgia, the Republican-led states facing the highest SNAP costs.
STATES WOULD STRUGGLE
The House bill would require states for the first time to pay for a portion of SNAP benefits beginning in 2028, with their payment share from 5% to 25% tied to the state's error rate, a USDA measure of how accurately states determine eligibility and benefit levels.
Nationwide, that would amount to more than $20 billion in spending, according to a Reuters analysis of data from the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities and the U.S. Department of Agriculture.
The bill would also require states to immediately pay 75% of the cost of administering the SNAP program, up from their existing 50% obligation, adding another $2 billion to the sum, according to USDA data.
The states facing the most new spending would be California ($3.7 billion), New York ($2.1 billion), Florida ($1.7 billion) and Texas ($1.2 billion).
The state spending requirements would push 1.3 million people off of SNAP in an average month, because some states would modify eligibility requirements or stop administering SNAP, according to a May 22 letter from the Congressional Budget Office to House and Senate agriculture committee leadership.
Michigan does not have the ability to support $850 million in new SNAP spending and may need to restrict eligibility or reduce benefits if the House bill passes, said Elizabeth Hertel, director of the state Department of Health and Human Services.
Oregon would struggle to absorb more than $477 million and the state is planning for what they would do if forced to take on the spending, said Claire Seguin, director of the division of the Oregon Department of Human Services that administers SNAP.
North Carolina is already budget constrained and "there isn't really a way to backfill" more than $650 million in new SNAP spending, said Department of Health and Human Services secretary Dev Sangvai, who did not provide details on what steps the state would take if the provision passes.
New York also cannot absorb its projected costs, Barbara Guinn, Commissioner of the New York State Office of Temporary and Disability Assistance, told Senators during a June 4 forum on the SNAP proposal.
Because most states must balance their budgets and cannot accrue debt to offset new spending like the federal government can, shifting SNAP spending to states risks drawing down resources from other public programs like Medicaid, said Eric Mitchell, president of the Alliance to End Hunger.
The bill would also expand work requirements for some SNAP recipients and restrict states' ability to waive those requirements when unemployment ticks up, which together would push another 3.2 million people off of SNAP in an average month, according to the CBO.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Los Angeles Times
11 minutes ago
- Los Angeles Times
Nation's capital awaits Trump's next move as federal takeover threat looms
WASHINGTON — Around 2 a.m., noisy revelers emerging from clubs and bars packed the sidewalks of U Street in Washington, many of them seeking a late-night slice or falafel. A robust but not unusual contingent of city police cruisers lingered around the edges of the crowds. At other late-night hot spots, nearly identical scenes unfolded. What wasn't apparent in Friday's earliest hours: any sort of security lockdown by a multiagency flood of uniformed federal law enforcement officers. That's what President Trump had promised Thursday, starting at midnight, in the administration's latest move to impose its will on the nation's capital. In short, that law enforcement surge to take control of the District of Columbia's streets did not appear to unfold on schedule. A two-hour city tour, starting around 1 a.m. Friday, revealed no overt or visible law enforcement presence other than members of the Metropolitan Police Department, the city's police force. That might change in the coming evenings as Trump puts into action his long-standing plans to 'take over' a capital city he has repeatedly slammed as unsafe, filthy and badly run. According to his declaration last week, the security lockdown will run for seven days, 'with the option to extend as needed.' In an online post Saturday, the Republican president said the Democratic-led city would soon be one of the country's safest and he announced a White House news conference for Monday, though he offered no details. On Friday night, a White House official said Thursday night's operations included arrests for possession of two stolen firearms, suspected fentanyl and marijuana. The official was not authorized to speak publicly and spoke on condition of anonymity. The official said more than 120 members of various federal agencies — the Secret Service, the FBI and the U.S. Marshals Service — were to be on duty Friday night, upping the complement of federal officers involved. 'This is the first step in stopping the violent crime that has been plaguing the streets of Washington, D.C.,' White House Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt said in a statement. Mayor Muriel Bowser, who publicly faced off against Trump in 2020 when he called in a massive federal law enforcement response to disperse crowds of protesters denouncing police brutality and racial profiling, has not said a public word since Trump's declaration. The Metropolitan Police Department has gone similarly silent. The catalyst for this latest round of takeover drama was an assault Aug. 3 during an attempted carjacking on a high-profile member of the White House's government-slashing team known as the Department of Government Efficiency, formerly headed by Elon Musk. Police arrested two 15-year-olds and were seeking others. Trump quickly renewed his calls for the federal government to seize control. 'If D.C. doesn't get its act together, and quickly, we will have no choice but to take Federal control of the City, and run this City how it should be run, and put criminals on notice that they're not going to get away with it anymore,' Trump wrote in a post on his social media site. He later told reporters he was considering a range of alternatives, including repealing Washington's limited 'home rule' autonomy and 'bringing in the National Guard, maybe very quickly,' as he did in Los Angeles in response to protests over his administration's immigration crackdown. The threats come at a time when Bowser's government can tout a reduction in the number of homicides and carjackings, both of which surged in 2023. The number of carjackings overall dropped significantly in 2024, from 957 to just under 500, and is on track to decline again this year, with fewer than 200 recorded so far. The proportion of juveniles arrested on suspicion of carjacking, though, has remained above 50%, and Bowser's government has taken steps to rein in a recent phenomenon of rowdy teenagers causing disarray and disturbances in public spaces. Emergency legislation passed by the D.C. Council this summer imposed tighter youth curfew restrictions and empowered Police Chief Pamela Smith to declare temporary juvenile curfew zones for four days at a time. In those areas, a gathering of nine or more people younger than 18 is unlawful after 8 p.m. Trump is within his powers in deploying federal law enforcement assets on D.C. streets. He could deploy the National Guard, although that is not one of the dozen participating agencies listed in his declaration. The first Trump administration called in the National Guard during Black Lives Matter protests in 2020 and again on Jan. 6, 2021, when his supporters overran the Capitol in a failed attempt to overturn his election defeat. Further steps, including taking over the Police Department, would require a declaration of emergency. Legal experts believe that would most likely be challenged in court. Such an approach would fit the general pattern of Trump's second term in office, when he has declared states of emergency on issues ranging from border protection to economic tariffs. In many cases, he moved forward while the courts sorted it out. Imposing a full federal takeover of Washington would require a congressional repeal of the Home Rule Act of 1973. It's a step that Trump said his administration's lawyers are examining. That law was specific to Washington, not other communities in the United States that have their own home rule powers but generally retain representation in their state legislatures, said Monica Hopkins, executive director of the American Civil Liberties Union of the District of Columbia. Signed into law by President Nixon, the measure allowed D.C. residents to elect their own mayor, council and local commissioners. The district had been previously run by federally appointed commissioners and members of Congress, some of whom balked at having to deal with potholes and other details of running a city of 700,000 residents. So far, Trump's criticisms of Washington can be felt most directly in the actions of the National Park Service, which controls large pieces of land throughout the capital. In Trump's current administration, the agency has stepped up its clearing of homeless encampments on Park Service land and recently carried out a series of arrests of people smoking marijuana in public parks. The agency said last week that a statue of a Confederate military leader that was toppled by protesters in 2020 would be restored and replaced, in line with an executive order. Khalil and Whitehurst write for the Associated Press. AP writers Mike Pesoli, Michael Kunzelman and Michelle L. Price contributed to this report.
Yahoo
40 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Decade-old photo misrepresented as South Korean reaction to Trump's tariffs
An old photo of a crowd celebrating former South Korean leader Park Geun-hye's impeachment has resurfaced in social media posts falsely claiming it shows the public's reaction to Donald Trump saying the United States will impose a 15 percent tariff on the country's goods. The photo -- juxtaposed next to an image of a 2007 protest against a proposed free trade agreement between Seoul and Washington -- was taken nearly a decade before Trump's tariff announcement. The photo of a joyous crowd, superimposed with Korean-language text that reads "Response to 15 percent tariffs", was shared on Facebook on August 7, 2025. The photo is contrasted with an image of a protest, which is labelled "Response to 0 percent tariffs". The comparison circulated after Trump's July 30 announcement of a 15 percent tariff on South Korean imports -- below a 25 percent tariff that the US president had threatened earlier -- after extensive trade negotiations with Seoul (archived link). South Korean President Lee Jae Myung of the centre-left Democratic Party called the agreement the "first major trade challenge" since his administration came into power in June after the impeachment of Yook Suk Yeol from the conservative People Power Party (archived link). Opinion polling shows that a significant proportion of South Koreans believed Lee had fared well in negotiations, crediting him with avoiding a collapse in trade talks and preventing even harsher measures (archived link). The image comparison was also shared in similar posts elsewhere on Facebook and Threads, as well as on right-wing forum Ilbe. "That's why we say leftists are brain-dead," read a comment on one of the posts. Another said: "What are those people thinking?" But the image comparison misleadingly uses a photo unrelated to any trade agreement between Washington and Seoul. Impeachment rally A reverse image search on Google found the photo of the celebrating crowd in a report published by The Korea Economic Daily on December 10, 2016 -- nearly a decade before Trump's tariff demands (archived link). According to its caption, the photo shows citizens cheering the impeachment of then-president Park Geun-hye, who was embroiled in a corruption scandal (archived link) The photo was taken shortly after lawmakers passed the impeachment bill, following months of peaceful mass protests calling for Park's removal. A reverse image search of the protest photo used in the false posts led to an article published in left-wing online newspaper Newscham on January 16, 2007 (archived link). Its caption says it shows protesters in Seoul rallying against the US-Korea free trade agreement (FTA), which was signed later that year (archived link). Opponents of the FTA feared it would flood the Korean market with cheap US agricultural products, threatening the livelihoods of domestic farmers (archived link). Lee and his administration are frequent targets of disinformation online, which AFP has debunked multiple times.
Black America Web
41 minutes ago
- Black America Web
Trump Moves Obama and Bush Portraits to Hidden White House Hallway
Source: STAN HONDA / Getty The White House isn't just a seat of power—it's a stage for American history and a canvas reflecting the nation's leaders. Once, presidential portraits, including those of President Barack Obama and President George W. Bush, occupied celebrated public spaces where millions could appreciate their legacies. That changed during Donald Trump's presidency, when both portraits were quietly moved to a discreet, staff-only hallway—an act that resonated especially strongly with communities close to both leaders, and provoked a broader conversation about respect, representation, and the power of symbols. Presidential portraits have always carried weight—especially Obama's, as the first Black president and a powerful symbol of breaking barriers for African-Americans and all Americans who value representation. His portrait's removal from the Grand Staircase, a place where history breathes and visitors reflect on leadership, was far more than a simple change in décor. But Obama's wasn't the only portrait to be relocated. George W. Bush's was also moved out of public view—a decision that raised questions, given Bush's notable relationship with the Obamas. Over the years, Presidents Bush and Obama, and their families, have demonstrated deep mutual respect and even genuine friendship at public events—sending a message of unity and civility across the political aisle RELATED STORY: Daughter of George W. Bush Endorses Harris What Michelle Obama Said About Trump's 1st Inauguration Could Be Why She's Skipping His 2nd We care about your data. See our privacy policy. Why was Bush's portrait moved too? One clear factor is that President Bush notably never endorsed or supported Donald Trump, choosing to be a rare Republican voice who, along with the Obamas, represented a vision of leadership distinct from Trump's. Their visible friendship highlighted a different standard for presidential behavior—one grounded in decency and common ground, traits that many saw as starkly contrasting with the Trump years. By relocating the portraits of both Obama and Bush, Trump didn't just alter the visual landscape of the White House; he signaled a sharp departure from the legacy—and alliances—these two men represented. It's impossible to ignore the political tensions influencing these moves. Trump's infamous clashes with Obama and the public 'birther' claims are well known, but Bush, too, had a complicated relationship with Trump, marked by a lack of support and public silence during Trump's campaigns. Moving both men's portraits has been widely interpreted as an attempt to minimize their presence and legacy in the nation's house, especially for visitors. For the African-American community, and Americans who value unity, this act raises real questions: Whose stories do we honor? Whose images deserve to inspire the next generation when they walk the halls of history? For Black Americans, the very presence of Obama's portrait is deeply meaningful—but the message is amplified when paired with Bush's, given their visible friendship and mutual respect. Together, those portraits once reflected a rare and hopeful moment of bipartisanship and inclusion. Removing them is more than a symbolic sidelining; it's a reshaping of the narrative about whose leadership belongs at the forefront. The decision to relocate Obama's and Bush's portraits, in the context of their legacies and their relationship, makes it clear that vigilance is necessary—not just to preserve the legacy of the first Black president, but to protect a more inclusive, honest story of America's leadership. As history continues to unfold, it's up to all of us to insist on a White House—and a nation—that honors the full truth and diversity of its past and present. LIKE US ON FACEBOOK . FOLLOW US ON INSTAGRAM & TWITTER . SUBSCRIBE TO OUR YOUTUBE . STAY INFORMED! CLICK HERE TO SIGN UP FOR OUR NEWSLETTER! HEAD TO THE HOMEPAGE SEE ALSO
