
After passage of Trump's ‘Big Beautiful Bill,' some low-income workers ask: How will I support my family?
Get Starting Point
A guide through the most important stories of the morning, delivered Monday through Friday.
Enter Email
Sign Up
All told, this legislation will
Advertisement
'Any time any sort of social safety nets are defunded, it makes me mad. Especially when I know that the savings from those cuts are going to the super-elite rich class, it's even more maddening,' said Talbot, 41, whose wife is a Navy veteran on disability.
Advertisement
He can't even think about his daughters' college funds or saving for retirement, he said, because he's so focused on day-to-day survival.
'It makes me scared to think about how I will support my family if things get harder than they are,' he said.
The Trump administration has said the bill will eliminate 'waste, fraud, and abuse' and notes that the
In Massachusetts, one of the most expensive states in the country,
Several hundred thousand more rely on insurance purchased through the Health Connector, the state marketplace set up under the Affordable Care Act.
More than 300,000 residents could
Advertisement
Lisa Ragland and other workers from Service Employees International Union protested the Republican Medicaid cuts near the US Capitol building in June.
Joe Raedle/Getty
About 175,000 people are at risk of losing some or all of their food stamp benefits due to expanded work requirements and the termination of benefits for immigrants here legally who fled persecution, many of whom are on a track to get a green card.
For Christiana Haramut, the uncertainty of if or how her benefits could be affected is the hardest part.
Haramut was working as a recovery coach in Holyoke until she was appointed guardian
of her now 3-year-old grandson and went back to school. She receives food stamps and MassHealth, in addition to cash assistance and a housing subsidy, and worries that every safety net could be at risk, including the Social Security her parents rely on.
'I'm assuming it will be under attack soon if it isn't already,' she said.
The drop in federal funding, coupled with increased work verification requirements and other administrative tasks, could have a big impact on access for working families if states don't increase staff and IT funding, said Victoria Negus, senior economic justice advocate at the Law Reform Institute. Massachusetts has the resources to mitigate the worst harms of the measure, she said, although it will require new investments.
The law also changed how benefits are calculated in the future, Negus said, essentially freezing in place anything beyond cost-of-living updates.
Data about changing shopping habits, for instance, such as the fact that most people now buy canned beans instead of less expensive dried beans, will no longer be factored in.
'The bill is the largest handoff of dollars from folks who are struggling to those who are wealthy,' Negus said. 'And the way that handoff happens is both clear-cut – slashing eligibility for SNAP and Medicaid – and very nefarious, by implementing changes that cut at the knees the ways that states like Massachusetts have tried to make these programs work better.'
Advertisement
Data show that the
Among the biggest employers of people receiving benefits, the agency found, are major retail, restaurant, and grocery store chains such as Amazon and Walmart – led by billionaires Jeff Bezos and the Walton family, respectively, who stand to benefit greatly from tax breaks in the bill.
For the top fifth of all earners, these changes will result in an average 2.3 percent boost in after-tax income over the next decade, according to a the
Advertisement
In Massachusetts, Dunkin' had the highest number of workers on SNAP, the GAO reported, and the state employed the most people receiving Medicaid.
Dunkin' did not respond to a request for comment. A state spokesperson said that Massachusetts 'will continue to ensure people receive the benefits they are eligible for and understand how these changes might affect them.'
The PCA Workforce Council, the state entity that employs personal care attendants to help elderly and disabled residents, also had a high number of workers receiving both types of benefits.
The 58,000-person workforce, comprising largely women of color, including many immigrants, generally makes between $20 and $22 an hour, and the majority of them are on MassHealth or subsidized Health Connector insurance, according to their union.
Care attendants' fluctuating hours and complicated employer status – hired by individuals but paid by the state – make eligibility requirements particularly complicated, said Rebecca Gutman, vice president of home care at 1199SEIU United Healthcare Workers East. And this will surely be intensified by new paperwork requirements.
'PCAs struggle every day with balancing the pay that they're receiving, putting food on the table, taking care of their kids, accessing health insurance,' Gutman said. 'This law is absolutely going to exacerbate wage inequality in our country, and it's going to hit women and people of color the hardest.'
Personal care assistant Fe Guidry swept the kitchen floor in the New Bedford apartment of her client, Aquilina Gili.
MARK STOCKWELL FOR THE BOSTON GLOBE
Fe Guidry, 70, lives in New Bedford and works as a personal care assistant for two elderly women. But one of them is often gone, either in Florida or the Philippines, leaving her with just 14 hours of work a week. She needs every cent of her $89 monthly SNAP benefits to buy groceries, she said:
Advertisement
'The price of the commodities now is always rising.'
Low-income workers are already plagued with anxiety about being able to feed and care for their families, said Alicia Fleming, executive director of the economic justice nonprofit Massachusetts Jobs With Justice. And the still-unknown effects of the bill are adding more stress.
'I think what we're seeing now,' said Fleming, who relied on fuel assistance and day care vouchers when she was a young single mother, 'is that our society is set up to create an environment where corporations can thrive and the people who support those corporations, the workers, they struggle to survive.'
This story was produced by the Globe's
team, which covers the racial wealth gap in Greater Boston. You can sign up for the newsletter
.
Katie Johnston can be reached at
Hashtags

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles

USA Today
a few seconds ago
- USA Today
Brown University inks deal with Trump admin to restore funding: What's in the agreement?
Brown will not pay a fine to the federal government. Instead, the Rhode Island university said it would donate $50 million to workforce development organizations in the state. Brown University has reached a deal with the Trump administration to restore more than $500 million in federal funding to the school and close three government investigations into its campus. The compact, which Brown's president announced July 30, came exactly one week after the White House entered into a separate unprecedented agreement with Columbia University and levied fines against that school, Brown's peer in the Ivy League, totaling more than $220 million. Unlike the contract with Columbia, Brown won't pay money directly to the government. Instead, the university in Providence, Rhode Island, committed to providing $50 million in grants to workforce development organizations across the state over the next 10 years. There were other stipulations, however: The university said it would commission a survey on campus life to its Jewish students. It also said it would hand over admissions data, broken down by various factors including race, in an annual report to the federal government (a provision included in the Columbia agreement as well). Read more: The details of Columbia's extraordinary $220 million deal with Trump Brown also promised to comply with President Donald Trump's executive order aimed at benning transgender athletes in women's sports. And the university said its medical facilities would not facilitate gender-affirming care for minors. In exchange, the Trump administration promised to reinstate payments for active research grants at the university and restore its ability to compete for new federal grants and contracts. In a statement announcing the deal Brown President Christina Paxson emphasized that the agreement does not give the government any authority to "dictate Brown's curriculum or the content of academic speech." Read more: Ivy League colleges face a reckoning after Columbia's Trump deal "The University's foremost priority throughout discussions with the government was remaining true to our academic mission, our core values and who we are as a community at Brown,' she said. Linda McMahon, the secretary of the Department of Education, said in a statement, "the Trump Administration is successfully reversing the decades-long woke-capture of our nation's higher education institutions." Zachary Schermele is an education reporter for USA TODAY. You can reach him by email at zschermele@ Follow him on X at @ZachSchermele and Bluesky at @


New York Post
a few seconds ago
- New York Post
Why the Washington Commanders' owners are thinking hard about Trump's demand they restore the ‘Redskins' moniker
The owners of the NFL's Washington Commanders fear they will have to snub the woke mob and restore the original Redskins name – or risk President Trump throttling their deal for a new stadium, On The Money has learned. That, at least, is the word from insiders close to private equity titans Josh Harris and David Blitzer, who in addition to the Commanders own the NBA's Philadelphia 76ers and the NHL's New Jersey Devils through their holding company, Harris Blitzer Sports and Entertainment. The buyout billionaires are facing heat to bring back the Redskins name – and its famed, feathered logo, too – after the commander-in-chief has repeatedly ripped the new nomenclature, recently referring to the franchise as the 'Washington Whatevers.' Advertisement 3 The billionaire owners of the Washington Commanders are facing pressure from President Trump to restore the original Redskins name Getty Images 'I may put a restriction on them that if they don't change the name back to the original 'Washington Redskins,' and get rid of the ridiculous moniker, 'Washington Commanders,' I won't make a deal for them to build a Stadium in Washington,' Trump posted last week. Since then, Harris and Blitzer have been privately warning business associates that the White House does indeed have some leverage over their plans to build a new, $3.7 billion stadium for the team, a source said. Advertisement 'They're really getting nervous about Trump's attacks and how they might impact the stadium deal,' said one person with direct knowledge of the matter. Publicly, Harris and Blitzer have said the Commanders will remain the Commanders. Much of the stadium deal involves working with the decidedly woke DC government run by left-wing mayor Muriel Bowser. The deal has no direct federal funding, with DC agreeing to cover about $1 billion of the cost. Behind the scenes, they say they are parsing all the ways Trump could screw things up for them. The stadium is on federal land leased to the DC government for the next 99 years. 3 'They're really getting nervous about Trump's attacks and how they might impact the stadium deal,' said one person with direct knowledge of the matter. AP Advertisement That means it will need certain approvals from US agencies like the National Capital Planning Commission and the US Commission of Fine Arts – the boards of both are occupied by some Trump appointees. It also needs a nod or two from the Trump administration's environmental team. The fear is that Trump could, as he's done with left-leaning law firms, colleges and major media outfits, use his control of the administrative state to extract concessions, the people at Harris-Blitzer concede. Would Trump ever use his sway over such entities to meddle in a private business deal? Well, we know the answer to that since fighting wokeness appeals to the MAGA base, and quite frankly, most Americans. Note that Trump is a master troller. He can generate unfavorable news cycles and skewer Harris and Blitzer as woke Wall Streeters, potentially hurting team attendance since most football fans are right of center, people close to them fear. Advertisement 3 David Blitzer, left with part-owner Magic Johnson in 2023. Getty Images Recall that former owner Dan Snyder renamed the team in 2020 at the height of the social-justice movement, bowing to the woke NFL and its commissioner Roger Goodell, as well as some advertisers and activists who argued the name was an affront to Native Americans. Snyder had been fighting the switch for years, arguing that the Redskins moniker was hardly a slur, but instead a term of pride in Native American culture. Charlie Gasparino has his finger on the pulse of where business, politics and finance meet Sign up to receive On The Money by Charlie Gasparino in your inbox every Thursday. Thanks for signing up! Enter your email address Please provide a valid email address. By clicking above you agree to the Terms of Use and Privacy Policy. Never miss a story. Check out more newsletters A lot has happened since 2020, including Snyder selling the team to Harris and Blitzer in 2023 for $6.05 billion. There also has been a public backlash against all things woke: See what happened to Bud Light after it used a trans activist in a beer commercial. One sports executive, who asked not to be quoted by name and knows Trump well, said the duo will at the very least have to do what other big companies are doing when confronted by The Donald – bow and kiss the ring. 'He may not ultimately try to kill the stadium deal if they don't change the name but Harris and Blitzer are going to have to grovel before Trump relents,' this person said. A press rep for Harris-Blitzer didn't return a request for comment.


New York Post
a few seconds ago
- New York Post
Trump rips ‘second tier' Sen. Josh Hawley over his PELOSI Act congressional stock trading ban
President Trump lashed out at Sen. Josh Hawley (R-Mo.) Wednesday for forging ahead with his proposed ban on congressional stock trading, accusing the senator of enabling Democrats to target him. Hawley's Preventing Elected Leaders from Owning Securities and Investments (PELOSI) Act cleared the Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee in an 8–7 vote, with the Missouri Republican joining all Democrats. 'Very much like SABOTAGE! The Democrats, because of our tremendous ACHIEVEMENTS and SUCCESS, have been trying to 'Target' me for a long period of time, and they're using Josh Hawley, who I got elected TWICE, as a pawn to help them,' Trump groused on Truth Social. Advertisement 'I don't think real Republicans want to see their President, who has had unprecedented success, TARGETED, because of the 'whims' of a second-tier Senator named Josh Hawley!' Hawley chafed with Sen. Rick Scott (R-Fla.), a key Trump ally during the committee's hearing earlier in the day Wednesday. 4 Sen. Josh Hawley banded together with Democrats to advance the PELOSI Act out of committee without the chairman's blessing. AP Advertisement 4 President Trump accused Sen. Josh Hawley of backstabbing him with the PELOSI Act. x/Acyn 'This idea that we are going to attack people because they make money is absolutely wrong,' Scott, the wealthiest member of the Senate, argued during the hearing. 'I think it's disgusting what's going on here. But I completely agree with you, we've got to stop people from trading stocks but this [bill] is way different.' Scott also asked how one could sell an illiquid asset under the Hawley proposal. Advertisement 'You're concerned about the illiquid asset provision? It's the same one you voted for last year,' Hawley shot back. The PELOSI Act restricts lawmakers from owning individual stocks or trading them. Due to opposition from Committee Chairman Rand Paul (R-Ky.), Hawley needed to get Democrats on board and reportedly agreed to tack on language ensuring that the president and vice president would face the ban as well. 4 Sen. Rick Scott publicly tangled with Sen. Josh Hawley over the bill to ban congressional stock trading. Getty Images Advertisement Trump seemingly caught wind of that. 'I wonder why Hawley would pass a Bill that Nancy Pelosi is in absolute love with — He is playing right into the dirty hands of the Democrats. It's a great Bill for her, and her 'husband,' but so bad for our Country!' the president fumed on Truth Social. 'Why would one 'Republican,' Senator Josh Hawley from the Great State of Missouri, join with all of the Democrats to block a Review, sponsored by Senator Rick Scott, and with the support of almost all other Republicans, of Nancy Pelosi's Stock Trading over the last 25 years.' Hours before the Truth Social post, Trump conveyed open-mindedness to the proposal but cautioned that he would need to dive deeper into the details of it. 'I like it conceptually and you know Nancy Pelosi became rich by having inside information. She made a fortune with her husband, and I think that's disgraceful,' he told reporters Wednesday. 'I study these things really carefully, and this just happened. So I'll take a look at it.' 'What I do think is Nancy Pelosi should be investigated.' Paul Pelosi, the California Democrat's venture capitalist husband, has amassed a fortune through investments he's made over the decades. Pelosi's estimated net worth is $262 million, according to Quiver Quantitative. Advertisement Critics, particularly Republicans, have argued that Paul's activities pose conflict of interest concerns given that his wife is one of the most influential Democrats on Capitol Hill. 4 Rep. Nancy Pelosi has been dogged by concerns for years about her husband's stock trading. Bryan Dozier/NurPhoto/Shutterstock 'Speaker Pelosi does not own any stocks, and she has no prior knowledge or subsequent involvement in any transactions,' Pelosi spokesperson Ian Krager told The Post when asked about Trump's comments. The Post reached out to a Hawley spokesperson for comment.