Trump Administration Could Make States Pay Billions for SNAP Benefits
Based on facts, either observed and verified firsthand by the reporter, or reported and verified from knowledgeable sources.
Newsweek AI is in beta. Translations may contain inaccuracies—please refer to the original content.
The Trump administration could shift a considerable burden for funding Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) benefits from the federal government to state agencies.
Why It Matters
SNAP benefits are paid to low- and no-income households across the United States that would otherwise struggle to afford groceries. The program reached some 41 million Americans in 2024. Benefits are funded entirely by the federal government, with states required to pay 50 percent of the administrative costs.
What To Know
GOP lawmakers are considering making states take on more of the cost of the anti-poverty program, Politico reported. It comes as the House Agriculture Committee, which oversees SNAP, weighs a House-approved budget plan that instructs a $230 billion cut in federal spending over the next decade.
The Food and Nutrition Service (FNS) of the USDA oversees SNAP at the federal level. In 2023, total federal spending on the program was $112.8 billion. At the local level, state agencies manage the program by determining household eligibility and distributing benefits accordingly.
Stock image of a person paying at a grocery store checkout counter.
Stock image of a person paying at a grocery store checkout counter.
GETTY
One proposal under consideration would gradually require states to cover 22.5 percent of SNAP food benefit costs over the next 10 years. However, talks are still ongoing, with the committee expected to deliver its mark-up of the budget in early May.
The Center for Budget and Policy Priorities (CBPP), a left-leaning think tank, has estimated that once fully phased in by 2034, this cost-sharing requirement would add approximately $23.65 billion in new expenses across state budgets for that year alone.
"States are required to balance their budgets each year, so taking on any additional costs would require them to raise an equal amount of revenue or cut funding for other programs and services that people rely on," Katie Bergh, senior policy analyst at CBPP, said.
What People Are Saying
Ben Goldey, a spokesperson for Agriculture Committee Chair Glenn "GT" Thompson, told Newsweek: "The Chairman is doing his due diligence to leave no stone unturned in finding reforms that will curb wasteful spending and that includes looking at how states administer SNAP, which spends over $13 billion per year in erroneous payments. All options to rein in that waste and incentivize better state administration of the program are on the table."
CBPP analyst Katie Bergh: "Because states likely wouldn't be able to fully fill in the dramatic hole in federal SNAP funding this proposal would create, they would need to take away some or all of people's food assistance, leaving many low-income households unable to afford groceries."
What Happens Next
The House Agriculture Committee is still considering the budget resolution. According to Politico, a markup of the spending is expected around May 7-8.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
19 minutes ago
- Yahoo
An Aggressive Social Security Garnishment Is Underway for Over 1,000,000 Beneficiaries -- Here's How You Can Legally Avoid It
Between 80% and 90% of retirees count on their Social Security income, in some capacity, to cover their expenses. The Trump administration has ended the Joe Biden-era overpayment and recovery rate of 10% and implemented a monthly clawback rate of 50% on Social Security overpayments. Beneficiaries who've received an overpayment letter from the Social Security Administration have multiple options available that can waive or reduce the amount they'll need to repay. The $23,760 Social Security bonus most retirees completely overlook › In May, nearly 53 million retired workers brought home a Social Security check, with the average payout making history by cresting $2,000 for the first time ever. Though this is a relatively modest amount of monthly income, it's imperative to the financial well-being of most aging Americans. For more than 20 years, national survey-taker Gallup has polled retirees annually to gauge their reliance on Social Security income. Without fail, 80% to 90% of retirees have consistently responded that their monthly check was a necessity, in some capacity, to make ends meet. For beneficiaries, nothing is more important than knowing how much they're going to receive each month and having their payout keep pace with the inflationary pressures they're contending with on a year-to-year basis. But based on a new policy recently implemented under President Donald Trump, more than 1 million beneficiaries can expect their Social Security checks to shrink by up to 50%. With so many beneficiaries reliant on Social Security income to cover their expenses, this is income some can't afford to lose. Since Trump took office for his nonconsecutive second term, he's overseen a number of critical changes to America's leading retirement program. This includes beefing up personal identification methods, signing an executive order to eliminate paper Social Security checks, and creating the Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE), which encouraged the Social Security Administration (SSA) to slash 7,000 jobs and shutter some of its locations to reduce its administrative expenses. But what's making headlines above all else are the two Social Security garnishments that the Trump administration has improved. For instance, by "sometime this summer," a 15% monthly garnishment is expected to be reinstated for the roughly 452,000 delinquent federal student loan borrowers who are currently receiving a Social Security benefit. Federal student loan payments ceased in March 2020 during the height of the pandemic and haven't recommenced. Between 2017 and 2023, the number of federal student loan borrowers aged 62 and above surged by 59% to roughly 2.7 million, based on data from the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau. But a 15% monthly garnishment is peanuts compared to the 50% garnishment rate that's currently underway for beneficiaries who were overpaid. Keep in mind that "beneficiaries" encompass retired workers, survivors of deceased workers, and workers with disabilities. Under the Joe Biden administration, Social Security clawbacks for overpayments were reduced to 10% per check, which is down from the 100% clawback rate that existed when President Barack Obama was in office, as well as during Donald Trump's first term. Based on statements from then-acting SSA Commissioner Kilolo Kijakazi in 2023, the agency overpaid more than 1 million beneficiaries in fiscal 2022 (the federal government's fiscal year ends on Sept. 30) and over 980,000 recipients in fiscal 2023. With the garnishment rate slashed to just 10% under President Biden and having no new overpayment data published since fiscal 2023, it's likely safe to assume that more than 1,000,000 beneficiaries are still making good on their overpayments. Social Security overpayments can occur for a number of reasons. Sometimes, these errors are entirely the fault of the SSA and result in beneficiaries receiving too much per month. But they can also be caused by a recipient not updating their income. For example, non-blind workers with disabilities can earn up to $1,620 per month in wages and salary without having their long-term Social Security disability benefit stopped in 2025. If a worker with disabilities began collecting $3,000 in monthly income and didn't report this income change to the SSA, their federal tax filing would show they received Social Security disability benefits they weren't due, thusly resulting in an eventual clawback from the SSA. For the more than 1,000,000 beneficiaries who've received a letter from the SSA informing them they've been overpaid, there are options. The most desirable of these options is to request and be approved for an overpayment waiver (Form SSA-632BK, "Request for Waiver of Overpayment Recovery"). If the overpayment wasn't your fault and repaying the added benefits you received would lead to financial hardship -- you'll often need to supply documentation of your income and qualified expenses -- there's the possibility that the SSA will grant your request and waive your need to refund the overpayment. Along these same lines, beneficiaries can also file Form SSA-561, which is officially known as a "Request for Reconsideration." This route is taken by beneficiaries who don't agree with the SSA's decision that they've been overpaid and essentially want to appeal, as well as those who admit they've been overpaid but don't agree with the amount presented by the SSA. If your appeal is granted, you won't have to refund a dime to America's leading retirement program. Your appeal may also reduce how much you'll have to repay. The third option available to beneficiaries who've received a notice informing them of eventual clawbacks due to overpayment is to negotiate a different payment rate. Going this route is an admission that you've been overpaid but that removing 50% from your check on a monthly basis would create a financial hardship. Filing Form SSA-634 ("Request for Change in Overpayment Recovery Rate") with the SSA requires you to explain your financial situation, which includes documentation of your income and qualified expenses. Though the SSA typically aims to recover an overpayment within 12 months, some payment plans extend payments up to 60 months (five years) out. If you're like most Americans, you're a few years (or more) behind on your retirement savings. But a handful of little-known could help ensure a boost in your retirement income. One easy trick could pay you as much as $23,760 more... each year! Once you learn how to maximize your Social Security benefits, we think you could retire confidently with the peace of mind we're all after. Join Stock Advisor to learn more about these Motley Fool has a disclosure policy. An Aggressive Social Security Garnishment Is Underway for Over 1,000,000 Beneficiaries -- Here's How You Can Legally Avoid It was originally published by The Motley Fool Error in retrieving data Sign in to access your portfolio Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data
Business Insider
25 minutes ago
- Business Insider
I tried 2 ways of investing in bitcoin. One thrived and one failed miserably, teaching me a valuable lesson.
Back in December of 2024, I decided to hop aboard the bitcoin train and add some crypto exposure to my portfolio. Markets were flush off of the recent Trump victory, there were whispers of a national bitcoin reserve, and bitcoin had recently broken the $100,000 threshold for the first time. The cryptocurrency had gone mainstream enough for late adopters like myself to deem it investable. For my first foray into bitcoin, I purchased a share of Blackrock 's iShares Bitcoin Trust Trust (IBIT). I later added a share of Semler Scientific (SMLR), a healthcare technology company that holds bitcoin on its balance sheet. I wanted to try multiple methods of investing in bitcoin. In hindsight, I realize I committed the classic retail investor impulse: buying in because of FOMO. Sure, positive investor sentiment led to gains in bitcoin, as well as the ETF I bought that was designed to track the crypto. But my stock purchase proved ill-timed. Almost six months later, bitcoin has crossed new all-time-highs, and I have mixed feelings on my investment. Bitcoin ETFs are a beginner-friendly way to get exposure I opted to buy IBIT instead of actual spot bitcoin because it was a more accessible way to get exposure. I didn't want the hassle of setting up a Coinbase account. Plus, buying a single share in an ETF was more psychologically appealing than buying a tiny fraction of a bitcoin (I did not have a spare $100,000 or the risk tolerance to buy an entire bitcoin). The performance has been encouraging. Year-to-date, IBIT is up about 14%, outpacing a 12% gain for bitcoin itself. It's done its job of tracking the crypto, and even added a little extra. And it's far outperformed the S&P 500, which is up just 2% in 2025. ETFs can experience slight tracking differences due to management fees, operational costs, and the timing of inflows and outflows. But if you want a rough proxy of bitcoin performance without actually owning the underlying asset, IBIT gets the job done. A year and a half over its launch, IBIT has gained incredible popularity, growing to over $70 billion in assets under management. Robert Cannon, a financial advisor at Experity Wealth with a specialization in alternative assets, recommends his bitcoin-curious clients to start with the ETF. "It's the easiest, cleanest representation of bitcoin, compared to some of the other strategies that are a bit esoteric," Cannon told me. The ETF wrapper has really helped bitcoin adoption take off in the last year, Rahul Sen Sharma, president and co-CEO at the custom index provider Indxx, told me. Sharma's seeing a surge in interest for bitcoin and digital asset ETFs, and he believes Trump's continued support for crypto will pave the way for more mainstream adoption. Be careful with bitcoin treasury companies Getting bitcoin exposure through other methods was indeed more esoteric — and much less profitable. I added Semler Scientific to my portfolio on January 8, 2025, and it's down more than 40% since then. There's a growing trend among companies to add bitcoin to their balance sheets, with Strategy, Tesla, and GameStop being one of the most prominent examples. The president's own Trump Media and Technology Group has recently raised $2.5 billion to buy bitcoin. Semler Scientific started adding bitcoin to its balance sheet in May of last year and now holds over 4,000 bitcoins. It sounds like a good idea in theory: holding bitcoin as a reserve asset could be a hedge against inflation and dollar weakness, and could also lead to capital appreciation as bitcoin takes off. Some companies like Strategy have had tremendous success. The firm has accumulated over half a million bitcoins, and the stock has outperformed the underlying crypto year-to-date. However, it's hard to replicate the scale and expertise of Strategy. While many of Cannon's clients often inquire about bitcoin treasury companies like Strategy, he usually recommends they stick to the basics with an ETF. There were also company-specific headwinds for Semler Scientific. The company had been under investigation from the Department of Justice for allegedly misleading claims about one of its medical devices. My takeaway from the experience is that buying a single stocks as a bitcoin proxy is probably not a good idea. When you buy into a bitcoin treasury company, you're also inheriting all of its company-specific risks. That includes everything from management decisions and financial health to legal exposure, product performance, and market sentiment around the core business. As a result, the benefits of diversification with bitcoin are watered down. If you're looking for bitcoin exposure, either buying the real thing or a spot ETF is your best bet. Maybe the strategy from here on out is to close out of my position in SMLR and do some tax-loss harvesting this year.
Business Insider
25 minutes ago
- Business Insider
The Scared Stiff Economy
There's no such thing as the perfect time for a big decision. But when I reached out to Julia Coronado, the president of the economics consulting firm MacroPolicy Perspectives, to ask whether it's a good moment to take a significant financial risk, at least in the relative sense, her succinct email reply was telling: "Lol, short answer is no!" Given how complicated major transactions can be, there are plenty of caveats and counterexamples. On the whole, however, it is a particularly bad time for many major moves financially. Given everything that's going on right now, economists and personal finance gurus say that if you're treading water or feeling extra uneasy, you're not alone. " Uncertainty" is the word of the moment. America's tariff policies have shifted dozens of times since President Donald Trump took office. The stock market has been all over the place. The volatility emanating from the White House on immigration, government spending, and the federal workforce is palpable. There are rumblings of a recession and a return of high inflation. Consumer sentiment is in the basement. Across the economy, people feel like they're stuck in place. It's not a great time to change jobs, given the cooling labor market. The housing market isn't terrible — there's a growing amount of inventory out there — but if you're looking to buy now, you're probably lamenting having missed the dirt-cheap mortgage rates of a few years back. People thinking about retiring soon are doing some rethinking, given the current economic and financial market precarity. "It's not that when there's uncertainty or more uncertainty that people stop and don't act, don't make the big purchase, don't make the investment," says Claudia Sahm, the chief economist at New Century Advisors, an investment management firm. "It's often that the bar is higher." The issue at the moment is that while it may be appealing to adopt a wait-and-see approach, later is not synonymous with better. That's the calculation many Americans are facing now: Do I hold out on making a move now while things settle down, or do I take the risk that things will take a turn for the worse? "All we can do now is kind of read tea leaves on the future," says Chris Woods, a financial advisor who founded Silvis Financial. There's that old Wayne Gretzky quote about skating "to where the puck is going to be, not where it has been." The issue is that it's hard to guess where things are headed. When you're building up to a major financial leap, you typically sit on it until some level of certainty hits. That's especially true in scenarios where there are serious penalties for changing your mind. I mean, sure, you can offload that new car six months later, but you'd probably rather not. Jonathan Parker, a finance professor at MIT, tells me that a big spike in uncertainty will cause people to delay major spending such as upgrading to a new car, noting that "you might want that money for other purposes." When people make a big financial decision, such as buying a house, investing, or retiring, they want some level of buffer. They leave space for the possibility that some unexpected need will pop up — a medical emergency, an unexpected broken-down car or leaky roof, a lost job, a death in the family. Ideally, consumers don't want to just barely make their mortgage, wind up suddenly tapping the money they stowed away in their stock portfolio, or skimp on their day-to-day needs in retirement. When they take leaps, they want to leave a little side pot available to avoid an unforeseen circumstance. There's only so much a person can control — doing the best job possible at work doesn't insulate you from layoffs or guarantee your pay will increase with prices. Uncertainty makes that buffer harder to calculate and feel confident about having in the future. "In a time of great uncertainty, it's probably not the time you want to stretch with a purchase," Sahm says. This uncertainty may be headache-inducing for individuals trying to make up their minds, but what it might mean for the broader economy is tricky. Consumer spending is America's economic engine — personal expenditures account for about two-thirds of GDP. Ironically, people being worried is, in part, supporting the economy. When consumers are concerned about prices going up, they may pull forward big purchases to get them out of the way now before they get more expensive later. If you're nervous about your washing machine or car going kaput soon or are just looking to upgrade, it may feel prudent to replace them sooner rather than later in case prices go up. This year, consumer spending has jumped because of people trying to get ahead of tariffs. Crummy feelings about the future of the economy have actually been a good thing, spending-wise. "This is one thing that has helped consumer spending stay up while sentiment has really cratered," says Scott Baker, an associate finance professor at Northwestern University's Kellogg School of Management. At the same time, once people have made these anticipatory purchases or start to batten down the hatches, they could bring down the economy with them. If someone decides to put off renovating their kitchen, it means the contractor, the workers, and the store selling the materials miss out on money. "Just the fact that all of this is happening generates a wave of uncertainty," Parker says. "It's a significant drag on the economy, and it's not clear how big, but it certainly is a drag." Anyone who says they know what will happen next is lying. To be sure, there are some areas where sitting on your hands is usually the way to go, such as investing. When the going gets tough in the stock market, one of the worst things people can do is panic and cash out at the bottom. If someone had done that, say, in the wake of Trump's "Liberation Day," they'd probably regret it now. "Markets fluctuate all the time, they will go up and down," says Siavash Radpour, the associate director of the Retirement Equity Lab at The New School's Schwartz Center for Economic Policy Analysis. "Not doing anything is often a good policy for people who don't know what's going on." My colleagues at Business Insider recently did a series of stories attempting to answer whether it's a good time to make big life decisions. They looked at starting a business (the answer was yes), buying a home (if you must, but maybe rent), changing jobs (no), investing in stocks (go for it, within reason), buying a new car (hop to it), and retiring (hold off). The advice in the stories is all helpful and enlightening, but it can also go only so far. Every decision in life involves risks, and the truest answer to "Should I do X, Y, Z?" is, "It depends!" There's no denying we're in a time of heightened uncertainty. Anyone who says they know what will happen next is lying. And it really feels like things could break in any direction. While the safest advice is probably that you should snap up that new car before tariffs push up prices by thousands of dollars, Trump could declare the tariff thing over tomorrow, and all of a sudden you've overpaid for no reason. "The market this year has been driven less by fundamentals and just more by the different news we're getting from week to week on what's going on," Woods says. Maybe you do hold off on buying a house and come to regret it five years from now when prices are even higher. Or, you don't retire, and you miss out on time with your grandkids, or you're so risk-averse about jumping ship from your company that you miss out on your dream job. Those decisions are harder to make now with more factors in play. It's not just whether a recession is coming, but also what the AI revolution means for the structural future of the labor market. The question for retirees isn't just whether they've saved enough; it's also what might happen with public assistance programs they'd long planned around. "There is the risk of what's going to happen to Medicaid, what's going to happen to Social Security," Radpour says. "Health expenses are really scary in retirement." Starting a new business is always risky — statistically speaking, half of new businesses fail in five years. Loans for starting said business are more expensive and harder to come by. While it may be a decent time for a startup, no plan is foolproof. Many people who start a company during downturns and turmoil are doing so because they've lost their job or someone in their household has, not because they're jazzed about the future. "The jump is made for them, in some sense," Baker says. Still, if you see a market opportunity and want to make the jump, the idea that economy could get bad shouldn't preclude taking action. Thinking through all of the ambiguity and confusion isn't fun. Financial risks are always scary, whether big or small. Now it feels like the anxiety is extra heightened, given the context. For many people, it's going to feel like they're damned if they do, damned if they don't.
