
House GOP's SNAP proposal sparks concern from Senate Republicans
A House GOP-backed proposal that would cut billions in federal dollars from the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP), the nation's largest food assistance program, is drawing concerns from Republicans in the upper chamber.
The proposal, included in House Republicans' recently-passed package to enact President Trump's tax priorities and spending cuts, would require states to cover a share of SNAP benefits costs, which are currently completely funded by the federal government.
'That's something that I heard some members voice concern about,' Senate Agriculture Committee Chair John Boozman (R-Ark.) said Thursday. 'So, we'll need to address that.'
While Boozman said Senate Republicans aren't drawing a red line around the plan just yet, members 'want to look specifically at how those particular policies will affect their individual states.'
'Some of that we know, some of it we don't.'
The House bill calls for the federal share of the cost of SNAP to go from 100 percent in the next two fiscal years to 95 percent starting fiscal year 2028.
It also includes language that would increase states' shares of the costs in fiscal 2028 depending on their payment error rates. If the error rate is 6 percent or higher, states would be subject to a sliding scale that could see their share of allotments rise to a range of between 15 percent and 25 percent.
'That's in the we'll see category. I'm not sure what's going to happen with that,' Sen. John Hoeven (R-N.D.) told The Hill on Thursday when asked about the idea.
'We're going to talk to committee members who can talk to our caucus as a whole,' he said, but he noted that the House's cost-share pitch for states goes 'beyond' what some senators had been looking at for 'accountability' efforts.
Republicans defending the proposal say the measure would hold states accountable for billions of dollars in erroneous payments to participants annually, providing an incentive for states to keep their payment error rates down.
'We've seen that when states actually focus on error rates, they can bring them down very quickly, and obviously that's what we want, but we don't want people who are not eligible for the program receiving payments,' Rep. Dusty Johnson (R-S.D.) said this week. 'These error rates are far too high.'
In fiscal year 2023, data from the Agriculture Department (USDA) showed that the national payment error rate was 11.68 percent. The vast majority of states on the list have payment error rates, which factors in a state's overpayments and underpayments, above 6 percent.
But Democrats have sharply criticized the proposal, which they argue could lead to states cutting benefits on their own.
The Congressional Budget Office (CBO) estimated this week that the SNAP proposal would reduce direct spending by more than $128 billion from 2028 to 2034 – accounting for a chunk of the minimum $230 billion in savings the House Agriculture Committee was instructed to find as part of the lower chamber's first stab at crafting Trump's 'big, beautiful bill.'
Other proposals in the bill would tighten eligibility requirements for the program, seek to block the federal government from being able to increase monthly benefits in the future, and increase states' share of costs to administer SNAP.
Democrats are seizing on an analysis they requested from CBO on the potential effects of the plan, which estimated about 1.3 million people could see their benefits reduced or eliminated in an average month between 2025 and 2034 if lawmakers take the approach to require states to cover some benefit costs.
While the CBO noted 'there would be a variety of state responses to the new requirement,' it said it expects 'that some states would maintain current benefits and eligibility and others would modify benefits or eligibility or possibly leave the program altogether because of the increased costs.'
'In CBO's view, state responses would vary; thus, CBO estimated state responses in the aggregate using a probabilistic approach to account for a range of possible outcomes,' it said in a letter on Thursday.
The CBO estimated that such reductions or eliminations in benefits would lead to a roughly $30 billion decrease in direct spending from 2028 to 2034. It also estimated 'subsidies provided through child nutrition programs would decrease for about 420,000 children in an average month, reducing direct spending by about $700 million over the 2028–2034 period.'
The CBO noted that the analysis does 'not account for interactions among provisions,' explaining that the sum of effects to separately enact each measure would differ from the effects of enacting multiple proposed SNAP reforms at once due to the overlap in affected populations.
In a statement on Thursday, Rep. Angie Craig (Minn.), top Democrat on the House Agriculture Committee, accused Republicans of waging an 'attack on working Americans that takes food away from families.'
'The Republicans' budget will make America hungrier, poorer and sicker. Parents struggling to afford groceries for their families and seniors living on fixed incomes will have their food taken away if this bill becomes law,' she said.
SNAP work requirements for able bodied adults without dependents would also expand under the plan, which calls for increasing the age threshold at which such adults must continue to work to qualify from up to 54 to 64 years of age.
While many of the proposals are supported by Republicans of various factions in both chambers, some voted for the plan this week with the expectation that the Senate would eventually make some changes in the House.
Rep. Don Bacon (D-Neb.), a key moderate, said he's open to states fronting a portion of SNAP benefit costs, but wasn't entirely in favor of the 5-25 percent cost-sharing range for states.
'I really didn't like it, but I don't mind a small mark, because, really, they execute it, and if they're not executing them well, this gives them skin in the game,' Bacon told The Hill. But he added that 25 percent 'seems a little high.'
Hashtags

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
18 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Sen. Ted Cruz proposes withholding broadband funding from states that regulate AI
The Brief Senator Ted Cruz proposed that states attempting to regulate AI should lose federal broadband funding. This proposal is an addition to a House-passed bill aiming for a 10-year ban on state AI regulation. Critics argue Cruz's plan is "undemocratic and cruel," forcing states to choose between broadband access and AI consumer protection. WASHINGTON - U.S. Senator Ted Cruz (R-Texas) proposed on Thursday an alternative punishment for planned legislation that would set a 10-year ban on state regulation of Artificial Intelligence model learning. Under Cruz's budget reconciliation proposal, an attempt to regulate AI would be prohibited from collecting federal funding provided by the Broadband Equity, Access, and Deployment (BEAD) program. The Proposal The U.S. House of Representatives passed their version of House Resolution 1, the "One Big Beautiful Bill Act," on May 22. In part, the budget bill would ban state regulation on AI for 10 years. As chairman of the Senate Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation, Cruz authored a budget reconciliation that he says is intended to "fulfill President Trump's agenda." In a summary of the proposal, he refers to state regulation as "strangling AI deployment," comparing it to EU precautions against tech development. Cruz's proposal adds $500 million to the BEAD program, which has already administered $42.45 billion to the states in order to expand high-speed internet access across the country. It also prevents states from receiving any of that funding if they attempt to regulate AI. Dig deeper Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene (R-Georgia) has recently spoken out against HR 1, saying the anti-regulatory section alone will cost Congress her vote. Greene explained that she discovered the controversial provision, located on pages 278-279 of the bill, only after the House had already passed the legislation. Once the bill returns to the House following Senate deliberations, Greene says she will change sides based on the matter of AI. What they're saying Advocacy group Public Citizen released a commentary on Cruz's proposal, referring to it as a "display of corporate appeasement." In the article, J.B. Branch, a Big Tech accountability advocate, included the following statement: "This is a senatorial temper tantrum masquerading as policy. Americans have loudly rejected Senator Cruz's dangerous proposal to give tech giants a decade of immunity from state regulation. State legislatures, attorneys general, and citizens across all 50 states have demanded that Congress step away from overhauling consumer protections put in place in the absence of federal leadership. But instead of listening to the American people, Senate Republicans threw a fit and tied vital digital funding to corporate impunity. "With this move, Republicans are telling millions of Americans: 'You can have broadband but only if your state gives up the right to protect you from AI abuses.' It's undemocratic and cruel. Republicans would rather give Big Tech a 10-year hall pass to experiment on the American people unchecked, rather than give underserved rural and urban communities the ability to compete in the digital economy. Congress must reject this corporate giveaway and refocus their energy on representing the public interest." In her statements criticizing the anti-regulation portion of HR 1, Greene expressed concerns about developing rapidly evolving tech without checks and balances. "No one can predict what AI will be in one year, let alone 10," Greene said. "But I can tell you this: I'm pro-humanity, not pro-transhumanity. And I will be voting NO on any bill that strips states of their right to protect American jobs and families." What's next HR 1 is expected to continue undergoing changes in the Senate before returning to the House for another vote. Cruz's proposal has yet to be officially added to the legislation. The Source Information in this article comes from public U.S. Congress filings, Public Citizen, and previous FOX 4 coverage.
Yahoo
18 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Army, Trump ready June 14th birthday parade with tanks, rocket launchers
June 7 (UPI) -- The U.S. Army celebrates its 250th birthday on June 14th in the nation's capital, which coincides with President Donald Trump's 79th birthday, and will be marked by a parade that may include tanks, rocket launchers and more than 100 military vehicles. With the two birthdays occurring on the same day, the previously scheduled parade that was intended as a relatively small event at the National Mall in Washington, D.C., has grown in size and cost. Up to 300 soldiers and civilians, the U.S. Army Band and four cannons were initially slated to honor the Army's 250th birthday, with seating available for 120 attendees, The Washington Post reported. U.S. Army leaders last year sought a permit for the event, but Trump's election victory has changed its scope, while doubling as an unofficial celebration of the president's birthday. Axios reported the parade will live up to Trump's request for a showcase the U.S. miliatary's might, with dozens of tanks, rocket launchers, missiles and more than 100 other military aircraft and vehicles participating. About 6,600 Army troops will participate, and the Army is paying to house them in area hotels. The parade route has been moved to the northwest portion of Constitution Avenue and will include a flyover of F-22 fighter jets, World War II planes and Vietnam-era aircraft. The event is scheduled to start at 6:30 p.m. EDT at 23rd Street and continue along Constitution Avenue N.W. to 15th Street. Trump will review the parade on the Ellipse. The event has an estimated cost of nearly $45 million, including more than $10 million for road repairs after the heavy military equipment passes over. The parade's estimated cost has Senate Armed Services Committee Chairman Roger Wicker, R-Miss., skeptical about its benefits. "I would have recommended against the parade," Wicker told an interviewer on Thursday, but the Department of Defense wants to use it as a recruiting tool. "On the other hand, [Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth] feels that it will be a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity for thousands of young Americans to see what a great opportunity it is to participate in a great military force," Wicker said. "So, we'll see."


New York Post
25 minutes ago
- New York Post
The ultimate loser of Trump and Musk's bloody battle royale could be the nation
Godzilla vs King Kong. Ali vs Frazier. Yankees vs. Red Sox. Trump vs. Musk is bigger than all of them because — unlike the first match — this one is real. And unlike the other two, it has real-world consequences. The future of the republic — not to mention the future of Tesla, SpaceX and Musk's other cutting-edge tech companies — could be at stake, depending on how bad it all gets. Of course, with this pair, they could make up while this column is at the printer. Musk is known to do 180s in business like most people breathe, and he seems open (at least for now) to rapprochement. That's why, after tanking during early rounds of the fight, Tesla shares spiked on Friday. Trump, meanwhile, can be forgiving when he sees an opportunity. Remember how he mocked 'Little Marco,' who after a MAGA-esque transformation is now Secretary of State Marco Rubio. Trump wanted to ban TikTok but as I was first to report, he's extending its life in the US. He came to believe that even if it is Chinese spyware, it helped him win a second term. But there's a better case that the Trump-Musk feud will linger. These men maintain some of the biggest egos on the planet; Musk actually thinks he's the reason Trump got elected since Elon owns X (formerly Twitter), which became a MAGA megaphone. If you know Trump like I do, someone taking credit for his success is a third rail. Plus, Musk isn't a natural convert to MAGA. These dudes bonded because Musk, a former Democrat, believed his party lost its mind on woke. His EV maker Tesla, a darling of the environmental movement, has a big operation in China, the main target of Trump's trade war. Musk called Peter Navarro, Trump's lead trade warrior, 'Peter Retarrdo' because Elon's no fan of tariffs. For his part, Trump is no budget hawk. It's telling that this fight started with Musk's critique that the president's 'big, beautiful bill' spends too much money. It quickly exposed other fissures lurking beneath the surface, according to my sources, and now it has gotten messy. No way to treat a pal Trump is teeing up killing all of Musk's lucrative government contracting after Musk outrageously — and foolishly — claimed the president is holding back the Jeffrey Epstein files because Trump's in the docs in some nefarious way. Not a way to treat a friend, particularly a powerful one. All of which gets me to laying odds on the winner if this feud keeps going. I say Trump is the heavy favorite. Musk has no political base, even if he splinters and begins spending his billions on Dems. Yes, some lefties are relishing the battle, but Musk will never be acceptable to most Democrats for the unforgivable sin of aiding Trump, then via DOGE cutting all that government lefty spending. 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 Meanwhile, Musk poses little threat to MAGA. He's not a natural politician — he's not even comfortable in his own skin. He controls X and has a huge following, but Trump has his own following and social media platform that attracts as much media attention. And Trump can hit him where it hurts — his pocketbook. Musk is the world's richest man, but mostly on paper. It could diminish fast given how much of it is built on government work. Recall Musk smoking a joint on Joe Rogan, which is a no-no when you do defense contracting as SpaceX does. I reported how it sparked scrutiny by the feds that went nowhere. Maybe now it goes somewhere. Musk's accounting at Tesla has drawn regulatory attention in the past; it now might get some more. The company just had a lousy quarter as its lefty EV-buying base went somewhere else. Shares have recovered somewhat but remain under pressure. They fell as much as 16% when the feud went defcon. Trump could go after other parts of the Musk empire. The president could throttle SpaceX's government contracts, using the weed issue as an excuse to re-examine the relationship. Maybe more of those go by the wayside along with all his other government contracts. Musk is obviously miffed that Trump's tax bill didn't cut enough fat, but what might have really stoked his anger is that it did take aim at various green-tax credits that Tesla has feasted upon. Musk's recklessness in his attacks underscores one of his weaknesses as a CEO; he once said he had a buyer to take it private at a premium but no one emerged. And you wonder why the Epstein barb shouldn't be taken seriously. The smarter move Yes, Trump has a lot of levers to pull to get at what makes Musk so powerful. But here's why he shouldn't: For all of Musk's flaws, he's smart and has his finger on the pulse of the emerging economy. Tesla's tech is first-rate. SpaceX is transformational, and serves a significant national security function. Musk is rich and can continue to elect Republicans to keep Trump from being impeached and derailing what is really working in his second term, such as his war on woke, closing the border and, when this tariff stuff subsidies, tax cuts to grow the economy. And they did make beautiful music together exposing stuff with DOGE. Someone please call a timeout.