logo
New work rules could deny food stamps to thousands of veterans

New work rules could deny food stamps to thousands of veterans

Yahoo10 hours ago
Darryl Chavis, 62, served in the U.S. Army for two years as a watercraft operator. He stands outside the Borden Avenue Veterans Residence, a short-term housing facility in the Long Island City neighborhood of Queens, N.Y., where he lives. Chavis relies on the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) and is worried about new work requirements for the program, commonly known as food stamps. (Shalina Chatlani/Stateline)
NEW YORK — After a year in the U.S. Navy, Loceny Kamara said he was discharged in 2023, because while on base he had developed mental health issues, including severe anxiety and nightmares, and had fallen into alcoholism.
Kamara, 23, went to rehab and managed to get sober for some time while living with family in the Bronx, he said. But after he lost his job as a security guard in December, Kamara was kicked out of his home. Now he lives at a veterans homeless shelter in Long Island City, a neighborhood in Queens, New York, and he relies on the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program — commonly known as food stamps — and odd jobs to make ends meet.
Each month, nearly 42 million people receive SNAP benefits to help supplement their grocery budgets. Able-bodied SNAP recipients who are between 18 and 54 and don't have children have always been required to work. Veterans, however, have been exempt from those rules — but that's about to change.
The giant domestic policy measure that President Donald Trump signed on July 4 eliminates that exemption. Beginning in 2026, veterans will have to prove they are working, volunteering, participating in job training, or looking for work for at least 80 hours a month to keep their food stamps beyond three months, unless they qualify for another exemption, such as having certain disabilities.
Republicans in Congress and conservatives who helped formulate the law say these eligibility changes are necessary to stop people who could be working from abusing the system. But critics say the change fails to take into account the barriers many veterans face, and that the new work rules will cause thousands of veterans to go hungry.
'I'm pissed. I mean, I cannot get a job. Nowhere to live,' said Kamara. As he spoke, Kamara pointed to his collared shirt, noting that he had just dressed up to interview for a job as a security guard. He learned that morning he hadn't gotten the job.
'I've been out of work for eight months,' Kamara told Stateline. 'It's hard to get a job right now for everybody.'
Veterans depend on SNAP
Nationally, around 1.2 million veterans with lower incomes, or about 8% of the total veteran population of 16.2 million, rely on food stamps for themselves and their families, according to the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, a left-leaning research group.
An analysis by the group found veterans tend to have lower rates of employment because they are more likely to have health conditions, such as traumatic brain injuries, that make it difficult for them to work. They also tend to have less formal education, though many have specialized skills from their time in the military.
There has been a work requirement for most SNAP recipients since 1996. But Robert Rector, a senior research fellow at The Heritage Foundation, a conservative think tank, said the rules have 'never really been enforced.' Rector argued that able-bodied people who have been exempt from the work requirement, such as veterans and homeless people, create an unnecessary burden on the system if they are capable of working but don't.
'Most of the people that are in this category live in households with other people that have incomes, and so there really isn't a chronic food shortage here,' Rector said in an interview. 'We have tens of thousands of free food banks that people can go to. So it's just a requirement to nudge these people in the proper direction, and it should no longer go unenforced.'
Darryl Chavis, 62, said that view ignores the difficulties that many veterans face. When Chavis left the U.S. Army at 21 after two years of service, he said, he was 'severely depressed.'
'Nobody even came to help me,' said Chavis, who served as a watercraft operator, responsible for operating and maintaining tugboats, barges and other landing craft.
Chavis said he was diagnosed with post-traumatic stress disorder, which has made it difficult for him to keep a job. He just moved back to New York from Virginia after leaving a relationship. He's been at the housing shelter in Long Island City since January.
'What I'm trying to do is get settled in to, you know, stabilize into an apartment. I have the credentials to get a job. So it's not like I'm not gonna look for a job. I have to work. I'm in transition, and the obstacles don't make it easy,' Chavis said.
The new SNAP work rules apply to all able-bodied adults between 55 and 64 who don't have dependents, and parents with children above the age of 14. Some groups, such as asylum-seekers and refugees, are no longer eligible for the program.
Barbara Guinn, commissioner of the New York State Office of Temporary and Disability Assistance, estimates that around 300,000 New Yorkers could lose SNAP benefits due to work requirements. Of those, around 22,000 are veterans, homeless or aging out of foster care, she said. Almost 3 million New Yorkers relied on SNAP as of March 2025.
Veterans in other states are in a similar situation. In California, an estimated 115,000 veterans receive SNAP benefits, according to a study by the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities. The number is nearly 100,000 in Florida and Texas, and 49,000 in Georgia.
Between 2015 and 2019 about 11% of veterans between the ages of 18 and 64 lived in food insecure households, meaning they had limited or uncertain access to food, according to the U.S. Department of Agriculture, which oversees SNAP.
'We know that SNAP is the best way to help address hunger. It gets benefits directly to individuals,' Guinn said. 'There are other ways that people can get assistance if they need it, through food banks or other charitable organizations, but we do not think that those organizations will have the capacity to pick up the needs.'
A greater burden on states
In addition to the work rule changes, the new law reduces federal funding for SNAP by about $186 billion through 2034 — a cut of roughly 20%, according to the Congressional Budget Office, an independent research arm of Congress. The federal government expects the new work requirements to reduce SNAP spending by $69 billion as people who don't comply are dropped from the rolls.
SNAP has historically been funded by the federal government, with states picking up part of the cost of administering the program. Under the new law, states will have to cover between 5% and 15% of SNAP costs starting in fiscal year 2028, depending on how accurately they distribute benefits to people who are eligible for the program.
This has been a strategic agenda to dismantle SNAP and to blame states for doing so.
– Gina Plata-Nino, Food Research & Action Center SNAP deputy director
'This has been a strategic agenda to dismantle SNAP and to blame states for doing so, because they knew they are making it so incredibly burdensome to run and operate and unaffordable,' said Gina Plata-Nino, SNAP deputy director at the Food Research & Action Center, a poverty and hunger advocacy group.
'States are going to have to cut something, because there's no surplus. There are no unlimited resources that states may have in order to be able to offset the harm.'
Guinn said New York expects to see a new cost burden of at least $1.4 billion each year. In California, new state costs could total as much as $3.7 billion annually, according to the California Department of Social Services.
Kaitlynne Yancy, director of membership programs at Iraq and Afghanistan Veterans of America, said many veterans with disabilities will not be able to fulfill the work requirements or find resources elsewhere. And it's unclear whether states will be able to provide their own relief to people who are no longer exempted from work requirements or will be excluded from the program.
'It is a frustrating thing to see, especially for those that have been willing to put everything on the line and sacrifice everything for this country if their country called them to do so,' she said.
Yancy, 35, served in the U.S. Navy from 2010 to 2014. She began to use food stamps and the Medicaid program, the public health insurance program for people with lower incomes, as she navigated life's challenges. They included going back to school to pursue her bachelor's degree, becoming a single mother, and a leukemia diagnosis for one of her children. Frequent trips to the hospital made it hard for her to work steadily or attend school for 20 hours each week, she said.
Guinn said the new rules will create significant administrative challenges, too; even SNAP recipients who are working will struggle to prove it.
'Maybe they're working one month, they have a job, and then their employer cuts their hours the next month,' Guinn told Stateline. 'There are mechanisms for people to upload documentation as needed to demonstrate compliance with the program, but from an administrative standpoint, right now, we don't have any super-high-tech automated way of doing this.'
Stateline reporter Shalina Chatlani can be reached at schatlani@stateline.org.
SUPPORT: YOU MAKE OUR WORK POSSIBLE
This report was originally published by Stateline, part of the States Newsroom nonprofit news network. It's supported by grants and a coalition of donors as a 501c(3) public charity. Stateline maintains editorial independence. Contact Editor Scott S. Greenberger for questions: info@stateline.org.
Solve the daily Crossword
Orange background

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Comments

No comments yet...

Related Articles

Trump sidesteps Senate and judiciary with some U.S. attorney picks
Trump sidesteps Senate and judiciary with some U.S. attorney picks

Yahoo

time26 minutes ago

  • Yahoo

Trump sidesteps Senate and judiciary with some U.S. attorney picks

Federal judges in several states have rejected President Trump's controversial picks for top prosecutor posts in a rare standoff between the courts and the White House, but those acting U.S. attorneys will nonetheless remain in place because of actions taken by the president and the Justice Department. Last month in New York and New Jersey, panels of federal district judges declined to appoint two of Mr. Trump's interim choices to serve as U.S. attorneys – John Sarcone III of New York and Alina Habba of New Jersey. By law, if the Senate fails to confirm a nominee for a judicial post within 120 days, the District Court can extend the interim appointee or select someone else to serve in an acting capacity until a presidential nominee is confirmed. In New York, the court declined to extend the interim top prosecutor but also declined to appoint an acting U.S. attorney. In New Jersey, a panel of judges replaced Habba with Desiree Leigh Grace, the first assistant to the U.S. attorney and the next-highest ranking prosecutor in that office. Within hours, however, the Justice Department fired Grace and installed Habba as acting U.S. attorney, extending her term for another 210 days. To keep Sarcone in place, Attorney General Pam Bondi named him "special attorney to the attorney general," effectively giving him the power of a U.S. attorney, and he was named first assistant U.S. attorney, leaving him in charge of the office. The Trump administration employed similar maneuvers in Nevada and California in late July, this time appointing both interim U.S. attorneys in an acting capacity before the judges were to vote. Those two are Bilal "Bill" Essayli in California, and Sigal Chattah in Nevada. Why some of the acting U.S. attorneys have faced resistance The clash with the judiciary has come as some legal experts have expressed concern about actions taken by these Trump appointees or by comments they've made. Essayli, a former assistant U.S. attorney for California, has been accused of politicizing the office by pushing his staff to pursue cases regarded as being aligned with Trump's interests. This has contributed to an exodus from the Los Angeles-based district, Bloomberg Law reported. Essayli is the only one of the four who has prior experience as a prosecutor. Chattah was in private practice and previously ran unsuccessfully for state attorney general in Nevada. Critics have also accused her of using public office to pursue prosecutions of her political opponents and criticized her use of racially charged language in the past. A group of more than 100 former judges sent a letter to the District Court in Nevada, urging the judicial panel to reject the extension of Chattah's appointment on the grounds of inflammatory remarks she had made in the past. In 2022, she said of her opponent state attorney general's race, Aaron Ford, who is Black, that he should be "hanging from a f****** crane." Chattah, an Israeli, said the comment was not racist and is just a common Israeli saying. Ford won the election and is still in office as Nevada's attorney general. Habba was one of Mr. Trump's personal lawyers before his 2024 election and was initially named White House counselor. As interim U.S. attorney, she initiated investigations into New Jersey's Democratic governor and attorney general, on allegations that they were not cooperating with federal immigration authorities. Upon being named interim U.S. attorney, Habba said she'd use the office to help "turn New Jersey red," though U.S. attorneys are supposed to remain politically neutral. She also filed and later dropped a criminal trespassing charge against the Newark mayor, a Democrat, and accused Democratic Rep. Monica McIver of felony assault at an immigration protest. It's not just judges, but also defendants who are challenging Habba's appointment, alleging she holds the office unlawfully. Two individuals being prosecuted by Habba's office have filed motions to dismiss their cases, arguing she illegitimately holds the position. On Friday, Sarcone's office in the Northern District of New York subpoenaed state Attorney General Letitia James as part of its investigation into whether she and her office violated Mr. Trump's civil rights in the fraud lawsuit she brought against him in 2022. He was found liable of civil fraud in February 2024, months before his re-election. Sarcone served in Mr. Trump's first administration as a regional administrator for the General Services Administration. The U.S. Attorney's offices in Northern New York, New Jersey, Nevada and California have not responded to requests for comment. Sidestepping the Senate and the Judiciary Trump's administration isn't the first to exploit the acting official loophole – several administrations have relied on it in the past. In 2014, President Barack Obama appointed Vanita Gupta as acting head of the Justice Department Civil Rights Division amid the department's investigation into the Missouri shooting of unarmed teen Michael Brown by a police officer. As the CATO Institute's Thomas Berry pointed out, Obama never nominated Gupta for the permanent position, but she served well beyond the 210 days allowed by the Vacancies Act. Gupta left office in January 2017, as Mr. Trump was beginning his first term. The scheme has received more attention from legal experts recently in light of the controversial nature of the four attorneys and the administration's overt push to sidestep the Senate and the judiciary. A Justice Department spokesperson said Mr. Trump and Bondi have built a "fantastic team" of prosecutors with full departmental support. The spokesperson declined to comment on why the department chose to use the Vacancies Act to temporarily appoint the individuals, rather than sending them through the traditional Senate confirmation process. The Justice Department's use of the maneuver has raised the ire of several legal experts, who said they were concerned by the administration's moves to sidestep judicial authority. Michael Luttig, a former federal judge who signed onto the letter urging the rejection of Chattah's appointment, told CBS News that Mr. Trump's efforts to install U.S. attorneys without the Senate's approval are a part of a larger assault on the justice system and the rule of law. "Every action that he's taken has been intended to harass, intimidate and threaten the federal judiciary into submission to his will," Luttig said. U.S. attorneys and the Vacancies Act Across the country, 93 U.S. attorneys lead the federal prosecutor's office in their judicial district. Each presidential appointee must be confirmed by the Senate to serve on a permanent basis. Confirmation can be a lengthy process, so, under the Vacancies Act, the president can temporarily appoint an individual to fill Senate-confirmed roles on an interim basis to allow agencies and offices to continue to function. The act enables the president to appoint an interim U.S. attorney to any of those positions for 120 days. If the Senate hasn't confirmed a nominee by the end of that period, judges in the corresponding federal district court may extend the interim appointee or install a candidate they choose as acting U.S. attorney for another 210 days. "My understanding is that under prior administrations, there would be some behind-the-scenes communication to make sure that the interim U.S. attorney picked by the administration was acceptable to the District Court," Berry told CBS News. For three of the four contested nominees, Mr. Trump did not submit a nomination for the post to the Senate within the 120-day interim period. He nominated Habba to be U.S. attorney for New Jersey on June 30 but withdrew her nomination when it became evident that the Senate would not confirm her. In addition to Habba's rejection by the judges, also standing in the way of her ability to stay on in the office was her nomination. Under the Vacancies Act, a person may not serve as an acting officer if the president has submitted that individual's nomination to the Senate. Withdrawing Habba's nomination meant Mr. Trump could fire Grace and appoint Habba to replace her as first assistant, allowing her to assume the acting title. In New York, Sarcone reached the end of his 120-day term without a nomination pending before the Senate. When his term expired, the District Court declined to extend Sarcone, and didn't appoint anyone to the position. The Justice Department says its appointment of Sarcone as "special attorney to the attorney general" would confer him with the authority of a U.S. attorney and is "indefinite." As of Tuesday, six of Mr. Trump's 49 interim U.S. attorneys have served the maximum 120 days allowed under that status. Andrew Boutros of the Northern District of Illinois and Joseph Murphy of the Western District of Tennessee, have also seen their interim appointments expire. In their cases, though, the District Courts voted to extend them on the 120th day, a person familiar with the decisions confirmed to CBS News. It's not clear whether the Trump administration will continue to use the maneuver to appoint other U.S. attorneys. Mr. Trump has named at least 45 interim U.S. attorneys since January and has submitted nominations to the Senate for at least 30 of those picks. In early August, the Senate approved the first two of Mr. Trump's nominees for U.S. attorneys: Jeanine Pirro to serve in the District of Columbia and Jason A. Reding Quiñones for the Southern District of Florida. Democratic Sen. Dick Durbin of Illinois, who serves as the ranking member of the Senate Judiciary Committee, said in a statement to CBS News that the Trump administration is "abusing" the interim appointment authority to install loyalist interim U.S. attorneys without Senate confirmation. President Trump says meeting with Russia's Putin is not to broker peace deal in Ukraine Trump says he's placing D.C. police under federal control, deploying National Guard Could Tropical Storm Erin become the first Atlantic hurricane of 2025? Solve the daily Crossword

"You're A Loser": Yet Another Republican Was Booed By A Crowd At Their Town Hall After Following Trump's Agenda
"You're A Loser": Yet Another Republican Was Booed By A Crowd At Their Town Hall After Following Trump's Agenda

Yahoo

time26 minutes ago

  • Yahoo

"You're A Loser": Yet Another Republican Was Booed By A Crowd At Their Town Hall After Following Trump's Agenda

Another Republican lawmaker has faced a cacophony of boos and jeers when coming face-to-face with the general public to defend President Donald Trump's legislative agenda. Rep. Doug LaMalfa (R-Calif.) felt the wrath of constituents over the huge tax and spending bill, the trade war, and the crackdown on immigration when speaking during a town hall in Chico, California, on Monday. Related: Tensions ran so high that LaMalfa, who was reportedly holding his first in-person forum in close to eight years, was repeatedly called a 'liar' when doing his utmost to justify the president's policies. LaMalfa joins a growing cast of GOP politicians who have been given a raucous reception when meeting voters. Earlier this month, Rep. Mike Flood (R-Neb.) was heckled relentlessly when confronted over Medicaid cuts, the Jeffrey Epstein scandal, and ICE detentions. LaMalfa, who represents a large rural area of Northern California, held the town hall despite GOP top brass ordering an end to in-person events because of the rise of so-called 'professional protesters.' Related: A major flashpoint in Chico came when a constituent asked LaMalfa, 'Why are you part of this movement toward fascism?' After LaMalfa asked him to 'stop right there,' the constituent continued with his actual question. He went on: 'If you're not here to announce your resignation, why aren't you here to apologize to the farmers of the North State because of your support for the Trump tariffs?' 'Do you actually want to talk about something productive?' LaMalfa replied, before suggesting the inquiry was 'grandstanding.' Related: Against a backdrop of jeering and a distinct cry of 'You're a loser, Doug,' the congressman outlined how farmers in India had undercut growers in the region, so someone needed to be 'bold enough' to take action on tariffs. 'You're a little loose with the word 'fascism' when there's plenty of it going on on the other side of the aisle,' LaMalfa added, without giving details on the Democratic Party., LaMalfa was also drowned out by boos when delivering the standard Republican line about eliminating 'waste and fraud' to justify cutting Medicaid. @MorePerfectUS / Via Twitter: @MorePerfectUS Related: 'We don't want anybody to be harmed by this effort,' he said. 'Indeed, we want the focus to be on those folks that actually do qualify. And that will be a bigger win for them.' 'You liar!' was one audible response among the dissonance. Also at the town hall, an attendee who said their parents were Holocaust survivors compared Japanese internment camps of World War II to ICE raids and deportations under Trump. 'Will the name LaMalfa be mentioned in the same sentence as [Hitler's propaganda chief Joseph] Goebbels, [Nazi physician Josef] Mengele, and Trump?' the constituent asked. 'I predict no,' LaMalfa replied. Local ABC affiliate, KRCR News Channel 7, has broadcast the town hall in full. @KRCR7 This article originally appeared on HuffPost. Also in In the News: Also in In the News: Also in In the News:

DOWNLOAD THE APP

Get Started Now: Download the App

Ready to dive into a world of global content with local flavor? Download Daily8 app today from your preferred app store and start exploring.
app-storeplay-store