Fetterman looks to protect SNAP benefits from ‘skimming' scams with new bill
WASHINGTON D.C. (WTAJ) — U.S. Senator John Fetterman (D-PA), along with Congress members from New York, introduced the 'Fairness for Victims of SNAP Skimming Act.'
The legislation aims to make sure that people don't go hungry if criminals happen to steal from their already existing benefits. The bill would allow state SNAP agencies to reimburse recipients for benefits stolen through skimming or other methods.
'Skimming' occurs when people attach illegal devices to card processing machines as a way to collect someone's data. These scams directly copy card and PIN information from EBT cardholders and then use the data to access accounts and benefits.
'SNAP is a critical lifeline for millions of Pennsylvanians. It is despicable that thieves are targeting hungry families, literally taking food from a baby's mouth,' Senator Fetterman said. 'We can't let vulnerable children go hungry because of these criminals. I'm committed to doing everything in my power to protect and extend SNAP benefits. We need to make sure American families get fed. This bill is a critical step in doing just that.'
The current legislation allows the replacement of benefits stolen between Oct. 1, 2022, and Sept. 30, 2024. It also limits replacement to either:
The full stolen amount or
Two months of benefits, whichever is less
The new legislation would permanently extend the aforementioned provision to ensure state agencies continue to replace benefits, as well as lift the cap on repayment to ensure the replacement is for the full amount stolen.
Senator Fetterman introduced this bill with Senators Gillibrand (D-NY), Blumenthal (D-CT), Alsobrooks (D-MD), Wyden (D-OR) and Welch (D-VT).
Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Politico
15 minutes ago
- Politico
‘It's made up': Democrats say Rubio isn't playing it straight about foreign aid cuts
Democrats are accusing the Trump administration of lying about the state of America's top global health program following massive cuts to foreign aid led by Elon Musk and his Department of Government Efficiency. The administration has cut more than a hundred contracts and grants from the President's Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief, the HIV and AIDS program credited with saving millions of lives in poor countries. President Donald Trump has shut down the agency that signed off on most PEPFAR spending and fired other staffers who supported it. But Secretary of State Marco Rubio suggested Democrats' concerns are overblown, considering that PEPFAR remains '85 percent operative.' Rubio has made the claim repeatedly in budget testimony before Congress, but neither he nor the State Department will provide a detailed accounting to back up the figure. For flummoxed Democrats, it indicates a broader problem: How to respond to Trump's budget requests when his administration refuses to spend the money Congress has provided. Trump last month asked Congress to cut PEPFAR's budget for next year by 40 percent. 'It's made up,' Hawaii Sen. Brian Schatz said when asked by POLITICO about the 85 percent figure. 'It's the most successful, bipartisan, highly efficient life-saving thing that the United States has ever done and Elon Musk went in and trashed it.' Schatz confronted Rubio about the cuts at a Foreign Relations Committee hearing in May, telling him: 'You are required to spend 100 percent of the money.' Rubio said the 15 percent cut targeted programs that weren't delivering the services the government was paying for. He pointed to fraud in Namibia and armed conflict in Sudan as reasons for slashed funding, although it isn't clear those instances were related to PEPFAR. Asked repeatedly by POLITICO for more clarity on what the 85 percent figure represents, a State Department spokesperson said that 'PEPFAR-funded programs that deliver HIV care and treatment or prevention of mother to child transmission services are operational for a majority of beneficiaries.' Data collection is ongoing to capture recent updates to programming, the spokesperson also said, adding: 'We expect to have updated figures later this year.' The day after his exchange with Schatz, Rubio told the House Foreign Affairs Committee that he meant 85 percent of PEPFAR's beneficiaries were still getting U.S. assistance. But the goal, he said, was to pass off all of the work to the countries where the beneficiaries live. 'We're by far the most generous nation on Earth on foreign aid, and will continue to be by far with no other equal, including China, despite all this alarmist stuff,' he said. People who worked on implementing PEPFAR, both inside and outside the government, as well as advocates for HIV prevention and care, are alarmed nonetheless. A State Department report from the month before Trump took office underscores the breadth of its services. In fiscal 2024, the report says, PEPFAR provided medication to 20.6 million people, including 566,000 children, HIV prevention services to 2.3 million girls and women, and testing for 83.8 million. After DOGE dismantled the U.S. Agency for International Development in February, several recipients of PEPFAR grants and contracts said they'd had to lay off staff even as Rubio insisted that life-saving aid was continuing. Rubio's skeptics point to the Trump administration's cancellation of more than 100 HIV grants and contracts, representing about 20 percent of PEPFAR's total budget, according to an analysis by the Center for Global Development, an anti-poverty group. In addition to shutting down USAID, the agency that dispensed and monitored much of that funding, the administration fired experts from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention's global health division who worked on the program, including those specializing in maternal and child HIV. 'I'm not sure where he got these numbers,' Delaware Sen. Chris Coons, a senior Democrat on the Foreign Relations Committee, said of Rubio's 85 percent claim. The lack of clarity has angered HIV activists, who protested against the PEPFAR cuts during the budget hearings where Rubio testified. 'It's unconscionable and alarming to know that 130 days into this administration, Rubio has overseen the completely unnecessary decimation of life-saving services to millions of people, then lying about that fact over and over again,' said Asia Russell, executive director of Health GAP, a nonprofit working on access to HIV treatment in developing countries. Russell was among those arrested for disrupting Rubio's House Foreign Affairs hearing. The confusion around how much of America's celebrated global health program is still operational adds to the uncertainty about the Trump administration's spending plans for the funds Congress appropriated for 2025. And it comes as Congress gears up to consider the president's 2026 budget request. Last month, Trump asked Congress to reduce the PEPFAR budget from $4.8 billion this year to $2.9 billion next. And on Tuesday, the White House asked Congress to claw back $900 million Congress had provided for HIV/AIDS services and other global health initiatives this year, but insisted that it was keeping programs that provide treatment intact. Even if the Trump administration isn't cutting treatment funding, it has cut other awards that ensure drugs reach people, Russell said. She pointed to a terminated USAID award that was delivering drugs to faith-based nonprofit clinics in Uganda. 'The medicine is literally languishing on shelves in a massive warehouse behind the U.S. embassy,' Russell said. Coons said prevention, if that's what's on the chopping block, is as important as treatment: 'For us to step back from supporting not just treatment but prevention puts us at risk of a reemergence of a more lethal, drug resistant form of HIV/AIDS.' Leading Republicans aren't objecting, even though PEPFAR was created by then-President George W. Bush and long enjoyed bipartisan support. Senate Foreign Relations Chair Jim Risch of Idaho declined to comment when POLITICO asked him about the program. Earlier this year, Risch said PEPFAR was 'in jeopardy' after the Biden administration acknowledged that Mozambique, a country in east Africa, had misused program funds to provide at least 21 abortions. Rep. Brian Mast (R-Fla.), who leads the House Foreign Affairs Committee, said he agrees with the cuts Trump has made and suggested he would want more in the future. 'We also need to be asking the question: How long should American taxpayers borrow money to fund HIV medication for 20 million Africans?' Mast said. The top Democratic appropriators in the House and Senate accused the White House in late May of failing to provide detailed and legally required information about what the administration is doing with billions of dollars Congress directed it to spend. Sen. Patty Murray of Washington and Rep. Rosa DeLauro of Connecticut wrote to the White House Office of Management and Budget that the administration's decision to not abide by a funding law Trump signed in March has 'degraded Congress' capacity to carry out its legislative responsibilities' and move forward with fiscal 2026 spending bills. It has also clouded plans for reupping the law that directs the PEPFAR program. It expired in March. Mast has said that Congress would consider PEPFAR's future by September, as part of a larger debate about State Department priorities. But Democrats wonder how they could move forward with reauthorizing the program given the uncertainty surrounding it, said a Senate Democratic aide speaking anonymously to share internal debates.
Yahoo
19 minutes ago
- Yahoo
This Kansas town doesn't hate immigrants enough. So the Trump administration plots vengeance.
Lawrence and Douglas County appeared on a Department of Homeland Security list of 'sanctuary jurisdictions.' (Clay Wirestone/Kansas Reflector) The Trump administration has put my town — the place my family and I call home — on its hit list for a thought crime. What horrible thing have the people of Lawrence and wider Douglas County done to deserve this fate? Apparently, we don't sufficiently detest immigrants. Put questions of legal status aside. As we all know, it doesn't matter to the hate-bloated buffoons in Washington, D.C., what papers a person has or doesn't have. They will ship you off to a foreign gulag if you're the wrong color or in the wrong place. Because Lawrence had the unmitigated audacity to care about people who look different, it has been threatened with the full wrath of the federal government. It might be shocking, if so little was shocking these days. The Department of Homeland Security posted a list of 500-plus 'sanctuary jurisdictions' on its website May 29, highlighting cities and counties that supposedly run afoul of its anti-immigrant agenda. Three days later, officials took down the page after an outcry from local law enforcement. Thanks to the Internet Archive, you can still browse the list and read the government's inflammatory rhetoric: 'DHS demands that these jurisdictions immediately review and revise their policies to align with Federal immigration laws and renew their obligation to protect American citizens, not dangerous illegal aliens.' There's a lot to unpack there — immigrants commit fewer crimes than those born in the United States, for one thing — but let's press on. The point is that my town and county landed on the list. Let's try to figure out why. Back in 2020, the city passed an ordinance protecting undocumented folks. Two years later, the Kansas Legislature pushed through a bill banning sanctuary cities, and Lawrence subsequently revised its ordinance. You can read the current city code here. What's important to note is that the current language gives wide berth to state and federal law, making clear that the city won't obstruct or hinder federal immigration enforcement. By the same token, that doesn't mean the city has to pursue a brazenly anti-immigration path. Lawrence can and should represent the will of voters, while following applicable law. And those voters, through their elected representatives, chose to make their city a welcoming one. So how did Lawrence end up on the list? Apparently because it didn't spew enough hatred for the White House's liking. A senior DHS official told NPR that 'designation of a sanctuary jurisdiction is based on the evaluation of numerous factors, including self-identification as a sanctuary jurisdiction, noncompliance with federal law enforcement in enforcing immigration laws, restrictions on information sharing, and legal protections for illegal aliens.' Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem pontificated on Fox News: 'Some of the cities have pushed back. They think because they don't have one law or another on the books that they don't qualify, but they do qualify. They are giving sanctuary to criminals.' Note those phrases from the official and Noem: 'Self-identification as a sanctuary jurisdiction.' 'One law or another.' In other words, it doesn't matter what ordinances a city or county has on the books. It doesn't matter what the actual laws may be. It apparently depends on what a city calls itself and how the Trump administration feels about it. No city or county sets out to break the law. They have attorneys on staff or retainer to make sure they don't break myriad legal restrictions. Lawrence followed the law in enacting its original ordinance, and when the law changed, officials followed along. But few want to step out and say such things publicly, given that federal officials have tremendous resources behind them. They could crush any city or county if they wished, through legal bills alone. Thankfully, as mentioned above, sheriffs across the nation pushed back. 'This list was created without any input, criteria of compliance, or a mechanism for how to object to the designation,' said National Sheriffs' Association president Sheriff Kieran Donahue. 'Sheriffs nationwide have no way to know what they must do or not do to avoid this arbitrary label. This decision by DHS could create a vacuum of trust that may take years to overcome.' Douglas County Sheriff Jay Armbrister was similarly outspoken in comments to the Lawrence Journal-World: 'We feel like the goalposts have been moved on us, and this is now merely a subjective process where one person gets to decide our status on this list based on their opinion.' Thanks to the U.S. Constitution and its First Amendment, we are not required to love, like or even respect our government. We are not required to voice support of its goals. We are not required to say anything that we don't want to say about immigration, immigrants or ICE. Republicans understood that full well when Presidents Joe Biden and Barack Obama were in office. Both faced torrents of criticism on this very subject. Those presidents took the abuse. It was, and is, part of the job. Now President Donald Trump and his anti-immigration minions have to deal with the fact that a different segment of the public vehemently disagrees with their immigration policies. That's OK. That's protected expression. Within the bounds of law, we are also free to define our towns, cities and counties however we want. Accusing local governments of thought crimes desecrates and defames our Constitution. Clay Wirestone is Kansas Reflector opinion editor. Through its opinion section, Kansas Reflector works to amplify the voices of people who are affected by public policies or excluded from public debate. Find information, including how to submit your own commentary, here.
Yahoo
20 minutes ago
- Yahoo
NATO chief Rutte calls for 400% increase in the alliance's air and missile defense
LONDON (AP) — NATO members need to increase their air and missile defenses by 400% to counter the threat from Russia, the head of the military alliance plans to say on Monday. Secretary-General Mark Rutte will say during a visit to London that NATO must take a 'quantum leap in our collective defense' to face growing instability and threats, according to extracts released by NATO before Rutte's speech. Rutte is due to meet U.K. Prime Minister Keir Starmer at 10 Downing St. ahead of a NATO summit in the Netherlands where the 32-nation alliance is likely to commit to a big hike in military spending. Like other NATO members, the U.K. has been reassessing its defense spending since Russia's full-scale invasion of Ukraine in February 2022. Starmer has pledged to increase British defense spending to 2.5% of gross domestic product by 2027 and to 3% by 2034. Rutte has proposed a target of 3.5% of economic output on military spending and another 1.5% on 'defense-related expenditure' such as roads, bridges, airfields and sea ports. He said last week he is confident the alliance will agree to the target at its summit in The Hague on June 24-25. At the moment, 22 of the 32 member countries meet or exceed NATO's current 2% target. The new target would meet a demand by President Donald Trump that member states spend 5% of gross domestic product on defense. Trump has long questioned the value of NATO and complained that the U.S. provides security to European countries that don't contribute enough. Rutte plans to say in a speech at the Chatham House think tank in London that NATO needs thousands more armored vehicles and millions more artillery shells, as well as a 400% increase in air and missile defense. 'We see in Ukraine how Russia delivers terror from above, so we will strengthen the shield that protects our skies,' he plans to say. 'Wishful thinking will not keep us safe. We cannot dream away the danger. Hope is not a strategy. So NATO has to become a stronger, fairer and more lethal alliance.' European NATO members, led by the U.K. and France, have scrambled to coordinate their defense posture as Trump transforms American foreign policy, seemingly sidelining Europe as he looks to end the war in Ukraine. Last week the U.K. government said it would build new nuclear-powered attack submarines, prepare its army to fight a war in Europe and become 'a battle-ready, armor-clad nation.' The plans represent the most sweeping changes to British defenses since the collapse of the Soviet Union more than three decades ago.
