
Trump's Tax Bill Will Starve Public Schools. Kids are Next
School meals are more than a budget line item. They are lifelines that help millions of students learn and grow. But as families across America prepare for the new school year, millions of children face the threat of returning to classrooms without access to school meals.
President Donald Trump's newly-signed tax bill, which Republicans overwhelmingly voted to pass, slashes food assistance benefits via the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) by an estimated $186 billion over the next decade—the largest cut in American history. These devastating reductions will result in an estimated 18 million children losing access to free school meals.
The cuts shift the cost of school lunches to the states, costing them more than they can afford when they are already grappling with tighter budgets and substantial Republican-led Medicaid cuts. Twenty-three governors warned these cuts will lead to millions of Americans losing vital food assistance.
Read More: Trump's 'Big Beautiful Bill' Will Devastate Public Schools
It's hard to understand if you've never faced hunger, but millions of American children do not have access to enough food each day. In a recent survey of 1,000 teachers nationwide, three out of every four reported that their students are already coming to school hungry.
Our children can't learn if they are hungry. As a middle-school science teacher for more than 30 years, I have seen the pain that hunger creates. It's the student who skips breakfast so she can give it to her little brother. It's the student who misbehaves because his stomach is rumbling. It's the students who struggle in class after a weekend where they didn't have a single full meal. Educators see this pain everyday, and that's why they go above and beyond—buying classroom snacks with their own money—to support their students.
Free school meals represent commonsense and cost-effective public policy. They don't just prevent hunger, they help kids succeed. Decades of research reviewed by the Food Research & Action Center shows that when students participate in school breakfast programs, behavior, academic performance, and academic achievement go up and tardiness goes down. When I stand in a room of bright and curious children, it breaks my heart that some of them are going without the food they need to learn and thrive—not because America can't afford to feed them, but because adults in Washington decided they'd rather spend the money on tax breaks for the ultra-wealthy.
The cuts from the Republican tax bill will hit hardest in places where families are already struggling the most, especially in rural and Southern states where school nutrition programs are a lifeline to many. In Texas, 3.4 million kids, nearly two-thirds of students, are eligible for free and reduced lunch. In Mississippi, 439,000 kids, 99.7% of the student population, were eligible for free and reduced lunch during the 2022-2023 school year.
These are not abstract numbers. These are real children who show up to school eager to learn but are instead distracted by hunger and uncertainty about when they will eat again. America's kids deserve better.
The National School Lunch Act of 1946 laid the foundation that public schools are places where children can receive a free breakfast and lunch each day. This shouldn't be a partisan issue. For decades, Republican and Democratic administrations alike expanded school lunch programs, operating under the shared understanding that no child should go hungry at school in the richest country in the world.
But the extreme right wing of today's Republican Party has walked away from that moral consensu—ripping away these programs to give another tax break to billionaires.
The Trump Administration's authoritarian blueprint outlined in Project 2025 takes the anti-public education attacks even further by attempting to gut the Department of Education and to send tax dollars to private schools, and promoting ideologically-driven book bans and classroom censorship.
Read More: Former Education Secretary: Gutting the Department of Education Hurts All Americans
And now, as the Trump Administration and its allies work to destroy public education, they also have attempted to intimidate the National Education Association and our 3 million educators. They know we are powerful and vocal advocates for students and a formidable opponent to their attacks on public education. Last month, the relentless efforts of organized educators and our allies got the Trump Administration to release $7 billion in education funds it had tried to withhold.
Together, we will fight forward: for our vision where every student attends a safe, inclusive, supportive, and well-resourced public school, which includes nutritious meals for all students regardless of race or place.
We are educators. We don't quit. We will continue to engage with school boards, town halls, state legislatures, and Congress to fight for students. Public education does not belong to politicians trying to dismantle it. It is for every student, parent, and educator who understands it has the power to transform lives.
Hashtags

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
2 hours ago
- Yahoo
Republicans respond to data showing 10M will soon lose Medicaid coverage
(The Center Square) – Democrats are sounding the alarm over a new analysis showing that the One Big Beautiful Bill Act will cause millions of Medicaid recipients to lose their current coverage. According to the Congressional Budget Office's newest estimate, Medicaid reforms in the One Big Beautiful Bill Act will result in roughly 10 million people losing eligibility for their current health care plan by 2034. 'This latest analysis by the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office confirms that the deeply unpopular One Big Ugly Law is also deeply unfair,' House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries, D-N.Y., said in a response statement. 'The American people deserve better than this cruel Republican budget scam.' Republicans, however, have pointed out that the breakdown of the numbers offers a different perspective. Out of the 10 million affected, 5.3 million are able-bodied adults without dependents. Under the OBBBA, they could still remain on Medicaid, so long as they participate in work-related activities at least 80 hours per month. The work requirements would not apply to pregnant women; minors and seniors; foster youth under 26; Tribal members; the medically frail; those already meeting TANF or SNAP work requirements; caregivers with young dependents; or the currently and recently incarcerated. Another 3.7 million current Medicaid recipients set to lose coverage will still have access to some other form of government-sponsored health insurance. These individuals are primarily dual enrollees in Medicare and Medicaid, or those who are erroneously enrolled in Medicaid in more than one state. The former group would lose Medicaid but could retain Medicare, while the latter would be eligible to claim their Medicaid coverage only in their actual state of residence. The remaining 1 million impacted individuals are noncitizens who do not meet immigration status requirements for Medicaid enrollment. Those noncitizens have nonetheless received coverage under taxpayer-funded, state-sponsored Medicaid programs. 'The prolonged lie exacerbated by Democrats that 17 million individuals will lose health care coverage from the One Big Beautiful Bill Act has finally been dispelled,' House Committee on Energy and Commerce Chair Brett Guthrie, R-Ky., said Monday. 'It's easy to scare people with coverage loss estimates, but the facts are clear – the vast majority of these individuals are either choosing to lose coverage or aren't actually eligible for Medicaid, and nearly all are eligible for other forms [of] coverage.' Overall federal spending on Medicaid will still grow by 30% over the next decade, provided that Republicans refrain from further enrollee-reducing changes in another 'big, beautiful bill,' which GOP leaders are considering. Solve the daily Crossword


Politico
2 hours ago
- Politico
Long Covid's lingering financial side effects
LONG COVID'S TOLL — More than five years after the Covid-19 pandemic first ravaged the nation, many Americans are still dealing with the social and economic fallout of having contracted the disease. People with long Covid — those who have new or persistent symptoms lasting three months past infection — have experienced worse financial and employment outcomes, lasting up to three years after their initial infection, compared with people who haven't had the disease, according to a study published Tuesday in JAMA Network Open from researchers at Rush University Medical Center, Yale School of Medicine, Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine and other research institutions. Long Covid patients reported worse work impairment, missed work and financial distress compared with those who never had Long Covid, the study found. Vaccination against Covid was associated with improved work and economic outcomes. Not just physical: 'While much of the focus in Long COVID research has been on the medical impact, we must also consider the sustained financial burden faced by those whose symptoms persist,' lead author Michael Gottlieb, an emergency medicine doctor and vice chair of research at Rush, said in a statement. Addressing the financial burden of long Covid might 'require policy interventions, such as expanded disability benefits or workplace accommodations to help combat the work and financial impact of this condition,' the authors wrote. The researchers analyzed self-reported data from more than 3,600 participants in the Innovative Support for Patients with SARS-CoV-2 Infections Registry, a CDC-funded initiative aimed at better understanding Covid's long-term effects. Why it matters: About 6 percent of U.S. adults suffer from some form of long Covid, according to CDC estimates. The National Institutes of Health believes that as many as 23 million people have the illness, which can range in severity from mild to debilitating. The symptoms, which can include fatigue, headaches and brain fog, can be life-disrupting for many patients. Some treatments, like Paxlovid, have shown promise in reducing symptoms, but being diagnosed and finding suitable treatment can be difficult because of the disease's wide range of symptoms that often overlap with other conditions. HHS recently shut down its long Covid office, a casualty of the Trump administration's sweeping reorganization of the agency. At the time the closure was announced, an HHS employee who worked on long Covid and who was granted anonymity to share details of the move told POLITICO that abandoning work that could have cured the disease means the country's health care system will have to provide years, if not decades, of costly care for tens of millions of chronically ill people. In March, the Trump administration also canceled dozens of grants for long Covid projects, but some funding was restored after advocates fought back. WELCOME TO WEDNESDAY PULSE. I'm still reeling from Taylor Swift announcing her new album. Send your Swiftie theories, scoops and feedback to khooper@ and sgardner@ and follow along @kelhoops and @sophie_gardnerj. At the Agencies LOOMER'S LATEST PREY — After successfully ousting several members of Trump's administration for alleged insufficient loyalty, far-right activist and MAGA influencer Laura Loomer tells our colleagues at Playbook that she has her next target: Stefanie Spear, the principal deputy chief of staff and senior counselor to HHS Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. The reason why, in part: 'I think that there's a clear intention by Stefanie Spear to utilize her position to try to lay the groundwork for a 2028 RFK presidential run,' Loomer alleges. Asked for comment by Playbook, a senior HHS official did not deny that Kennedy is weighing a presidential bid. Read the full story in this morning's Playbook. CDC LATEST — CDC officials held a tense all-hands meeting Tuesday in the aftermath of last week's shooting at the agency's Atlanta headquarters, Sophie reports with POLITICO's Amanda Friedman and Lauren Gardner. The meeting came as law enforcement officials revealed early Tuesday additional information about the nature of the shooting: The man who opened fire at the agency on Friday died of a self-inflicted gunshot wound and was motivated by his distrust of Covid-19 vaccines. Agency update: At the CDC's all-hands meeting, Director Susan Monarez thanked employees for their work and acknowledged that 'misinformation can be dangerous,' according to a live transcript obtained by POLITICO. 'In moments like this, we must meet the challenges with rational, evidence-based discourse spoken with compassion and understanding,' she said. 'That is how we will lead.' CDC employees were closely watching Monarez at the meeting to see how she would respond to the shooting and the news that the suspected shooter had expressed distrust of the Covid vaccine. Two CDC employees, granted anonymity to speak candidly, told POLITICO that Monarez's speech was not what they'd hoped. '[Twenty minutes] of reading off a teleprompter,' one of the employees said in a text, adding that Monarez's remarks prompted an 'overwhelmingly negative response from folks in my immediate orbit.' Another agency employee said the meeting was in stark contrast to a separate meeting held for the CDC's National Center for Immunization and Respiratory Diseases staff on Saturday, where employees could ask Monarez questions. What's next: HHS spokesperson Andrew Nixon said that staff would have 'continued opportunities' to voice their perspectives to CDC leadership in the days ahead. 'Friday's shooting was a traumatic event for the agency, and leadership is working to provide continued updates along with resources for healing and recovery,' Nixon said in a statement. DOGE SAVINGS — The Trump administration has drastically exaggerated how much money it has saved through DOGE-related cuts to federal contracts, including at health agencies, according to an analysis of public data and federal spending records from POLITICO's Jessie Blaeser. Through July, DOGE said it had saved taxpayers $52.8 billion by canceling contracts, but of the $32.7 billion in actual claimed contract savings that POLITICO could verify, DOGE's savings over that period were closer to $1.4 billion. Despite the administration's claims, none of that $1.4 billion will lower the federal deficit unless Congress steps in. Instead, the money has been returned to agencies mandated by law to spend it. The health claims: Under the VA, DOGE's wall of receipts reported savings of $932 million from contracts canceled through June, including awards for a cancer registry, suicide-prevention services and other health care support. Federal records show the VA recovered just $132 million from the awards, or less than 15 percent of what DOGE claimed, and that the VA reinstated the contract for suicide-prevention support. One of DOGE's largest savings claims is from a canceled contract for a shelter in Pecos, Texas, to house unaccompanied migrant children. In a post on social media platform X in February, DOGE said HHS 'paid ~$18M/month' to keep the now-empty center open. Canceling the agreement, it said, would translate to more than $215 million in annual savings for taxpayers. By the time the contract was added to the DOGE termination list, that savings claim skyrocketed to $2.9 billion. But HHS and its Office of Refugee Resettlement were not on track to spend anywhere close to the contract's $3.3 billion ceiling. WHAT WE'RE READING POLITICO's Tyler Katzenberger reports on a federal judge blocking the Trump administration from using Medicaid beneficiaries' personal data for immigration enforcement purposes. Bloomberg Law's Celine Castronuovo reports on Texas' attorney general accusing Eli Lilly of unlawfully pushing providers to prescribe its blockbuster obesity drugs and other treatments to receive Medicaid payments.


NBC News
3 hours ago
- NBC News
U.S. appeals court upholds Arkansas law banning youth transgender care
A federal appeals court on Tuesday upheld an Arkansas law barring doctors from providing gender-affirming care including puberty blockers, hormones and surgery to transgender minors. The 8-2 decision by the St. Louis-based 8th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals overturns a lower court ruling. It also follows the U.S. Supreme Court's June ruling holding that Tennessee's similar ban did not discriminate based on sex or transgender status. Citing that ruling, the 8th Circuit's majority agreed with Arkansas' Republican attorney general that the law did not violate transgender minors' equal protection rights under the U.S. Constitution. The 8th Circuit also went further than the Supreme Court, which has a 6-3 conservative majority, by deciding an unresolved legal issue of whether such bans violate parents' rights to provide appropriate medical care for their children. Lawyers for the plaintiffs — a group of minors, parents and health care professionals — argued the Arkansas law violated parents' due process rights under the U.S. Constitution's Fourteenth Amendment. But U.S. Circuit Judge Duane Benton, writing for the majority, cited a lack of historical support for the argument that parents have a right to obtain medical treatment for their children that a state legislature deems inappropriate. 'This court finds no such right in this Nation's history and tradition,' Benton wrote in an opinion joined by seven fellow appointees of Republican presidents. U.S. Circuit Judge Jane Kelly, an appointee of Democratic former President Barack Obama, dissented along with another judge, citing a 'startling lack of evidence connecting Arkansas' ban on gender-affirming care with its purported goal of protecting children.' 'This is a tragically unjust result for transgender Arkansans, their doctors and their families,' said Holly Dickson, executive director of the American Civil Liberties Union of Arkansas, which represented the plaintiffs. The decision overturns a ruling by a lower-court judge in 2023 who had declared the law unconstitutional after previously blocking it from taking effect in 2021. That year, Arkansas became the first U.S. state to ban gender-affirming care for minors. The Republican-led legislature passed the ban over the veto of then-Governor Asa Hutchinson, also a Republican. Since then, a slew of other Republican-led states have passed similar laws. Such policies are now in place in 25 states. The 10th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals last week upheld Oklahoma's own ban, citing the Supreme Court's ruling.