USDA cancels shipments to Tri-Cities food banks
Pamela Irvine, the President and CEO of Feeding Southwest Virginia, said the food bank was informed that a shipment meant to be delivered between April and July was not coming.
'It was $513,000 worth of food that would have come to Feeding Southwest Virginia,' Irvine said. 'We were told that it was part of the process of looking at, you know, making some cuts in federal programs.'
$722K in food shipments to East Tennessee food bank canceled by U.S. Department of Agriculture
The cancelations are a result of the USDA's Commodities Credit Corporation being paused for a federal review.
Second Harvest Food Bank of Northeast Tennessee also confirmed that a shipment of 10 truckloads of food was canceled.
Irvine said the partnership Feeding Southwest Virginia has with the USDA is the most consistent way the food bank gets nutritious food.
'It's 31% of our food supply,' Irvine said. 'So, this food is extremely important, and the partnership is important to us. We're talking about eggs and milk and fresh fruits and vegetables that are extremely important.'
Despite the cancelations, Irvine said she does not want to cause panic.
'I want our neighbors not to panic, but we are concerned as we move forward to ensure that we will have a strong Farm Bill.'
The Farm Bill provides funding to the programs within the USDA. It is reauthorized by Congress every five years.
'They're in that continuing resolution through September. That is the priority. And then hopefully we'll get to the Farm Bill reauthorization.'
Feeding Southwest Virginia and Second Harvest Food Bank of Northeast Tennessee accept donations.
In a statement sent to News Channel 11, the USDA said:
'The Biden Administration inflated statutory programs with Commodity Credit Corporation dollars without any plans for long-term solutions, and even in 2024, used the pandemic as a reason to make funding announcements.
While the pandemic is over, USDA has not and will not lose focus on its core mission of strengthening food security, supporting agricultural markets, and ensuring access to nutritious foods. For example, last month, USDA released over half a billion in previously obligated funds for LFPA, LFPA for Tribes, and LFS to fulfill existing commitments and support ongoing local food purchases. Additionally, USDA recently announced $261 million in available fruits, vegetables, and tree nuts, made possible through Section 32 purchases. These foods go directly to food banks and other charitable organizations. States are eligible to receive products including tomatoes, grapes, pistachios, asparagus, apricots, strawberries, and peaches, among many others.
And while the Biden-era TEFAP slush fund was terminated, the program continues to operate uninterrupted, as originally intended by Congress, with more than $166 million spent in recent months to connect families with food.
The Department will continue to use its procurement authority to support producers and consumers where appropriate, and with 16 nutrition programs under its purview, ensure families continue to have access to affordable and abundant food.'
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
The Hill
7 hours ago
- The Hill
Judge blocks FTC probe into progressive media watchdog
A federal judge temporarily blocked the Federal Trade Commission's (FTC) investigation into Media Matters for America on Friday, arguing the agency is likely in violation of the progressive media watchdog's free speech rights. U.S. District Judge Sparkle L. Sooknanan, an appointee of former President Biden, ordered a preliminary injunction against the investigation, which was opened in May. 'It should alarm all Americans when the Government retaliates against individuals or organizations for engaging in constitutionally protected public debate. And that alarm should ring even louder when the Government retaliates against those engaged in newsgathering and reporting,' Sooknanan said in the 48-page ruling. 'This case presents a straightforward First Amendment violation.' The FTC opened the probe into Media Matters in late May over whether the progressive media group improperly coordinated with advertisers. The anti-trust agency demanded correspondence between Media Matters and advertisers, along with its communications with watchdog groups. In response, Media Matters sued the FTC in June to block the agency's probe, contending the investigation is an example of unlawful retaliation. Media Matters president Angelo Carusone said in a statement Friday that the court's ruling shows the 'importance of fighting over folding, which far too many are doing when confronted with intimidation from the Trump administration.' Carusone said the case is not 'just about the campaign to punish and silence Media Matters, however. It is a critical test for whether the courts will allow any administration – from any political party – to bully media and non-profit organizations through illegal abuses of power. We will continue to stand up and fight for the First Amendment rights that protect every American.' Media Matters was sued by tech billionaire Elon Musk and social media platform X in 2023, arguing that the progressive media watchdog colluded with advertisers as part of an effort to pull advertising dollars from X.
The Hill
11 hours ago
- The Hill
Obamacare faces a subsidy cliff — don't bail it out without reform
The controversy over the 2010 Affordable Care Act dominated Barack Obama's presidency. The implementation of ObamaCare caused health insurance premiums to soar and nearly collapsed the market entirely. The Biden administration responded by flooding the system with expanded federal subsidies, which are set to expire at the end of 2025. To stop premiums for older workers with pre-existing conditions from suddenly leaping by $10,000, Republicans will need to extend part of this additional funding. But in return, they should insist on reforms to allow healthy Americans to purchase better value insurance with their own money. The Affordable Care Act required health insurers to cover individuals with pre-existing conditions at the same price as enrollees who signed up before they got sick. As a result, premiums more than doubled, millions of healthy enrollees dropped coverage and many insurers abandoned the market. The Affordable Care Act kept the individual health insurance market from falling apart completely by providing subsidies to low-income enrollees. But individuals earning more than $62,600 in 2025 would have faced full premiums without any assistance. Those unsubsidized enrollees felt the full pain of the Affordable Care Act's premium hikes. The legislation allows insurers to charge older enrollees up to three times what they do the youngest, and so unsubsidized premiums for near-retirees can be huge. This year, the benchmark unsubsidized premium for a 61-year-old individual in Washington, D.C., is $15,402 per year. Rather than fix ObamaCare's structure, the newly-elected Democratic Congress in 2021 threw money at the problem with the American Rescue Plan Act. By expanding eligibility for subsidies to higher earners, the act reduced the cost of health insurance for a 61-year-old earning $70,000 from $15,402 to $5,950 — with federal taxpayers covering the difference. That legislation also expanded the generosity of subsidies for lower earners. Those earning $22,000, who would have contributed $756 to the cost of insurance under the original Affordable Care Act, would get it entirely paid for by the federal government. This approach has been hugely expensive. In May 2022, the Congressional Budget Office estimated that subsidies for the Affordable Care Act would cost $67 billion in 2024. Last June, following a renewal of the American Rescue Plan Act's increased subsidies, the Congressional Budget Office's revised cost estimate for 2024 surged to $129 billion. A recent Paragon Institute report found that this leap in cost owed much to a surge in enrollment among those who received coverage free of charge. Paragon estimated that such enrollees accounted for nearly half of new enrollment, and that 5 million people may have misreported their income to claim free coverage, costing taxpayers an additional $20 billion. Insurers eagerly welcomed the influx of new healthy enrollees, who had not deemed it worth purchasing insurance from the individual market until the federal government paid the entire price. Such newcomers proved enormously lucrative, as they used less medical care than existing enrollees but generated the same revenue. Democrats, who received twice as much in campaign contributions as Republicans from Blue Cross Blue Shield in 2024, eagerly boasted about reducing the number of uninsured Americans, with little concern for the cost. The expiry of the American Rescue Plan Act subsidies is now looming again, set to expire at the end of 2025. It will be up to a Republican president and Republican-led Congress to find a way forward. Fiscal conservatives have little appetite to pay for renewing all the expanded ObamaCare subsidies. But nor will they feel comfortable letting the American Rescue Plan Act's enhanced subsidies expire entirely, as this would result in a $10,000-per-year premium hike on thousands of middle-income near-retirees. Congress should focus on targeted support by eliminating the cap on eligibility for the Affordable Care Act's original subsidies, which limit premiums at 9.5 percent of income, to avoid a sudden benefit cliff for those with incomes just above $62,600. But they should also let other expansions of subsidies expire. In return, Republicans should insist that Americans be allowed to obtain discounted premiums if they purchase insurance before they get sick. In 2017, President Trump allowed Americans to do this by purchasing short-term insurance. However, in 2024, the Biden administration limited the duration of these plans to four months. This came following pressure from big insurers, who claimed that allowing the expansion of such plans would prevent them from cross-subsidizing enrollees with pre-existing conditions by overcharging those who signed up while healthy. In reality, the restriction of these affordable plans has served mostly to inflate insurers' profits. Healthy enrollees remain able to purchase short-term plans afresh every few months; it is only those who subsequently become sick who are deprived of coverage. Regulatory protections for the long-term coverage of enrollees in non-ObamaCare plans should be strengthened; not weakened. Furthermore, with the extension of the American Rescue Plan Act's premium cap, federal subsidies taxpayers directly subsidize most enrollees. It is therefore unnecessary to also prohibit healthy enrollees from obtaining insurance plans which offer long-term coverage at good value for their money.
New York Post
12 hours ago
- New York Post
Keep racial lunacy out of air traffic control before more planes crash
It's official: Biden-era Transportation Secretary 'Mayor' Pete Buttigieg really did prioritize 'racial equity' when it came to training new air traffic controllers. That's right: The charge made by his successor, Sean Duffy, as well as President Donald Trump, is born out by the facts. Specifically, the Bidenites had the Federal Aviation Administration shift the top tier for scoring on the Air Traffic Skills Assessment from 'best qualified' (85% and up) to 'well-qualified' (80% and up) — a common 'equity' tactic designed to get more women and minorities into the pool of applicants qualifying to begin training. Advertisement As Biden's transportation chief, 'Mayor' Pete Buttigieg put millions of airline passengers at risk in the mad pursuit of 'racial equity' among — get this — air traffic controllers. Denver Post via Getty Images And yes, that matters even if graduation standards weren't lowered, because it clogged the training pipelines with more candidates who'd eventually wash out, needlessly reducing number of new ATCs each year. It also delayed new classes: That is, you could get a top score on the test and still not be accepted into training for more than a year, as lower-scoring applicants filled so many slots — which further reduced the talent pool, since more of the best candidates would inevitably move down other career paths rather than wait. All this, simply to (hopefully) wind up with fewer white males keeping planes form colliding. Advertisement Diversity in air traffic control has been a leftist preoccupation since the Obama years. A current class-action lawsuit alleges that the Obama FAA threw out test scores completely in favor of a 'biographical questionnaire' in 2014 in order to admit more black applicants, whose scores were lower on average. All in all, Buttigieg burned $80 billion on DEI initiatives at Transportation — loyally obeying the 'whole of government' order 'advancing equity' that President Joe Biden issued on his first day in office. How many other compromises with excellence did that agenda produce? Advertisement This scandal isn't even the deadliest DEI outrage: Dozens of US medical schools for years now have pursued stark racial quotas in admissions, discriminating against white and Asian MD-hopefuls — with many schools even prioritizing 'social justice' in what they teach future doctors. It's one thing when, say, a Gender Studies graduate-school programs favors nonwhite candidates for ideological reasons — it's not right, but nobody's life is on the line. But when it comes to air traffic control or operating rooms, the only thing that matters is competence and excellence.
