Trump's budget bill could cut federal food assistance to 575,000 Kentuckians
More than half a million Kentuckians — including roughly 225,000 children — face the loss of or a reduction in their federal food assistance benefits under a budget bill moving through Congress supported by President Donald Trump, advocates said Friday.
In addition to the proposal in Trump's 'One Big Beautiful Bill Act' to slash Medicaid spending by billions, the budget reconciliation bill includes historic cuts to the federal Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, which provides food assistance to low-income individuals and families.
Roughly 13% of Americans — more than 41 million people — receive SNAP benefits each month.
Trump's bill threatens to reduce the federal program by more than $300 billion over the next decade, putting more responsibility on states to foot the bill instead.
Jessica Klein, policy associate at the Kentucky Center for Economic Policy, described it as the 'largest cut, ever, to SNAP in the history of the program's existence' on a Friday press call.
Supporters of the bill, including most, but not all of, Kentucky's congressional delegation, laud it as a means of carrying out Trump's agenda to eliminate 'waste, fraud and abuse' in federal resources.
Millions of SNAP recipients are expected to be cleaved from the program nationwide.
'SNAP is proven to reduce hunger, improve health, reduce health care costs and support local economies. As the top farming state in the nation, our farmers' markets, groceries and food retailers have come to rely on the almost $1.3 billion spent on groceries with SNAP each year,' Klein said.
One in eight Kentuckians benefits from SNAP, which translates to roughly 575,800 people.
The ripple effects of the bill, which is now in the Senate, extend well beyond the direct impact on families using SNAP dollars to buy groceries each month, Klein and other food assistance advocates said Friday.
In 2023, over 92.5% of Kentucky schools — about 625,000 kids — were eligible through the federal Community Eligibility Provision program. That program allows low-income students to receive free breakfast and lunch.
CEP eligibility is calculated — and districts are reimbursed with federal dollars — using a formula based on the percentage of students eligible for free or reduced meals using the Identified Student Percentage, or ISP. The ISP is based on their family's participation in federal food assistance programs, including SNAP and Temporary Assistance for Needy Families, or TANF.
A reduction in the overall number of families receiving SNAP benefits means school districts eligible for the CEP program, by extension, risk losing that funding, said Leah Fagin, the food service director at Mayfield Independent School District, where roughly 90% of the student population qualifies for free or reduced meals.
Even in a relatively small district like Mayfield, CEP-eligible districts can receive federal reimbursements of tens of thousands of dollars. The SNAP cuts and ripple effect to CEP eligibility will mean the districts, then 'have to absorb that cost,' she said.
'When you're looking at a school district with 10 schools with several thousand dollars in meal charges, you're looking at cutting teachers, cutting other benefits the district is able to enjoy,' Fagin said.
'I'm very concerned our legislators do not understand the critical link between SNAP and CEP eligibility,' she said.
What's more, the loss of SNAP dollars uniquely threatens rural Kentucky where farming is a 'vital part' of the local economy, said Emily Foster, a farmer in Wolfe County who manages the Red River Gorge Farmers Market.
Her farmers market, like others across Kentucky, accepts SNAP benefits.
'SNAP doesn't just help families put food on the table, it also strengthens our entire local food economy,' Foster said. 'Accepting SNAP expands our customer base, allowing more people to shop at the market, people who otherwise might not be able to afford fresh food.'
Foster added, 'when families spend SNAP benefits at the market, that money goes directly to our local farmers, who in turn spend it at local businesses, creating a ripple effect that benefits everyone. In Eastern Kentucky, where economic opportunities can be limited, this cycle is especially important.'
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Washington Post
25 minutes ago
- Washington Post
Direct pay to college athletes starts July 1. Some key dates tied to implementation of settlement
It took five years for the $2.8 billion antitrust lawsuit against the NCAA and five major conferences to reach a settlement. Now comes the process for implementing it. Following are significant dates: Settlement approved; settlement-related NCAA rules are effective, as adopted by the NCAA Division I Board on April 21, 2025. NIL Go portal launches. Opt-in deadline for non-defendant schools to fully commit to revenue sharing. First date for direct institutional revenue-sharing payments to student-athletes. Opt-in schools must 'designate' student-athletes permitted by the settlement to remain above roster limits. With the exception of the 'designated' student-athletes, fall sports must be at or below roster limits by their first day of competition. With the exception of 'designated' student-athletes, winter and spring sports must be at or below roster limits by their first day of competition or Dec. 1, whichever is earlier. ___ AP college sports:
Yahoo
26 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Trump dumps the Federalist Society — and even Republicans are shooketh
In a major about-face, Donald Trump is turning on the conservative powerhouse that built his judicial legacy, the Federalist Society. Yale Law professor Akhil Reed Amar warns that this break with the very group that helped propel him to power marks a dangerous shift. 'He just wants loyalty to himself—thugs and hacks,' Amar says, adding that Federalist Society judges are principled and loyal to the Constitution, not to Trump. 'The Senate needs to play a really important role now—especia
Forbes
27 minutes ago
- Forbes
Musk Follows Harvard In Biting The Hand That Feeds
Elon Musk and Harvard Both Bite the Governmental Hand that Feeds Them From an early age, children are taught essential lessons: do not play with fire, do not pet strange dogs, and if one cannot swim, stay out of the deep end. Another timeless rule—often forgotten by those in positions of immense wealth and influence—is this: do not bite the hand that feeds you. This lesson, while simple, has profound implications in the real world. It applies just as readily to billionaires and institutions as it does to children on a playground. Yet recent actions by both Elon Musk and prominent academic institutions—most notably Harvard, but also Columbia, MIT, and others—suggest that even the most successful individuals and organizations are capable of ignoring foundational wisdom. Harvard set the tone. Amid growing political scrutiny and a shifting cultural landscape, the university has drawn intense criticism over its handling of campus protests, particularly those involving slogans such as 'from the river to the sea.' The administration's decision to defend even the most controversial speech—widely viewed by many as antisemitic—has triggered investigations and jeopardized billions in tax-exempt status and government research funding. This raises a critical question: is this truly the hill worth dying on? Is preserving the right to controversial protest slogans worth risking Harvard's institutional future? It is doubtful that most students and faculty would knowingly trade funding, grants, and prestige for this fight. Elon Musk, the world's richest man, has now followed suit—this time turning his attention toward President Donald Trump, with whom he has launched a high-profile and personal feud. What makes this move especially striking is that President Trump is not a distant figure or a fading influence. He is once again sitting in the White House, wielding executive authority over regulatory agencies, defense contracting, and infrastructure initiatives—all areas that directly affect Musk's companies. Tesla, SpaceX, and xAI have flourished in part because of government partnership. SpaceX alone holds multibillion-dollar contracts with NASA and the Department of Defense. Tesla has benefitted from years of energy subsidies and EV tax incentives. Picking a fight with the sitting president—regardless of personal conviction—puts this entire ecosystem at risk. And again the question must be asked: is this battle worth the damage? Whatever principle Musk may be defending, the consequences extend far beyond himself. Shareholders, employees, and retail investors—many of whom placed their trust and savings in his leadership—are the ones left exposed. The parallel between Harvard and Musk is striking: both have been immensely successful, aided in large part by government funding, favorable regulation, and public goodwill. And both have, for different reasons, chosen to confront the very institutions and leaders that have helped sustain their growth. There is precedent for how this ends. Jack Ma, once the most powerful entrepreneur in China, famously criticized the Chinese government. The backlash was immediate and absolute. His companies were dismantled. His IPO was cancelled. His wealth and influence evaporated almost overnight. Even in less authoritarian systems, the lesson holds: those who antagonize the systems that support them may not survive the consequences. While Musk's personal net worth has dropped from nearly $450 billion to approximately $300 billion, the impact is more symbolic than practical for him. But for millions of investors, employees, and stakeholders, these battles matter. Market volatility, regulatory backlash, and reputational risk all come with tangible financial costs—costs borne not just by Musk himself, but by those who have trusted and invested in his vision. The same applies to Harvard and peer institutions. Their leadership may believe they are standing on principle, but the price of alienating government agencies and key financial backers could reshape the long-term trajectory of these universities. The erosion of public trust, the loss of bipartisan support, and the potential withdrawal of federal funding pose existential threats. Leadership—whether in business or academia—requires more than conviction. It requires judgment, timing, and the discipline to separate personal ideology from institutional responsibility. Founder-led companies often outperform when leaders are focused, visionary, and measured. But when ego replaces strategy, the consequences can be swift and severe. No one is demanding absolute political alignment or silence in the face of controversy. No one is asking Elon Musk to wear a MAGA hat. But his recent actions have been so volatile, so self-destructive, that investors may soon be tempted to hand him something else entirely—a MEGA hat: Make Elon Great Again. In today's polarized environment, the margin for error has narrowed. And for those who owe much of their success to public support—whether in Silicon Valley or the Ivy League—biting the hand that feeds is not just unwise. It is unsustainable. ---------------------------------- Disclosure: Past performance is no guarantee of future results. Please refer to the following link for additional disclosures: Additional Disclosure Note: The author has an affiliation with ERShares and the XOVR ETF. The intent of this article is to provide objective information; however, readers should be aware that the author may have a financial interest in the subject matter discussed. As with all equity investments, investors should carefully evaluate all options with a qualified investment professional before making any investment decision. Private equity investments, such as those held in XOVR, may carry additional risks—including limited liquidity—compared to traditional publicly traded securities. It is important to consider these factors and consult a trained professional when assessing suitability and risk tolerance.
