USDA secretary speaks about Nebraska changing food stamp guidelines
Secretary Brooke Rollins said she wants the states to be innovative when it comes to food stamps. On Monday, Nebraska became the first state to get a federal waiver to ban those drinks under food stamps.
The state's ban begins on January 1 and is set to impact about 152,000 low-income people in Nebraska enrolled in SNAP.
'We should not be spending taxpayer dollars for lower income Americans on sugary drinks. That, if the taxpayers are going to fund a nutritional program, a Supplemental Nutritional Program, SNAP. That in fact, it should be healthy, nutritious foods to really focus on those at the lower end of the socioeconomic ladder,' said Rollins.
Story continues below
Top Story: 35th Saturday in the Park Main Stage, Abe Stage headliners announced
Lights & Sirens: Family suing Sioux City over death of son
Sports: Sydney Affolter rejoins Hawkeyes as Graduate Assistant
Weather: Get the latest weather forecast here
Six states, including Iowa, have also submitted requests for waivers that ban particular foods and drinks or expand access to hot foods. Rollins said Governor Reynolds submitted a 'great plan,'adding more announcements on the waivers are coming.
Also, a Nebraska bill to impose a sales tax on soft drinks and candy failed in the first round of voting. Lawmakers voted 30 to 15, and the measure needed 33 to pass. The legislation is not expected to be discussed again in this legislative session. The bill would have placed a 5.5% state sales and use tax on almost two dozen currently exempt services.
The measure would have funded an additional $100 million in property tax relief a year under the school district property tax relief act.
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 This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.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
New York Post
39 minutes ago
- New York Post
Ex-Kentucky clerk Kim Davis asks Supreme Court to overturn same-sex marriage ruling: ‘Legal fiction'
Kim Davis, the former Kentucky clerk who violated the rights of a gay couple, has petitioned the Supreme Court to revisit its landmark decision on same-sex marriage – slamming the ruling as a 'legal fiction.' Davis, 59, served five days in jail in 2015 after she refused to issue a marriage license to gay couple David Ermold and David Moore shortly after the Supreme Court legalized same-sex marriage nationwide in the Obergefell v. Hodges case. The former Rowan County, Ky., clerk was subsequently ordered to pay a $100,000 jury verdict for emotional damages and $260,000 in attorneys' fees to the married couple. Advertisement She asked the high court – in a 90-page filing last month – to review a lower court's 2022 finding that she violated Ermold and Moore's constitutional right to marry and revisit its decision in the same-sex marriage case. 3 Davis claims her First Amendment rights were violated when she was jailed and ordered to pay damages to the gay couple she refused to grant a marriage license to. AP 'If ever a case deserved review, the first individual who was thrown in jail post-Obergefell for seeking accommodation for her religious beliefs should be it,' Liberty Counsel, the nonprofit law firm representing Davis, wrote in the petition. Advertisement 'Davis was jailed, haled before a jury, and now faces crippling monetary damages based on nothing more than purported emotional distress,' the filing continued, arguing that Davis was protected by her First Amendment rights to freedom of speech and religion in denying the marriage licences. The petition also asks the justices to consider 'whether Obergefell v. Hodges … and the legal fiction of substantive due process, should be overturned.' 3 The Supreme Court previously turned down a chance to review Davis' case in 2020. REUTERS 'Kim Davis' case underscores why the US Supreme Court should overturn the wrongly decided Obergefell v. Hodges opinion because it threatens the religious liberty of Americans who believe that marriage is a sacred union between one man and one woman,' Mat Staver, the founder and chairman of Liberty Counsel, said in a statement. Advertisement 'Obergefell cannot just push the First Amendment aside to punish individuals for their beliefs about marriage,' Staver added. 'The First Amendment precludes making the choice between your faith and your livelihood.' 'The High Court now has the opportunity to finally overturn this egregious opinion from 2015.' 3 The Supreme Court legalized same-sex marriage nationwide in 2015. REUTERS William Powell, an attorney for Ermold and Moore, told The Post that he is 'confident' the Supreme Court won't take up Davis' case. Advertisement 'We are confident the Supreme Court, like the court of appeals, will conclude that Davis's arguments do not merit further attention,' Powell, who serves as senior counsel at Georgetown University's Institute for Constitutional Advocacy and Protection, said in a statement. 'Marriage equality is settled law,' he added. The Supreme Court previously denied a 2020 petition from Davis to consider her appeal.
Miami Herald
an hour ago
- Miami Herald
As Trump targets cities post-D.C. takeover, he's only looking for ‘blue' crime
President Donald Trump's take-over of the Washington, D.C., police and the deployment of the National Guard there are political power moves that he made clear on Monday he will not hesitate to use on other cities. Let's be clear — probably on other democratic-leaning cities. Because Trump doesn't see plain old crime; he sees blue crime, only. Part of this excessive action is Trump needing to generate a distraction, to turn the focus away from his negative approval ratings, voters' dissatisfaction with his handling of the economy, his political base's rebellion over the Jeffrey Epstein case, stubborn inflation and unpopular cuts to Medicaid and food stamps. What's better than scaring Americans about rampant crime one moment, then purportedly solving it the next? Certainly, crime has long been an issue in D.C., and the city, in response to large street brawls, has even instituted a teenage curfew. There's no excuse for the horrendous recent beating of a former federal staffer in an attempted carjacking (two 15-year-old suspects have been arrested in connection with it). But crime rates in D.C., as in most of the U.S., have been trending down since the pandemic, including for violent crimes, which have reached their lowest point in 30 years, the Miami Herald reported. The crime situation in the nation's capital looks complex, not easily explainable by Trump's hyperbole and fearmongering. While saying the city is suffering from 'crime, bloodshed, bedlam and squalor and worse,' Trump hasn't presented any evidence that federal intervention is needed. And he won't do that the next time he sends the National Guard to another blue city. 'We're not going to lose our cities over this. And this will go further. We're starting very strongly with D.C.,' Trump said at a Monday press conference at the White House. Trump didn't offer any metrics on what will prompt him to intervene in another city's policing, the Herald reported. But he suggested what his political calculations will be. On Monday, he focused his ire on blue bastions that didn't vote for him — New York, Los Angeles, Baltimore, Oakland and Chicago — while ignoring the crime rate in red cities like St. Louis and New Orleans. Perhaps luckily for South Florida, our largest law-enforcement agency, the Miami-Dade Sheriff's Office, is run by a Republican endorsed by Trump, and the county has done well managing crime. But who's to say Trump, egged on by Gov. Ron DeSantis, could not find a reason to intervene in some of the region's Democratic areas, such as Broward County? Trump's point isn't to lend a hand to a local police department to address crime. If it were, he would look for cooperation with local law enforcement, which the D.C. police chief said Monday is nothing new. This move furthers Trump's narrative that everything is terrible, crime is awful and he's the only one who can save us. It tramples on home rule, and it keeps making the federal government bigger, not smaller, the opposite of what Republicans and DOGE claim to be doing, with power more concentrated in his hands. Trump knows that looking tough on crime is good for his brand and bad for Democrats still trying to find their messaging strategy ahead of the 2026 midterms. By constantly shifting the narrative and creating a new controversy almost daily, Trump forces his opponents to keep up. But they would be fools to take the bait each time. A large section of the American public, meanwhile, feels overwhelmed with the barrage of presidential actions coming from the White House, many choosing to disengage from the political process. All they probably hear are the sound bites and social media headlines that Trump is saving the nation's capital from 'thugs.' And that's exactly what Trump probably wants: not to properly solve issues, but to show Americans he's the new sheriff in town.
Axios
an hour ago
- Axios
Trump admin claims Social Security, Medicare at risk if tariffs blocked
The Trump administration on Monday told a federal appellate court that overturning the president's tariffs could lead to a 1929-style depression that would endanger federal benefits like Social Security and Medicare. Why it matters: The letter from Solicitor General D. John Sauer and assistant attorney general Brett Shumate claims the U.S. would be on the hook to repay trillions of dollars it hasn't actually been paid, from deals that haven't yet been fully signed. Catch up quick: The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit is due to rule soon on whether to uphold or overturn the Court of International Trade's late-May ruling striking down most of Trump's tariffs. Oral arguments were almost two weeks ago, but on Monday Sauer and Shumate filed a supplemental letter offering what they said were fresh reasons to preserve the tariffs. What they're saying: " If the United States were forced to pay back the trillions of dollars committed to us, America could go from strength to failure the moment such an incorrect decision took effect," they wrote. "These deals for trillions of dollars have been reached, and other countries have committed to pay massive sums of money. If the United States were forced to unwind these historic agreements, the President believes that a forced dissolution of the agreements could lead to a 1929-style result. "In such a scenario, people would be forced from their homes, millions of jobs would be eliminated, hard-working Americans would lose their savings, and even Social Security and Medicare could be threatened." Context: The various tariff agreements struck with the likes of Japan, South Korea and the EU include pledges to establish huge investment funds to finance projects in the United States, more than $1 trillion in total. But those aren't payments to the U.S., they're financing for future projects, and even there disputes are already arising about how much actual money the foreign governments will spend. The intrigue: Trump administration officials have said they have plans in place to replace the existing tariff program if the courts ultimately block it. But Sauer and Shumate's letter says those substitutes wouldn't be nearly as effective — something the administration has not conceded before. "Other tariff authorities that the President could potentially use are short-term, not nearly as powerful, and would render America captive to the abuses that it has endured from far more aggressive countries," they wrote.
