Questions Raised Over SNAP Costs Being Delayed for Some States
The bill, which is the centerpiece of President Donald Trump's domestic policy, introduces some new financial commitments for states that fail to hold down erroneous payments. Under the new rules, states would for the first time be required to pay toward the cost of SNAP benefits if they have an error payment rate of above 6 percent, starting in 2028. The U.S. Department of Agriculture currently funds the entire cost of benefits.
But carve-outs in the final bill mean that some states may be able to avoid paying, which Democrats have said is "hypocrisy."
The SNAP funding changes will mean that many already-strained state budgets will need to pay up if they fail to keep their error rate below 6 percent.
As it stands, based on 2024 error rates, 37 states will need to begin paying for a share of benefits, although there is time for states to reduce improper payments before the policy begins in 2028.
Under the legislation, starting in the 2028 fiscal year, states can use either 2025 or 2026 error rate to calculate the percentage of benefits it must pay. For 2029 and thereafter, states will use the payment error rate for the third fiscal year preceding the fiscal year for which the state share is being calculated. For example, in 2029, states will use the 2026 error rate to calculate the share.
However, the Republican-backed plan permits a two-year delay in implementation for states with payment error rates of about 13.34 percent or higher—a move Republicans say is intended to help states with high error rates reduce them.
Democratic Senators Amy Klobuchar of Minnesota and Brian Schatz of Hawaii have taken issue with the legislation. Klobuchar said that under the bill, Alaska, Florida, Georgia, Maryland, Massachusetts, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, Oregon and Washington, D.C., will be exempt from having to pay for a portion of benefits.
Alaska is a key state in the situation. Senator Lisa Murkowski cast a crucial vote for the bill to pass in the Senate last week after she secured the two-year reprieve for the states with the highest error rates. Alaska has the highest error rate in the country at 24.66 percent, which has come down significantly in recent years.
Glenn Thompson, chairman of the House Agriculture Committee, which oversees SNAP, said the Senate "had to add something to get to address that challenge that Alaska has."
"The goal is, from a functionality perspective, they need to get their error rate down as soon as possible, because when the time comes, and they have to start to pay, they don't want to be that high error rate that you're coming in now," he said.
But Klobuchar and Schatz have taken issue with the policy, which the Minnesota senator said was "absurd."
"The most absurd example of the hypocrisy of the Republican bill: they have now proposed delaying SNAP cuts FOR TWO YEARS ONLY FOR STATES with the highest error rates just to bury their help for Alaska," Klobuchar wrote on X, formerly Twitter.
Schatz said he had contacted Hawaii Governor Josh Green regarding the policy, and said the 10 states included in the reprieve are "the ones with the MOST ERRORS in administering the program."
Hawaii has made good work of reducing its erroneous payment rate, which now stands at 6.68 percent, a significant drop from 20.94 percent in 2023.
"And because he [Governor Josh Green] did good work in reducing the error rate by 15 percent, we are not exempt," Schatz said.
Senator Lisa Murkowski, an Alaska Democrat,on X following the passage of the OBBBA in the Senate: "In the SNAP program, we have added tribal exemptions for work requirements, delayed cost-share penalties to help Alaska get benefits to the people who need them, and included work requirement waivers that align with our Medicaid policies. We also secured commitments from the Secretary of Agriculture to provide additional flexibilities to Alaska for SNAP.
"But, let's not kid ourselves. This has been an awful process—a frantic rush to meet an artificial deadline that has tested every limit of this institution. While we have worked to improve the present bill for Alaska, it is not good enough for the rest of our nation—and we all know it."
Senator Brian Schatz, a Hawaii Democrat, on X: "We are being penalized. And if you keep your error rate high you get another year reprieve! This bill is chock full of crazy, stupid policies written in a hurry, some by hand, in the margins of a bill."
Related Articles
Here's When Each Part of Trump's 'Big, Beautiful Bill' Takes EffectWill You Be Better Off Under Trump's Big Beautiful Bill? What to KnowMap Shows How SNAP Bills Would Rise For States Under Trump BillSNAP Benefits Set to Change in Trump's Tax Bill: What to Know
2025 NEWSWEEK DIGITAL LLC.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
23 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Which way will the Senate swing in 2026? Minnesota is on the table
WASHINGTON – President Donald Trump's agenda in the second half of his second term will hinge on whether Republicans can maintain control of Congress in next year's midterm elections. In the Senate, where the GOP has a slim 53-47 majority, being the party in charge is vital for the president and his ability to pass key legislation priorities and confirm nominees, including any potential Supreme Court vacancies. Heading into 2026, congressional Republicans look to keep their legislative advantage but face the challenge of precedent. Often, the party that does not hold the White House fares better in midterm congressional elections. In need of a pick-me-up after last year's bruising presidential and congressional elections, Democrats are trying to flip the upper chamber back to blue by winning a handful of states scattered from the South to the Great Lakes. More: What to expect when you're expecting a GOP trifecta For their part, Republicans trying to defend their majority in next November's races must first weather some base-splitting primaries in which established GOP incumbents hope to hold on against challengers from inside their own party. Here are 11 Senate races to watch across the country heading into the 2026 midterm elections. 1. North Carolina More: Former North Carolina Gov. Roy Cooper announces run for Senate in a win for Democrats North Carolina's two-term senior senator, Republican Thom Tillis, announced in June that he would not be seeking reelection. His news, which Tillis called 'not a hard choice,' came as debates over Trump's sweeping tax, spending and policy bill engulfed Congress and pitted Republicans against one another. The news was music to Democrats' ears. Already a top target for the liberal party in next year's midterms, the North Carolina race was set to be one of the most competitive Senate battles in 2026, even with Tillis on the ballot. More: After Lara Trump opts out, president endorses RNC Chair Whatley for NC Senate race Now, the open seat has attracted high-profile contenders on both sides of the aisle. Former North Carolina Gov. Roy Cooper, a Democrat, announced his campaign formally on July 28 after weeks of speculation. On the Republican side, Lara Trump, the president's daughter-in-law and former co-chair of the Republican National Committee, said she considered jumping in. But after she announced July 24 that she would not run for the seat, President Trump gave his backing to Republican National Committee chair and former North Carolina GOP Chair Michael Whatley. Primary elections will be held March 3. 2. Michigan In Michigan, another retiring incumbent has set the stage for a toss-up race next year. Sen. Gary Peters, a Democrat, announced in January that he would not seek a third term representing the Great Lakes State in the Senate. More: Michigan's Gary Peters won't run for US Senate reelection next year His absence leaves the race open for either party's taking. Republican Mike Rogers, a former congressman with Trump's endorsement, is his party's expected nominee. Rogers ran in 2024 and lost narrowly to Democratic Sen. Elissa Slotkin. Among Democrats, Rep. Haley Stevens and state Sen. Mallory McMorrow lead the pack of 2026 candidates. Primary elections in the state will be held Aug. 4. Note to readers: If you appreciate the work we do here at The St. Cloud Times, please consider subscribing yourself or giving the gift of a subscription to someone you know. 3. Georgia Georgia's Democratic Sen. Jon Ossoff must fend off a pack of conservative lawmakers to hang on to his seat in 2026. Alongside fellow Georgia Democrat Sen. Raphael Warnock, Ossoff won a runnoff election in January 2021 that secured him a first term in Congress and his party a chamber majority. Once again, his race will be key in determining whether Democrats win control of the Senate. Republicans looking to unseat him include Rep. Buddy Carter, a former pharmacist who represents the Savannah area. Carter was first to throw his red hat in the ring. But others, including Rep. Mike Collins, have since joined the contest. Carter and Collins are coveting Trump's support, an endorsement that could carry weight with Georgia's deep-red electorate pockets. Georgia's primary elections are set for May 19. 4. Texas Texas Republican Sen. John Cornyn stands a good chance of winning a fifth term against a Democratic challenger next November in the red-leaning Lone Star State. But first, he must make it through what is promising to be a tough primary against the state's attorney general, Ken Paxton. Cornyn has served in the Senate since 2002, but early polls showed him down double digits to Paxton. More: Texas AG Ken Paxton's wife files for divorce 'on biblical grounds' National Republicans have expressed concern that Paxton, who has faced indictments, impeachment and, more recently, a very public divorce, could cost the GOP their safely held Texas seat in a general election. Democrat and former Rep. Colin Allred, who ran unsuccessfully against Sen. Ted Cruz in 2024, has announced his campaign for 2026. Texas state Rep. James Talarico has said he is 'seriously considering' a run as well. More: Former congressman Colin Allred launches 2026 campaign for US Senate Primary elections in the Lone Star State are set for March 3. 5. South Carolina Sen. Lindsey Graham, a Republican from South Carolina, has also drawn a GOP challenger in his 2026 bid for reelection. Paul Dans, the original author of Project 2025, a sweeping conservative agenda to overhaul the federal government, announced his candidacy at an event in Charleston July 30. More: Lindsey Graham gets Republican challenger: Project 2025 author to announce Senate bid The primary contest will likely pit MAGA voters in the Palmetto State against one another. Though Graham has been a regular target of criticism from Trump − displeased by the lawmaker at times breaking from the GOP leader − he is now an ally to the president and has already received Trump's 'complete and total endorsement.' Dans' primary challenge will be an uphill battle. Should Graham come out on top, he is heavily favored to win a fifth term representing the Palmetto State. A pack of Democrats are vying to face Graham or Dans in the general, though South Carolina is generally considered a safely red seat. Both party primaries will be held June 9. 6. Maine Sen. Susan Collins, R-Maine, is about to wrap her fifth term in the Senate, and while she has yet to formally announce her bid for reelection, many colleagues expect her to run again. Her position as one of the upper chamber's most independent voices has kept her in favor, and in office, with her left-leaning state, though Democrats still see this upcoming race as one of their top pickup opportunities if two-term Gov. Janet Mills decides to run. Collins has garnered a reputation for being one of the few congressional Republicans willing to tell Trump no. She voted against two of his major legislative priorities this summer – a sweeping tax and spending bill, as well as a $9 billion cut to public broadcasting and foreign aid funding – and has openly criticized some of the president's nominees. More: 'See you in court.' Trump, Maine governor clash in tense exchange at White House Willingness to oppose Trump typically comes with the president's full public ire – and often a MAGA-aligned primary opponent. But Collins is the only Republican senator to have won a state in which Democrats won the popular vote in 2024. Her unique position seems to, at least for now, have kept Trump from speaking out against who many view as the GOP's best chance to keep their seat in Maine. Several Democratic candidates have announced campaigns against Collins, including David Costello, who ran unsuccessfully against Maine's Independent Sen. Angus King in 2024. All eyes are most focused on Mills, the state governor who has also tussled with Trump but hasn't yet said whether she will run. Maine will have its primaries on June 9. 7. Minnesota Minnesota's Democratic Sen. Tina Smith announced earlier this year that she plans to retire at the end of her term, calling the decision "entirely personal." With the state's blue tilt, Smith's seat has a good chance of staying in Democrats' hands. 'Entirely personal': Democrat Tina Smith to not seek reelection in 2026 Minnesota Lt. Gov. Peggy Flanagan and Rep. Annie Craig are among the front-runners for their party's nomination. Minnesota Gov. Tim Walz, 2024 Democratic presidential nominee Kamala Harris' running mate, opted back in February not to run for the Senate. On the Republican side, former NBA player Royce White is running again after losing his bid against Sen. Amy Klobuchar in 2024. Former Navy SEAL Adam Schwarze has also announced his campaign for the GOP nomination. The Minnesota primaries will be held Aug. 11. 8. Ohio The Buckeye State represents one of Democrats' few pickup opportunities, and even then it will not be an easy flip. Republican Sen. Jon Husted was picked by Ohio's governor to fill the seat vacated by Vice President JD Vance at the start of the year, and Husted will be on the ballot next November to keep his spot. Ohio has become reliably red in recent years, making the fight to flip it tough for Democrats. Their best shot probably is former Democratic Sen. Sherrod Brown, who lost his bid for reelection last year to Sen. Bernie Moreno. Axios reported that Brown met with Minority Leader Chuck Schumer in late July as part of the top Senate Democrat's efforts to lobby Brown to run again. 9. New Hampshire Democratic Sen. Jeanne Shaheen of New Hampshire announced she would not be seeking another term in 2026 either. Democratic Rep. Chris Pappas, who launched his campaign in April, is widely seen as a strong contender to succeed Shaheen. More: Former GOP Massachusetts Senator Scott Brown running for Senate in New Hampshire Republican Scott Brown, a former Massachusetts senator and former ambassador to New Zealand and Samoa in Trump's first term, is among a handful of candidates competing on the GOP side. Like Minnesota, Cook Political Report has rated New Hampshire's race leaning Democrat. 10. Iowa In Iowa, Sen. Joni Ernst, a Republican, has the advantage, with Cook Political Report rating her race likely Republican. Three Democrats so far have launched bids in hopes of beating those odds: Nathan Sage, the former chamber of commerce director from Knoxville; state Rep. J.D. Scholten; and state Sen. Zach Wahls. More: Iowa Democratic Rep. and minor league pitcher J.D. Scholten to run against Sen. Joni Ernst Trump's sweeping tax, spending and policy bill, passed into law earlier this summer, is expected to be a defining issue in Iowa's race. Ernst was one of 50 Senate Republicans who voted in favor of the legislation, which her Democratic opponents decried as a move "to gut Medicaid for hundreds of thousands of Iowa children and families." Iowa's primary is set for June 2. 11. Nebraska Nebraska is widely seen as a Republican stronghold with incumbent GOP Sen. Pete Ricketts, though there could be a surprisingly competitive race in 2026 with Independent candidate Dan Osborn jumping back into a statewide election. More: Nebraska independent Dan Osborn could be poised to shake up U.S. Senate Osborn came within 7 percentage points of beating Sen. Deb Fischer in 2024, a closer-than-expected margin in the GOP-dominated state. Osborn, a former labor leader, is a registered Independent but received campaign contributions from Democrats in his last campaign (money he told NBC he did not ask for). Ricketts, a former Nebraska governor and part owner with his family of the Chicago Cubs, is running for a full term after being appointed to the job in January 2023 upon the resignation of Republican Sen. Ben Sasse. Sign up for our alerts to receive the latest updates on important news. This article originally appeared on USA TODAY: Who will win Senate majority in 11 2026 key races, including Minnesota
Miami Herald
24 minutes ago
- Miami Herald
Who do tariffs help? What Americans say in poll as Trump unveils new levies
A greater share of Americans would like to see President Donald Trump's tariffs scaled back than expanded, according to a new Economist/YouGov poll. And most Americans believe his tariffs will drive up prices and put a heavier burden on U.S. consumers. The survey comes after Trump signed an executive order on July 31 imposing sweeping new levies — between 10% and 41% — on imports from about 70 countries. These are set to go into effect on Aug. 7, providing a short window for negotiations. Trump, who previously issued a 10% baseline tariff on all imports in April, in addition to sector-specific levies, has said the unprecedented measures are necessary to counter unfair trade practices. 'Tariffs are making America GREAT & RICH Again,' the president said in a post on Truth Social. 'They were successfully used against the USA for decades. … Now the tide has completely turned, and America has successfully countered this onslaught of Tariffs used against it.' Many economists, meanwhile, are wary of widespread tariffs, arguing they will boost inflation, raise prices and result in job losses. The poll also comes after the Labor Department's latest jobs report, released on Aug. 1, found weaker-than-expected employment growth in July. As a result, Trump fired the head of the Bureau of Labor Statistics, claiming the report was 'rigged.' Here is a breakdown of the results from the poll. A much larger share of Americans want U.S. tariff rates to be decreased rather than increased, according to the poll, which sampled 1,777 U.S. adults July 25-28. A plurality, 41%, said rates should be lowered, while 18% said they should be raised. An additional 23% said they should be kept the same. The poll — which has a margin of error of about 3.5 percentage points — also asked respondents, 'who is is most helped and hurt by tariff increases?' A majority, 54%, said American consumers are hurt the most, while far fewer said foreign manufacturers (22%), foreign consumers (4%) and U.S. manufacturers (3%). Meanwhile, a plurality, 28%, said American manufacturers are helped the most by tariff increases. Smaller shares said U.S. consumers (11%), foreign manufacturers (6%) and foreign consumers (1%). Additionally, the vast majority of respondents, 71%, said they believe Trump's tariffs will lead to higher prices, with 43% saying prices will increase 'a lot' and 28% saying they will rise 'a little.' Just 9% said they expect tariffs will lead to lower prices. Most Democrats and Republicans — 87% and 55%, respectively — agreed that levies will result in higher prices.
Fast Company
24 minutes ago
- Fast Company
What to know about Trump's court battle over tariffs
A federal appeals panel on Thursday appeared skeptical of U.S. President Donald Trump 's argument that a 1977 law historically used for sanctioning enemies or freezing their assets gave him the power to impose tariffs. Regardless of how the court rules, the litigation is almost certainly headed to the U.S. Supreme Court. Here is what you need to know about the dispute, which Trump has called 'America's big case,' and how it is likely to play out in the months ahead. What is the case about? The litigation challenges the tariffs Trump imposed on a broad range of U.S. trading partners in April, as well as tariffs imposed in February against China Canada and Mexico. It centers around Trump's use of the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA), which gives the president the power to address 'unusual and extraordinary' threats during national emergencies. Trump has said that trade imbalances, declining manufacturing power and the cross-border flow of drugs justified the tariffs under IEEPA. A dozen Democratic-led states and five small U.S. businesses challenging the tariffs argue that IEEPA does not cover tariffs and that the U.S. Constitution grants Congress, not the president, authority over tariffs and other taxes. A loss for Trump would also undermine the latest round of sweeping tariffs on dozens of countries that he unveiled late Thursday. Trump has made tariffs a cornerstone of his economic plan, arguing they will promote domestic manufacturing and substitute for income taxes. What's the status of the litigation? The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit heard oral arguments on Thursday in the case. The panel of 11 judges sharply questioned the government about Trump's use of IEEPA, but did not rule from the bench. The Federal Circuit has not said when it will issue a decision, but its briefing schedule suggests it intends to move quickly. Meanwhile, the tariffs remain in effect after the Federal Circuit paused a lower court's ruling declaring them illegal. Will Trump's tariffs be blocked if he loses in court? A Federal Circuit ruling would almost certainly not end the litigation, as the losing party is expected to appeal to the Supreme Court. If the Federal Circuit rules against Trump, the court could put its own ruling on hold while the government appeals to the Supreme Court. This approach would maintain the status quo and allow the nine justices to consider the matter more thoroughly. The justices themselves could also issue an 'administrative stay' that would temporarily pause the Federal Circuit's decision while it considers a request from the Justice Department for more permanent relief. Is the Supreme Court likely to step in? The Supreme Court is not obligated to review every case appealed to it, but it is widely expected to weigh in on Trump's tariffs because of the weighty constitutional questions at the heart of the case. If the Federal Circuit rules in the coming weeks, there is still time for the Supreme Court to add the case to its regular docket for the 2025-2026 term, which begins on October 6. The Supreme Court could rule before the end of the year, but that would require it to move quickly. How might the Supreme Court rule? There is no consensus among court-watchers about what the Supreme Court will do. Critics of Trump's tariffs are optimistic their side will win. They point to the Supreme Court's decision from 2023 that blocked President Joe Biden from forgiving student loan debt. In that ruling, the justices limited the authority of the executive branch to take action on issues of 'vast economic and political significance' except where Congress has explicitly authorized the action. The justices in other cases, however, have endorsed a broad view of presidential power, especially when it comes to foreign affairs. Can importers seek refunds for tariffs paid? If Trump loses at the Supreme Court, importers are likely to seek refunds of tariffs already paid. This would be a lengthy process given the large number of anticipated claims. Federal regulations dictate that such requests would be first heard by U.S. Customs and Border Protection. If that agency denies a refund request, the importer can appeal to the Court of International Trade. There is precedent for tariff refund requests being granted. Since May, CBP has been processing refunds to importers who inadvertently overpaid duties because of tariff 'stacking' — where multiple overlapping tariffs are applied to the same imports. And in the 1990s, after the Court of International Trade struck down a tax on exporters that was being used to finance improvements to U.S. harbors, the court set up a process for issuing refunds. That decision was upheld by both the Federal Circuit and the Supreme Court. Would a courtroom defeat unravel Trump's trade deals? Trump has used the threat of emergency tariffs as leverage to secure concessions from trading partners. A loss at the Supreme Court would hamstring Trump in future negotiations. The White House, however, has other ways of imposing tariffs, like a 1962 law that allows the president to investigate imports that threaten national security. Trump has already used that law to put tariffs on steel and aluminum imports, and those levies are not at issue in the case before the Federal Circuit. Some legal experts say a loss for Trump at the Supreme Court would not impact bilateral trade agreements the U.S. has already inked with other countries. Others say that the trade deals alone might not provide sufficient legal authority for taxes on imports and may need to be approved by Congress.
