
Farm Bill passes House committee with $300B SNAP cuts. What it means for 3 million Texans
A sweeping Farm Bill that includes $300 billion in cuts to food assistance programs has cleared the U.S. House Agriculture Committee, raising concerns for millions of Texans who rely on these benefits to put food on the table.
Traditionally bipartisan, the Farm Bill has become a point of sharp political contention, primarily over funding for the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP). House Republicans are pushing to reduce SNAP funding by up to $300 billion over the next decade, citing fiscal responsibility and a desire to shift resources toward other agricultural priorities. Democrats oppose the cuts, warning they would deepen food insecurity, especially in rural communities where SNAP is widely used.
Last year, the Farm Bill reached this same stage but stalled in Congress due to political divisions over proposed SNAP cuts, then at a significantly lower amount of $30 billion. Since then, changes in congressional leadership have increased that figure tenfold, intensifying the partisan divide. These disagreements prevented the bill from advancing, leading lawmakers to abandon the effort and extend the 2018 Farm Bill for another year as elections approached and political sensitivities around food assistance grew.
Originally set to expire in 2023, the Farm Bill — typically renewed every five years — has since been extended twice, with the current extension set to expire on Sept. 30, 2025.
The House Agriculture Committee voted 29-25 along party lines to advance legislation that would cut up to $300 billion in food aid spending to help fund Republicans' domestic policy megabill and some farm programs. The vote sends the measure to the House Budget Committee for further consideration before a full House floor vote.
If passed, the GOP proposal would create the largest overhaul in decades to SNAP, which helps more than 42 million Americans afford food, by requiring states to share the cost of SNAP benefits. The ongoing standoff over SNAP funding remains the main obstacle to passing a new Farm Bill, placing vital programs for both farmers and low-income families at risk.
Rep. Nikki Budzinski (D-Illinois) told Brownfield Ag News late last month that many Democrats voted against last year's Farm Bill draft because of the potential cuts, which were far less. With that number now increasing significantly, it is unclear whether this draft will advance further or if the bill will become gridlocked again.
With Republicans now controlling the House, Senate, and the presidency, the new Farm Bill is expected to reflect more conservative priorities, including a focus on fiscal responsibility, spending reductions and shifts in resource allocation.
SNAP, the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, is a federal program that helps low-income Americans buy food.
More than 42 million people across the United States receive SNAP benefits, including approximately 3.5 million Texans, according to the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities. In Texas, over $600 million in benefits are loaded each month onto Lone Star cards for families in need.
Benefit amounts vary by household size. According to the USDA, the maximum monthly SNAP benefits are:
1 person: $292
2 people: $536
3 people: $768
4 people: $975
5 people: $1,158
6 people: $1,390
7 people: $1,536
8 people: $1,756
Each additional person: $220
Only two Texans currently serve on the U.S. House Agriculture Committee: Rep. Ronny Jackson (R-13), who represents the Amarillo area, and Rep. Monica De La Cruz (R-15), whose district includes McAllen. Both were appointed to the committee for the 118th Congress, which began in January 2023.
The committee's recent 29-25 vote on the Farm Bill was a strict party-line split, with all Republicans voting in favor and all Democrats opposed. This means both Texas lawmakers supported the SNAP cuts included in the legislation.
De La Cruz has been particularly outspoken in her support for the Farm Bill and its proposed changes. While she acknowledges that approximately 25% of her district's population relies on SNAP benefits, she has raised concerns about what she sees as excessive allocations and potential abuse within the program.
'I want to be very clear: I support SNAP and the benefits that SNAP gives to families who are in a time of need," she said in a hearing last month. "Many South Texans really need and rely on this critical program for their family and for feeding their family. I take it personal when I hear tactics and fear mongering and rhetoric from the other side of the aisle because you're talking about my people. You're talking about people that I live with and in my community."
At the same time, De La Cruz criticized the Democratic Party's portrayal of the Republican effort to cut SNAP funding, describing it as exaggerated and misleading. She argued that, what she described as 'fear tactics,' unfairly paint Republicans as unsympathetic to struggling families, when in her view, the intent is to protect the program's long-term viability by addressing fraud and abuse.
'We need to stop the rhetoric and really the fear tactics when it comes to talking about SNAP and the work we're trying to do in this committee which is to truly give those people who are most in need the benefit that they need," De La Cruz said. "No American should go home and should sleep hungry. Period.'
"It's important that we protect this program because it's feeding people in my community. That being said, we must cut out the fraud and abuse to ensure those that rightfully need this program is in place not for today but for tomorrow," she added.
However, not everyone agrees with De La Cruz's framing of the issue. The Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee (DCCC) sharply criticized her vote, accusing her of siding with wealthy interests at the expense of vulnerable Texans.
'While Monica De La Cruz pretends to care about working Texas families and farmers, the only people she's really fighting for are the wealthy benefactors of Republican's tax cuts for billionaires," said DCCC Spokesperson Madison Andrus after last week's vote. "This bill will rip food off the tables of her district's most vulnerable children and take money directly out of farmers' pockets – De La Cruz's vote is a direct betrayal of the very people she vowed to protect and Texas' 15th won't forget it.'
The proposed Farm Bill includes several key changes aimed at supporting farmers and agricultural producers.
Price Loss Coverage (PLC) reference prices increased by 10% to 20%: PLC is a safety net program that helps farmers when market prices for certain crops fall below a set reference price. Raising these reference prices means farmers could receive higher payments to cover losses if crop prices drop.
Agriculture Risk Coverage (ARC) guarantee raised to 90%: ARC provides revenue support if a farmer's crop income falls below a certain percentage of their historical average. Increasing the guarantee to 90% means farmers will be protected against a greater share of income loss during bad crop years.
Expansion of eligible base acres by 30 million acres: Base acres are the land areas used to calculate subsidy payments. Expanding eligible acres allows more farmland to qualify for support payments, potentially increasing the number of acres that farmers can receive assistance for.
Payment limit increase from $125,000 to $155,000, indexed to inflation: Farm subsidy payments to individual producers are capped to prevent excessive payouts. Raising the limit allows farmers to receive higher payments, with the cap adjusted over time to keep up with inflation.
Crop insurance support — Increasing Supplemental Coverage Option (SCO) premium subsidies from 65% to 80%: SCO is a type of crop insurance that helps cover losses beyond standard policies. Increasing premium subsidies means farmers pay less out of pocket for this insurance, making it more affordable to protect their crops.
Environmental Quality Incentives Program (EQIP) funding rises from $2.66 billion in fiscal year 2026 to $3.26 billion by fiscal year 2031. EQIP helps farmers implement conservation practices like soil health and water quality improvements.
Conservation Stewardship Program (CSP) funding increases from $1.3 billion in 2026 to $1.38 billion in 2031. CSP rewards farmers who maintain high environmental stewardship on their land.
Members of Congress who sit on the Senate and House Committees on Agriculture, Nutrition and Forestry are primarily responsible for drafting farm bills.
The Farm Bill is a $1.5 trillion program that consists of a lot more than just crops and livestock. In fact, it impacts everyone in one way or another, whether through school lunch and government assistance or support of natural resources, such as our forests.
The legislation is broken into 12 sections, or titles. Each title addresses different aspects of agriculture and related sectors. Here's a summary of each title:
Commodities: Covers price and income support for farmers producing non-perishable crops, dairy and sugar, along with agricultural disaster assistance.
Conservation: Includes programs for natural resource conservation on working lands and land retirement and easement programs.
Trade: Covers food export subsidy programs and international food aid.
Nutrition: Encompasses SNAP and other nutrition programs to assist low-income Americans, as well as school lunches.
Credit: Focuses on federal loan programs to help farmers access financial credit.
Rural development: Supports rural economic growth through business and community development, rural housing and infrastructure.
Research, extension, and related matters: Funds farm and food research, education and extension programs.
Forestry: Addresses forest-specific conservation programs.
Energy: Encourages biofuel production, renewable energy installation and energy-related research.
Horticulture: Includes farmers market programs, research funding for horticultural crops and organic farming initiatives.
Crop Insurance: Provides subsidies for crop insurance premiums and supports the development of insurance policies.
Miscellaneous: Covers various advocacy and outreach areas such as support for beginning, socially disadvantaged, and veteran farmers, agricultural labor safety, workforce development and livestock health.
This article originally appeared on Austin American-Statesman: Farm Bill advances with cuts to food stamps. How many Texans use SNAP?
Hashtags

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles


Newsweek
28 minutes ago
- Newsweek
Stop Posting, and Start Legislating—A Message to the GOP from Gen Z
We remember. We remember the Paul Ryan years. We remember the lofty promises, the press conferences with tax cut charts, the selfies with Trump in the Roosevelt Room. And we remember the disappointment—because when Republicans controlled the House, Senate, and White House, barely anything bold got done. The border wasn't secured. Obamacare wasn't repealed. The swamp wasn't drained. The only thing that moved quickly was the clock—and opportunity slipped away. The bills stalled. The hearings dragged. The excuses piled up. And in the end, the status quo won. Again. A Make America Great Again (MAGA) baseball hat supporting President Donald Trump is pictured. A Make America Great Again (MAGA) baseball hat supporting President Donald Trump is here we are again. President Donald Trump is back in the Oval Office. Conservatives have momentum. The political stars are aligned like they haven't been in years. And yet? The same old D.C. inertia is setting in. Congress is snoozing through a once-in-a-generation opportunity to deliver real change. There's no sense of urgency. No fire. No strategy. Just more performative politics as usual. The difference is: this time, we're paying attention. Gen Z conservatives didn't get off the couch and show up to the ballot box to watch history repeat itself. We're tired of politicians who post more than they produce. House and Senate Republicans—stop acting like influencers and start acting like lawmakers. You don't get to post selfies with Elon Musk or tweet your appreciation to DOGE if you won't even codify basic spending cuts like the DOGE Act. You can't coast on vibes while the country's on fire. You were sent to legislate, not livestream. You weren't elected to trend on X—you were elected to fix what's broken. Brilyn Hollyhand and President Donald Trump are pictured at the University of Alabama on May 1, 2025. Brilyn Hollyhand and President Donald Trump are pictured at the University of Alabama on May 1, 2025. Photo Courtesy of the White House Despite facing one of the most pivotal moments in modern political history, Congress still isn't working full weeks. Many lawmakers fly in Tuesday afternoon and are wheels-up by Thursday. Three-day workweeks in the middle of a national crisis? That's not leadership—that's laziness. Meanwhile, families across America are grinding five, six, even seven days a week just to stay afloat. Blue-collar workers don't get to call it a week by Wednesday night. Neither should the people writing our laws. If our representatives can't even put in a full week's work during a make-or-break presidency, maybe they don't deserve the job. I will never forget my first ever dinner with a U.S. senator. It was my 12th birthday, and we were in D.C., eating downtown after I had recorded some episodes of my podcast on Capitol Hill. He leaned across the table to me and said, "Brilyn, the first thing you're going to learn in this business is that in politics there are work horses and show horses. The work horses bring home the pork for the state that sent them there. The show horses run to the TV cameras. Be a work horse, and only join a cable show when you have an accomplishment to tout." That stuck with me—and I'm reminded of it right now more than ever. Because D.C. is overflowing with show horses. They gallop into every hearing, prance onto every panel, and leave before the hard work begins. This isn't just about optics. This is about outcomes. Republicans were given a second chance to do what they promised the first time. It's not enough to give speeches about the border. Close it. It's not enough to post videos in front of the IRS. Defund it. It's not enough to warn about weaponized government. Dismantle it. This is the moment to act, not admire the problem. Stop playacting reform—deliver it. The base isn't looking for another firebrand quote; we're looking for a signed bill. We're not asking for the moon—we're demanding that you work. Get off the couch. Get off cable news. And get legislation on the president's desk. Defund the weaponized bureaucracy. Close the border. Cut the waste. Stop acting like your job is to coast to retirement and start acting like your job is to represent us. If you need inspiration, look outside the Beltway—real Americans are hustling every day without fanfare. Why can't Congress? Gen Z is watching. And we have receipts. We're the most online, most informed, and most fed-up generation to ever engage in politics. We can see through the talking points. We recognize when someone's all flash and no follow-through. And we're not afraid to call it out—publicly, loudly, and often. You can't gaslight us with headlines. You can't distract us with Instagram posts. We see the floor schedule. We track the votes. We know the difference between working and pretending. If the GOP wastes another Trump term, it won't just be a policy failure—it'll be a generational betrayal. My generation won't forget. We didn't come this far just to watch you do nothing, again. We showed up because we believe in a different future—one that isn't dictated by lobbyists, legacy institutions, and leadership that loves the camera more than the country. Clock in, Congress. Or clock out—and make room for someone who will. Brilyn Hollyhand is an 18-year-old political commentator, chairman of the Republican National Committee's Youth Advisory Council, and bestselling author of One Generation Away: Why Now is the Time to Restore American Freedom. For more of his hot takes you can follow him on socials @BrilynHollyhand or visit The views expressed in this article are the writer's own.


The Hill
29 minutes ago
- The Hill
Illinois Republican mistakes Sikh for Muslim, calls him delivering prayer in House ‘deeply troubling'
Rep. Mary Miller (R-Ill.) said it was 'deeply disturbing' that a Sikh delivered a prayer in the House chamber on Friday — after apparently mistaking him for a Muslim man. The since-deleted post Friday morning sparked immediate bipartisan criticism. 'It's deeply troubling that a Muslim was allowed to lead prayer in the House of Representatives this morning. This should never have been allowed to happen,' Miller said in a post on X. 'America was founded as a Christian nation, and I believe our government should reflect that truth, not drift further from it. May God have mercy!' She attached a photo of the guest chaplain, who was wearing a yellow turban, leading the customary prayer that occurs every day at the opening of the House floor. But the guest chaplain was not a Muslim, but a Sikh: Giani Surinder Singh of Gurdwara South Jersey Sikh Society in Vineland, N.J. Speaker Mike Johnson (R-La.), who opened the floor, had introduced the guest chaplain. Miller later edited her post on X to replace 'Muslim' with 'Sikh' before deleting the post altogether. Her office did not respond to a request for comment about the incident. The House has long welcomed guest chaplains from many types of faiths — including Muslims, with a Muslim guest chaplain notably reading from the Quran in November 2001 following the 9/11 terror attacks. Members of Congress regularly invite guest chaplains to deliver prayers Miller's post sparked bipartisan condemnation. Rep. David Valadao (R-Calif.) said on X he was 'troubled' by the post. 'Throughout the country—and in the Central Valley— Sikh-Americans are valued and respected members of our communities, yet they continue to face harassment and discrimination.' 'While yes, we are a nation rooted in Judeo-Christian values and our laws reflect that, we are also a nation that recognizes we are all God's children and whatever our differences, we can and should respect differences of faith,' added Rep. Mike Lawler (R-N.Y.) in another post commenting on Miller's post. Democrats, meanwhile, went much further in their criticism. 'Our country was founded on the Constitution – which happens to care enough about freedom of religion that it's in the very first amendment,' Rep. Veronica Escobar (D-Texas) said in a post responding to Miller. 'Not only is this racist, it dishonors the 'founding document' you referenced.' Singh, during his prayer, had called for peace. 'Almighty God …. We call you by many names, sir. But you are one. Keep your devine hand over the members of this House … Keep truth on our tongues, sir, love in our hearts, and sound judgement in our minds. Remind us, sir, of our purpose: To love and serve one another and create a more peaceful world. We ask you for blessings unto all leaders, sir, and their work for the common good. Give all who govern this land humility and courage, integrity and compassion,' Singh said. 'Help us remember that we belong to one family.' 'We ask for the almighty also to keep watch over our nation's protectors who work tirelessly day and night to ensure our safety and our freedom,' Singh also said.


Boston Globe
33 minutes ago
- Boston Globe
‘Bottle bill' battle intensifies as R.I. legislative session enters home stretch
Bottles placed in recycling bins end up being crushed and spread on the Central Landfill, leaving Rhode Island with a 'despicable' 17 percent recycling rate, she said. 'That's pathetic for a state like us, the Ocean State,' McEntee said. 'Something needs to change drastically.' But that's where the disagreement begins. McEntee and Senator Mark P. McKenney have introduced Advertisement 'I think all of us here today are sick and tired of seeing our communities littered with drink bottles, liquor nips, and other pieces of the trash,' McEntee said. " It's long overdue that Rhode Island enters the modern age of waste disposal and reuse by combining the proven and successful strategies of a bottle bill program." Get Rhode Map A weekday briefing from veteran Rhode Island reporters, focused on the things that matter most in the Ocean State. Enter Email Sign Up But the Greater Providence of Chamber of Commerce and other business groups are waging a high-profile 'Our members support increasing the state's recycling rate but not by imposing a financial burden on local businesses and consumers,' the Rhode Island Business Coalition said in written testimony. 'By adding a 10-cent fee to nearly every beverage sold in the state, these proposals would raise prices for retailers working to keep their shelves stocked — and for families simply trying to afford everyday essentials like bottled water and soft drinks." Related : Advertisement Bottle bills have been introduced off and on in Rhode Island since the early 1980s, but they have run into stiff opposition from the national beverage companies and local retailers. The most recent push began in 2023. McEntee, a South Kingstown Democrat, and McKenney, a Warwick Democrat, co-chaired a special legislative commission that delved into the issue for 18 months. Jed Thorp, director of advocacy for the environmental group Save the Bay, said the commission held 13 meetings, and the House and Senate have had about 15 hours of committee hearings on the topic. 'Every person in the state who's wanted to weigh in on this has been heard,' he said. 'At this point, it is time to vote on this bill. It is time to get this done.' Thorp said the study commission heard from experts from across the country. 'Through all of those hearings, it has become clear that yes, bottle bills work,' he said. 'Bottle bills we know are effective at both reducing litter and improving recycling.' Thorp said advocates listened to opponents who said they support bottle bills if they are crafted in the right way. For example, retailers said they did not want to have to take back the empty containers. So the bill would require a producer responsibility organization to instead create a system that might involve 'bag-drop programs' or 'reverse vending machines,' he said. But on Wednesday, a coalition of 73 small business owners signed onto a letter urging Governor Daniel J. McKee, House Speaker K. Joseph Shekarchi, and Senate President Valarie J. Lawson to reject the 'bottle bill.' Advertisement 'This legislation will raise costs for businesses and Rhode Island families at a time when many are already struggling with high prices due to inflation,' the coalition said. 'The cost of living and doing business in Rhode Island keeps going up, and this legislation would make matters worse.' The coalition includes businesses such as Eastside Mart in Providence, Iggy's Food Mart in Warren, Ollie's Pub in Warwick, and Sam's Food Store Woonsocket. While 10 cents per container may not sound like much, a 12-pack of soda would cost an extra $1.20, the coalition said. 'Rhode Island consumers and businesses cannot afford a bottle tax,' the letter stated. Both McEntee and McKenney disputed the idea that the 10-cent deposit amounts to a tax. 'This isn't a bottle tax,' McKenney said. 'I've been paying taxes for years, and I've never gotten all my money back. With this — real easy — you return the bottles, you get the money back." Ten states have bottle bills, including 'It's not like this is reinventing a wheel,' McKenney said. 'This is done in many states. My gosh, in Europe it's done in countries left and right.' Sam Tracy, director of legislative affairs for the CLYNK bottle recycling company, spoke at Thursday's news conference, saying the company's technology is used in five of the 10 bottle bill states. He said he also was representing a coalition of businesses that support legislation combining a 'bottle bill' with extended producer responsibility. That coalition includes Poland Spring, Guinness, and Red Bull, as well as local businesses like the Hot Club, and Frog & Toad, both in Providence. Advertisement With the 2025 legislative session entering its final weeks, the fate of the 'bottle bill' hangs in the balance. So what do legislative leaders have to say? Lawson, who is a cosponsor of the Shekarchi also issued a statement Friday, saying he appreciates the legislative commission's work during the past the past two sessions. 'I am reviewing all the options, looking at what other states are doing, and talking with the Senate,' Shekarchi said. 'I am fortunate to be receiving advice and guidance on this issue from former DEM Director Janet Coit, and will continue to consider the options.' Edward Fitzpatrick can be reached at