Farm Bill passes House committee with $300B SNAP cuts. What it means for 3 million Texans
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
Time Magazine
a few seconds ago
- Time Magazine
Texas's New Map Is Racial Division by Another Name
I represent the people of El Paso, Texas in the state legislature, a west Texas district that is a 14-hour drive away from the Louisiana border. Yet, data from the Texas Legislative Council indicates that the congressional lines Republicans are rushing through Austin manages to somehow knit 90% of the state's white voting power across that entire expanse—while slicing Latino and Black communities into pieces so small they have little power to choose their own representatives. Fueled by rapid Latino population growth, Texas has amassed new congressional seats. But these gains have not strengthened the political voice of the communities driving that growth. Instead, Texas Republicans have, in my view, used racial engineering to make sure Texans of color cannot meaningfully influence elections for Congress or the state legislature. Latinos now make up a larger share of Texas's 31 million population than in California, the state often considered the Latino capital of America. Texas also has more Black residents than Georgia, despite Georgia's reputation as a center of Black political power. Nearly 60% of Texans are people of color, and 95% of the state's population growth in the past decade has come from those communities. Despite this reality, Texas's new congressional lines position white voters to decide at least 26 of the state's 38 congressional seats—putting power in the hands of white voters by design, not accident. In another three districts, a 'Latino majority' exists only on paper: map-drawers split cohesive barrios, added high-turnout Anglo precincts, and minimized the share of voting-age Latino citizens, handing the keys to white voters in these districts as well. Together, the racially-engineered 26 white-majority seats—plus the three manufactured 'Latino' seats—is how the federal and state government openly conspired to gain additional Republican congressional seats. But the Trump Administration's ambitions come at the expense of Latino and Black Texans. Here's the blunt math on the Texas Republican proposal: under this map, my team and I estimate it would take roughly 445,000 white residents to secure one member of Congress, but about 1.4 million Latino residents and 2 million Black residents to secure the same. In effect, the political 'worth' of a Latino Texan is cut to one‑third of a white Texan's, and for Black Texans, to one‑fifth. On paper the districts are equal in population; in practice the map assigns unequal electoral weight across racial lines. This means that the value of one Latino resident's vote is worth just one-third the value of one white resident, and a black resident is one-fifth; it would take three Latino Texans, or five Black Texans, to equal the voting power of a single white Texan. Republicans insist this is just politics. But Texas has a long, well‑documented history of crossing the line from hardball politics to what I would define as unlawful racial engineering. In 2006, the Supreme Court threw out a South Texas district for unlawfully diluting Latino voting strength after a mid‑decade redraw. Federal courts found problems with parts of the state's 2011 maps, too. Texas operated under federal 'preclearance' for decades because of past discrimination. When Shelby County v. Holder in 2013 removed that guardrail, it invited states like Texas to test the limits—passing racially engineered maps that can stand for years while litigation drags on, yielding short-term gains of up to five additional U.S. House seats. Courts have recently required more Black opportunity districts in Alabama and allowed a second Black district to stand for now in Louisiana, underscoring that the Voting Rights Act still means something when states overreach. Texas, meanwhile, is moving in the opposite direction. Some Republicans argue that growing GOP support among a subset of Latino voters in Texas justifies these lines. But even if you accept their premise, the Voting Rights Act is about opportunity, not partisan outcomes—ensuring communities of color can form districts where they have a realistic chance to elect their preferred candidates, regardless of party. Here, the state is doing the opposite: cracking and packing Latino and Black neighborhoods to reduce the number of such districts. This potential racial engineering sidelines communities of color and ensures they cannot meaningfully influence elections for Congress or the state legislature. If this plan passes, Texas Latinos could become the most underrepresented racial or ethnic group in all 50 states. The level of under-representation in Texas's proposal far exceeds the disparities that courts already forced Alabama and Louisiana to correct. Maps like this do not merely entrench a party; they entrench a racial hierarchy. By cracking Latino barrios and Black neighborhoods, dismantling multi-racial districts, and fine-tuning the citizen-voting-age share to keep those communities just below the thresholds where they can elect their candidates of choice, the lines ensure white voting blocs remain decisive—even inside districts labeled 'Latino.' That is racial vote dilution: it denies Latino and Black Texans an equal opportunity to translate population into seats, and it teaches a generation that their ballots carry less electoral weight because of race, not ideas. A government that is not accountable to Latino and Black Texans teaches children early that their voices don't count. Their families, who pay taxes, work hard, and build this state, are told their votes will be discounted by design and that representation can be rationed by color. When districts are drawn to dilute their votes, the message is that citizenship is conditional and equal protection negotiable. That is the very struggle the civil rights movement sought to end: government may not target voters based on race and then claim neutrality at the ballot box. We have seen this before, from literacy tests to poll taxes—different tools, same result, keeping power just out of reach. A true democracy demands maps that make our government accountable to all of its people, not just the ones it prefers.
Wall Street Journal
a few seconds ago
- Wall Street Journal
Why I Won't Give Up on Balancing the Budget
Kimberley A. Strassel warns of the 'The Risk of Reconciliation 2.0' (Potomac Watch, Aug. 15). I wish I could offer arguments proving her wrong, but I can't. Avoiding a massive automatic tax increase, renewing business investment incentives and funding border security were what made passage of the One Big Beautiful Bill essential. Those elements were a chip shot for Republicans, and the leverage used to get votes for spending reductions. The reason I pushed so hard for returning to a reasonable pre-pandemic level of spending in that bill was that I believed it was probably the only opportunity we would have of passing significant spending reduction. Because of my resistance, I was offered assurances and funding for a line-by-line, program-by-program review of the entire budget—excluding Social Security and Medicare. We have been working with the Office of Management and Budget to determine how a rigorous review process can be structured. Any appropriated funds for this effort that aren't needed will be rescinded.
Newsweek
a few seconds ago
- Newsweek
Donald Trump's Jimmy Carter Comment Trashed by Former Colleague
Based on facts, either observed and verified firsthand by the reporter, or reported and verified from knowledgeable sources. Newsweek AI is in beta. Translations may contain inaccuracies—please refer to the original content. A former colleague of Jimmy Carter has hit back after President Donald Trump misrepresented the former Democratic president's view on mail-in voting. On Monday, during an Oval Office meeting with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky, Trump railed against the use of mail-in ballots, saying it was "a fraud," and brought up a 2005 commission into election reform co-chaired by Carter and former Republican Secretary of State James Baker. "If you have mail-in, even Jimmy Carter with his commission, they set it up. He said, 'The one thing about mail-in voting, you will never have an honest election if you have mail-in,'" Trump told reporters as Zelensky watched on. Now, John Williams, an adviser to Baker, has told Newsweek that "such a notion goes against President Carter's thoughts about mail-in voting." President Donald Trump meets with Ukraine's President Volodymyr Zelenskyy in the Oval Office at the White House, Monday, Aug. 18, 2025, in Washington. President Donald Trump meets with Ukraine's President Volodymyr Zelenskyy in the Oval Office at the White House, Monday, Aug. 18, 2025, in Washington. AP Photo/Julia Demaree Nikhinson Why It Matters Trump's comments come as he and his party face a challenging road to the 2026 midterms. Though Republicans control the White House and both chambers of Congress, recent polling shows the GOP is struggling with voter dissatisfaction. By reviving attacks on mail-in voting, Trump appears to be laying the groundwork to question the legitimacy of potential losses ahead of what could be a damaging cycle for Republicans. What To Know Williams worked on the Commission on Federal Election Reform 20 years ago alongside Baker and Carter, and continues to study election administration in collaboration with the Carter Center. The commission did raise concerns about absentee voting and ballot security. However, the final report explicitly stopped short of condemning vote-by-mail as inherently fraudulent, instead calling for additional research into its effectiveness. "The Commission's only recommendation regarding vote by mail was to encourage 'further research on the pros and cons' of that method of voting," Williams said. "I have never seen any evidence which would indicate that President Trump accurately quoted President Carter," he said. Newsweek could find no evidence that Carter said words to that effect, either, and previous misquotes about mail-in voting attributed to the Nobel Peace Prize winner by Trump have been debunked. Former President Jimmy Carter (L) and former Secretary of State James Baker III, co-chairs of the Commission on Federal Election Reform, confer during a hearing at American University April 18, 2005, in Washington, D.C. Former President Jimmy Carter (L) and former Secretary of State James Baker III, co-chairs of the Commission on Federal Election Reform, confer during a hearing at American University April 18, 2005, in Washington, fact, Carter himself encouraged absentee voting during the 2020 election cycle. "I approve the use of absentee ballots and have used them for five years," Carter said in a statement that year. And earlier that year, he said, "I urge political leaders across the country to take immediate steps to expand vote-by-mail and other measures that can help protect the core of American democracy – the right of our citizens to vote." Newsweek emailed the Carter Center for comment. Baker, who was secretary of state under President George H. W. Bush, was not available for comment. Mail-in voting is widely used across the U.S. and consistently shown to be safe and reliable. Twenty-eight states allow all voters to cast ballots by mail, while every state offers some form of mail-in or absentee voting. In eight states—California, Colorado, Hawaii, Nevada, Oregon, Utah, Vermont, and Washington—elections are conducted almost entirely by mail, with no major reported issues. Mail systems incorporate multiple security checks, including signature verification, barcode tracking, and ballot curing processes, making coordinated fraud rare and preserving both access and integrity. Former President Jimmy Carter (L) and former Secretary of State James Baker III, co-chairs of the Commission on Federal Election Reform, participate in a hearing at American University April 18, 2005, in Washington, D.C. Former President Jimmy Carter (L) and former Secretary of State James Baker III, co-chairs of the Commission on Federal Election Reform, participate in a hearing at American University April 18, 2005, in Washington, People Are Saying Former Secretary of State James Baker, in an email to Politifact in 2021, said of mail-in voting: "I continue to believe such balloting remains a significant source of potential fraud, absent safeguards some states have put in place to help guarantee that a person's vote is secure." Richard Briffault, a professor at Columbia Law School, previously told Newsweek: "Any changes would have to be made by Congress. And even Congress can't change how states run state elections." What Happens Next Trump said lawyers were drafting an executive order that would end mail-in voting, but any attempt to eliminate mail-in voting would face significant legal hurdles. States have constitutional authority over election procedures, meaning a presidential directive cannot unilaterally overturn existing laws. White House Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt told reporters on Tuesday: "When Congress comes back to Washington, I'm sure there will be many discussions with our friends on Capitol Hill and also our friends in state legislatures to ensure that we're protecting the integrity of the vote."
