Thousands in WA at risk of losing food benefits under GOP bill in Congress
(Getty Images)
Tens of thousands of low-income Washingtonians could lose federal food assistance if Republicans move ahead with plans in a bill the U.S. House passed last month.
That's according to estimates from the state and researchers at a left-leaning think tank. The cuts to the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, also known as food stamps, stem from a tax cut and spending package Republicans call their 'big, beautiful bill.' This legislation passed the U.S. House on May 22 and still needs approval from the Senate before it can reach President Donald Trump's desk.
If more stringent work requirements in the bill take effect, about 79,000 people in Washington would be at risk of losing their benefits entirely, and 149,000 would be at risk of losing some SNAP benefits, according to the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, a liberal think tank. The majority of those people live in eastern Washington or the Olympic Peninsula.
The state's Department of Social and Health Services estimates more than 900,000 people in Washington could see benefits reduced or eliminated if the bill is approved as written.
'The expanded work requirements provision alone would risk more than 198,000 Washingtonians losing access to critical food benefits statewide,' said Adolfo Capestany, a spokesperson for the department.
Around 10% of the state's population receives SNAP benefits according to the U.S. Department of Agriculture.
The majority of people affected by the cuts would be children, older adults, and people with disabilities.
'The bill would decrease the average monthly SNAP benefit for households by $55.95, from $331.58 per month to $275.63,' said Capestany.
What's proposed in the Republican bill is the largest cut in the program's history, according to the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office. Nationwide, the program would see a $300 billion, or roughly 30%, reduction.
Since SNAP was introduced, the federal government has fully funded the cost of the food benefits, while states are responsible for screening for eligibility and issuing benefits. States have paid roughly half the cost of administering the program.
The bill would require additional work requirement screening and would try to shift more costs to states. Studies have shown that work requirements do not boost employment, but do pose challenges for people trying to access benefits.
At minimum under the Republican proposal, states would be required to pay 5% of SNAP benefits starting in 2028. States that exceed certain thresholds in making errors distributing SNAP payments would have to pay more.
'Washington would be required to backfill hundreds of millions of dollars in reduced federal funding annually,' Capestany said.
State error rates vary from year to year, which could create challenges in the state's annual budget process. The addition of the work requirement would increase states' administrative burden and increase the risk of errors, according to the report.
Capestany noted that the SNAP cuts Republicans are considering would trickle down to the economy and could decrease the amount flowing to Washington businesses, like grocers and retailers, by an estimated $360 million a year.
Hashtags

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
18 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Nintendo's Switch 2 could breathe new life into the video game giant—if Trump's trade war doesn't upend it all
To gamers around the world, April 2—'Liberation Day'—meant something else. In a slick prerecorded video presentation, Nintendo unveiled the Switch 2, the long-awaited successor of its wildly popular Nintendo Switch handheld console. It was exactly what gamers were hungry for: details on the console's more powerful specs; expanded access to Nintendo's decades-old back catalog; and new entries in the popular Mario Kart and Donkey Kong series. Even a surprise price hike—$450 versus the Switch's $300—didn't dent enthusiasm. A U.S. president could, though. A few hours later, Donald Trump announced his Liberation Day tariffs, including steep taxes on imports from China, Vietnam, Japan, and Cambodia—Nintendo's manufacturing hubs. It upended plans years in the making. The Switch 2's June 5 launch was poised to be a shot in the arm for Nintendo and the video game industry. Nintendo needs 'something new and exciting out in the marketplace that kicks that can down the road on the tech stuff for another decade, so they can continue to make the games they want to make,' explains Jeff Gerstmann, a journalist who has covered the industry for decades. Now Nintendo (like nearly every other company) is trying to keep up, even as Trump has since suspended most of the tariffs amid negotiations. Two days after Liberation Day, Nintendo paused U.S. preorders to assess the 'potential impact of tariffs.' It reopened them a few weeks later, maintaining the $450 price point and June 5 launch—but hiked prices on everything else, like controllers, 'amiibo' figurines, and other accessories. Like many other manufacturers, Nintendo (which didn't respond to Fortune's request for comment) is trying to figure out how to roll out a new product as the world's largest consumer market takes a protectionist turn. The Switch 2 is still likely to be a success, even if not quite as much as Nintendo hoped a month ago. But it will also be one of the first tests of how consumer tech companies will stay afloat in a world of tariffs, decoupling, and protectionism. If the video game industry has a champion, it's Nintendo. Founded in 1889 as a playing-card maker, it has developed the most well-known portfolio of intellectual property apart from Walt Disney, thanks to franchises like Super Mario, The Legend of Zelda, and Pokémon. But it's also one of Asia's most prominent consumer-tech companies, an Asian brand with true global reach. After struggling to stay relevant in the 2010s, Nintendo unveiled the Switch in 2017: an affordable handheld console that could connect to a television, but could also function without one. It was a wildly successful move. With 150-million-plus units sold as of March 2025, the Switch is the third-bestselling console of all time, behind Sony's PlayStation 2 and the Nintendo DS. COVID lockdowns made it a true household name, as consumers occupied themselves with video games. Nintendo, with its affordable console and a new game in the Animal Crossing series of cozy life simulators, was well-placed to capture that demand. Nintendo sold over 27 million consoles in 2020 alone. But eight years is an eternity in the video game world, and the console was showing its age. Nintendo reported slowing sales as gamers tired of a system that struggled to run the newest games, even those specifically designed for the console. Nintendo was also holding back marquee releases, so many people put their Switches in a drawer and forgot about them. This embedded content is not available in your region. Nintendo reported 1.2 trillion Japanese yen ($7.6 billion) in sales for its most recent fiscal year, which ended in March, a 30% drop from the previous fiscal year. Its ordinary profit saw an even bigger dip, dropping 45% year on year to reach 372 billion yen ($2.4 billion). And the company sold 11.5 million consoles in 2024, less than half of what it sold during the COVID boom years. Still, investors have shrugged off Nintendo's slowdown in anticipation of the Switch 2. Nintendo shares have been at record highs since December. Its market value is over $90 billion, making it Japan's eighth-most-valuable firm and placing it ahead of many Japanese companies on the Fortune Global 500. Nintendo was one of the first companies to shift manufacturing out of China to nearby Vietnam and Cambodia in 2019, after the first Trump administration threatened to impose tariffs on video game consoles made in China. 'The majority of their production is still done in China, but they've now switched to Vietnam to focus pretty much entirely on U.S. console production,' says Daniel Ahmad, an analyst with gaming-industry consultancy Niko Partners. That puts Nintendo 'ahead of the game' compared with competitors Sony and Microsoft. As the second Trump administration started up, Nintendo began front-running shipments to get ahead of possible future tariffs. JPMorgan estimated in early April that Nintendo had enough inventory to meet demand for six months to a year. The Switch 2's initial numbers likely won't take a hit, even with the price hike. Preorders in markets like the U.S. and Japan sold out instantly, and the company is already apologizing for future shortages. Nintendo is even selling a cheaper version that works only with games bought in Japan, likely to avoid resellers trying to bring it to markets like mainland China, where the company doesn't have an official presence. The real question will come after the initial launch, when holiday shoppers start thinking about buying the latest version. 'The big questions are around value—$450 is not a small amount of money,' Gerstmann says. The cost of games, too, is going up: Nintendo is targeting $70 to $80, as opposed to the $60 that has been traditional across the industry. The company is trying to scale back expectations, forecasting lower-than-expected Switch 2 sales of 15 million (still roughly in line with how the first Switch sold after its launch in 2017). In a May briefing to investors, Nintendo president Shuntaro Furukawa said the company was factoring in a profit hit worth 'several tens of billions of yen,' but noted the calculation was made on the basis of 145% tariffs on China and 10% tariffs on everyone else. (Trump soon after lowered tariffs on China to 30% for a 90-day period.) Furukawa noted the company's 'basic policy' was to pass on tariffs to customers—but admitted a price hike might not be the greatest idea for a just-debuted console. Nintendo isn't alone in thinking about how to manage increasing costs and new tariffs. Citing costlier development and 'market conditions,' Microsoft implemented a $100 price hike for the Xbox Series X and plans to start selling $80 games. Sony has avoided hiking PlayStation prices in the U.S., but raised prices elsewhere. The video game industry has been grappling with higher costs for years. Ahmad first points to the COVID supply-chain shock, which pushed up prices of components like memory. Game development is also getting more expensive as graphics become more advanced, boosting staffing and technology costs. That rebounds in the real world; Ahmad notes that Nintendo uses cartridges, rather than discs. 'If your game is 64 gigabytes and you get a 64-gigabyte cartridge, that's going to cost more to publish.' By making the first move to $80, Nintendo might have done the industry a favor. 'I'm sure other publishers and manufacturers are super happy that Nintendo took the blow for them,' Gerstmann says. He speculates that Nintendo's lower-end hardware, compared with Sony and Microsoft, might appeal to studios now trying to keep costs low: 'There's real potential for the Switch to change a lot of things about the way games are made.' The world may have avoided the worst of U.S. tariffs for now—they stand at 30% on China and 10% on everyone else as U.S. officials try to negotiate with major trading partners. At those levels, tariffs are tough but manageable for global business. But if negotiations break down—or if Trump lets his 90-day pause expire—then tariffs will shoot back up again: 54% on China, 46% on Vietnam, and 49% on Cambodia, giving Nintendo a lot to contend with. Their struggles are indicative of a broader tension in Trump's tariff regime: Vietnam and Cambodia are two popular 'China plus one' destinations, countries where manufacturers based final assembly so as to avoid tariffs on China-made products. Trump officials are reportedly pressuring trading partners to limit trade with China in order to isolate Beijing. But a surge in exports by Vietnam, Cambodia, and others will hurt Trump's other goal: balancing U.S. trade with the rest of the world. Nintendo's customers are used to facing uncertain and hazardous environments in the company's games. The question now: Can Nintendo, and other Asian manufacturers, show that same skill in navigating a more geopolitically fraught world? This article appears in the June/July 2025: Asia issue of Fortune with the headline 'Game on!' This story was originally featured on Error while retrieving data Sign in to access your portfolio Error while retrieving data Error while retrieving data Error while retrieving data Error while retrieving data
Yahoo
26 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Trump announces travel ban and restrictions on 19 countries
US President Donald Trump has resurrected a hallmark policy of his first term, announcing that citizens of 12 countries would be banned from visiting the United States and those from seven others would face restrictions. The ban takes effect Monday at 12.01am, a cushion that may avoid the chaos that unfolded at airports nationwide when a similar measure took effect with virtually no notice in 2017. Mr Trump, who signalled plans for a new ban upon taking office in January, appears to be on firmer ground this time after the Supreme Court sided with him. Some, but not all, of 12 countries also appeared on the list of banned countries in Mr Trump's first term. The new ban includes Afghanistan, Myanmar, Chad, the Republic of Congo, Equatorial Guinea, Eritrea, Haiti, Iran, Libya, Somalia, Sudan and Yemen. There will be heightened restrictions on visitors from Burundi, Cuba, Laos, Sierra Leone, Togo, Turkmenistan and Venezuela. In a video released on social media, Mr Trump tied the new ban to Sunday's terror attack in Boulder, Colorado, saying it underscored the dangers posed by some visitors who overstay visas. The suspect in the attack is from Egypt, a country that is not on Mr Trump's restricted list. The Department of Homeland Security says he overstayed a tourist visa. Mr Trump said some countries had 'deficient' screening and vetting or have historically refused to take back their own citizens. His findings rely extensively on an annual Homeland Security report of visa overstays of tourists, business visitors and students who arrive by air and sea, singling out countries with high percentages of remaining after their visas expired. 'We don't want them,' Mr Trump said. The inclusion of Afghanistan angered some supporters who have worked to resettle its people. The ban makes exceptions for Afghans on Special Immigrant Visas, generally people who worked most closely with the US government during the two-decade war there. Afghanistan was also one of the largest sources of resettled refugees, with about 14,000 arrivals in a 12-month period through September 2024. Mr Trump suspended refugee resettlement on his first day in office. 'To include Afghanistan – a nation whose people stood alongside American service members for 20 years – is a moral disgrace. It spits in the face of our allies, our veterans, and every value we claim to uphold,' said Shawn VanDiver, president and board chairman of #AfghanEvac. Mr Trump wrote that Afghanistan 'lacks a competent or co-operative central authority for issuing passports or civil documents and it does not have appropriate screening and vetting measures'. He also cited its visa overstay rates. Haiti, which avoided the travel ban during Mr Trump's first term, was also included for high overstay rates and large numbers who came to the US illegally. Haitians continue to flee poverty, hunger and political instability deepens while police and a UN-backed mission fight a surge in gang violence, with armed men controlling at least 85% of its capital, Port-au-Prince. 'Haiti lacks a central authority with sufficient availability and dissemination of law enforcement information necessary to ensure its nationals do not undermine the national security of the United States,' Mr Trump wrote. The Iranian government offered no immediate reaction to being included. The Trump administration called it a 'state sponsor of terrorism', barring visitors except for those already holding visas or coming into the US on special visas America issues for minorities facing persecution. Other Middle East nations on the list – Libya, Sudan and Yemen – all face ongoing civil strife and territory overseen by opposing factions. Sudan has an active war, while Yemen's war is largely stalemated and Libyan forces remain armed. International aid groups and refugee resettlement organisations roundly condemned the new ban. 'This policy is not about national security – it is about sowing division and vilifying communities that are seeking safety and opportunity in the United States,' said Abby Maxman, president of Oxfam America. The travel ban results from a January 20 executive order Mr Trump issued requiring the departments of State and Homeland Security and the director of national intelligence to compile a report on 'hostile attitudes' toward the US and whether entry from certain countries represented a national security risk. During his first term, Mr Trump issued an executive order in January 2017 banning travel to the US by citizens of seven predominantly Muslim countries — Iraq, Syria, Iran, Sudan, Libya, Somalia and Yemen. It was one of the most chaotic and confusing moments of his young presidency. Travellers from those nations were either barred from getting on their flights to the US or detained at US airports after they landed. They included students as well as businesspeople, tourists and people visiting friends and family. The order, often referred to as the 'Muslim ban' or the 'travel ban', was retooled amid legal challenges, until a version was upheld by the Supreme Court in 2018. The ban affected various categories of travellers and immigrants from Iran, Somalia, Yemen, Syria and Libya, plus North Koreans and some Venezuelan government officials and their families. Mr Trump and others have defended the initial ban on national security grounds, arguing it was aimed at protecting the country and not founded on anti-Muslim bias. However, the president had called for an explicit ban on Muslims during his first campaign for the White House.


Bloomberg
26 minutes ago
- Bloomberg
US foreign student ban will be to its detriment: ex-Australian PM
The US' ban of foreign students will be to its detriment amid a global race for talent, says former Australian Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull. Donald Trump earlier signed a travel ban for 12 countries and barred international students from entering the US to attend. (Source: Bloomberg)