Senate GOP aims to pare back proposed food stamp work requirements for parents in Trump megabill
The Senate Agriculture Committee is proposing some notable changes to the controversial food stamp provisions in the House-approved version of Republicans' megabill.
The committee, which unveiled its proposal on Wednesday, would dial back the introduction of work requirements for parents of dependent children in the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, or SNAP, the formal name for food stamps. The Senate version would mandate that parents of children ages 10 and older work to maintain their benefits, while the House package would impose that requirement on parents of children ages 7 and older. Currently, parents of dependent children are exempt from the program's work mandate.
(A summary released by the committee said that the work requirement would apply to parents of children over age 10, which conflicts with the text of the proposal. A committee spokeswoman confirmed to CNN that the provision would apply to parents of 10-year-olds and older children.)
The Senate committee also drops the exemptions for veterans, people experiencing homelessness and young adults who have aged out of foster care, according to Katie Bergh, a senior policy analyst at the left-leaning Center on Budget and Policy Priorities.The House version includes the exemptions but ends them in 2030.
Like the House version, the Senate would expand the food stamp program's existing work requirements to able-bodied adults ages 55 through 64 and would curtail states' ability to receive work requirement waivers in difficult economic times, limiting them only to areas with unemployment rates above 10%. Both versions would also bar refugees, those granted asylum and certain survivors of domestic violence or labor or sex trafficking, among other immigrants with legal status, from receiving food stamps.
Currently, adults ages 18 to 54 without dependent children can only receive food stamps for three months over a 36-month period unless they work 20 hours a week or are eligible for an exemption.
The Senate measure aims at 'helping recipients transition to self-sufficiency through work and training. It's about being good stewards of taxpayer dollars while giving folks the tools to succeed,' Arkansas Sen. John Boozman, the committee's chair, said in a statement.
But advocates lashed out at the Senate plan, saying it would worsen hunger in the US. Some 42 million people receive food stamps.
'The proposal would also take food assistance away from millions of parents and grandparents who are working but get tangled in red tape, have a health condition but fall through the cracks and don't get an exemption, or are between jobs and need temporary help,' Ty Jones Cox, vice president for food assistance at the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, said in a statement.
Senators in multiple committees are currently negotiating pieces of the House's sweeping tax and spending cuts bill, which aims to fulfill President Donald Trump's agenda.
The House, which passed the package last month, would enact the deepest cuts to food stamps in the program's history – reducing federal spending by nearly $300 billion, according to the Congressional Budget Office. The work requirement provision would result in 3.2 million fewer people receiving benefits in an average month between 2025 and 2034, according to a preliminary CBO estimate of the House bill. That includes 800,000 adults who live with dependent children.
Both the Senate and House versions would require that states start covering part of the cost of food stamp benefits for the first time, though the Senate committee is calling for a smaller share.
States' tab would depend on their payment error rate in the program. In the Senate version, states with error rates below 6% would not have to contribute to the cost of benefits. The amount would then ratchet up in stages, with states that have error rates of 10% or more paying a 15% share.
The House version would require all states to shoulder at least 5% of the cost and as much as 25% for those with error rates of at least 10%.
Both versions would increase states' share of the program's administrative costs to 75%, from 50%.
Advocates and state officials have warned that asking states to pick up more of the costs would have dire consequences.
'Shifting the financial burden of SNAP onto states is fiscally unsustainable and risks harming the very individuals and families the program is designed to support,' Tim Storey, CEO of the National Conference of State Legislatures, wrote to House Agriculture Committee leaders last month.
State agencies are 'already underfunded and understaffed,' said Crystal FitzSimons, president of the Food Research & Action Center, in a statement Wednesday. Shifting more of the cost to states would leave 'strained state budgets unable to absorb the added burden without raising taxes, cutting programs, or reducing access.'
How states would respond to having to pay for a share of the food stamp benefits would vary, but some 'would modify benefits or eligibility and possibly leave the program altogether because of the increased costs,' according to a preliminary CBO analysis of the House bill. The provision would lead states to reduce or eliminate food stamp benefits for about 1.3 million people in an average month over the decade, CBO estimates.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
USA Today
5 minutes ago
- USA Today
Can Donald Trump run for president in 2028? Constitution sets two-term limit
President Trump has remained a divisive figure, prompting mass protests and receiving low approval ratings. Can he run again in 2028? Does he want to? Protesters in some cities took to the streets on June 22 after President Donald Trump's decision to bomb three nuclear facilities in Iran. It was far from the first protest against Trump's actions since he took office in January, and far more Americans have protested since the beginning of this year than during the same time frame in his first term in office or during President Joe Biden's first year in office. Trump is one of two presidents in U.S. history to serve nonconsecutive terms, and his approval ratings remain historically low. But back in the White House, he has toyed with the prospect of running for a third term, which is barred by the U.S. Constitution. Most recently, he said he was not considering it. Still, the Trump Organization sells "Trump 2028" hats. Here is what to know. What is Iran's next move? World awaits response to U.S. bombing: Live updates Can Donald Trump run for president in 2028? Under the Constitution as it stands, Donald Trump cannot be elected to a third term. It is explicitly barred by the 22nd Amendment. Changes to the Constitution are extremely difficult and rare, as they require a two-thirds majority vote in both the House and Senate. States can also spur an amendment, but it requires two-thirds of the state legislatures to call a constitutional convention and three-fourths to ratify it. Trump won the 2016 presidential election against Hillary Clinton, becoming the 45th president of the United States from 2017 to 2021. He then lost the 2020 election against Biden. Trump won the 2024 election. At first, Trump was up for a rematch before Biden dropped his reelection bid and was replaced on the Democratic ticket by former Vice President Kamala Harris. Trump won the election, and his second term as the 47th U.S. president is slated for 2025 to 2029. What has Trump said about a potential third term? Trump has repeatedly floated the idea of a third term throughout his second presidency. In a March NBC interview, he said there are methods to make it happen, including if Vice President JD Vance runs for office and then hands the role to Trump. In a later interview with NBC's "Meet the Press" that aired on May 4, Trump backed off the idea, saying he was not looking at running again. "I will say this. So many people want me to do it. I have never had requests so strong as that," Trump said in the interview with NBC. "But it's something that, to the best of my knowledge, you're not allowed to do. I don't know if that's constitutional that they're not allowing you to do it or anything else." The Trump Organization did not immediately respond to a request for comment on the "Trump 2028" hats. Only one president has served more than two terms America's founding father and first president, President George Washington, voluntarily stepped down after two terms, creating an unofficial tradition for future presidents to follow suit. President Franklin D. Roosevelt was the first and only president to break that tradition. The country was still recovering from the Great Depression, and at the dawn of World War II, he was re-elected to his third term. After leading the country through the global war, he was elected again in 1944, but died the following year. A movement in the House of Representatives to officially limit the presidency terms, now ratified as the 22nd Amendment, began two years after Roosevelt's death. Contributing: Riley Beggin, Deborah Barfield Berry, USA TODAY Kinsey Crowley is the Trump Connect reporter for the USA TODAY Network. Reach her at kcrowley@ Follow her on X and TikTok @kinseycrowley or Bluesky at @
Time Magazine
7 minutes ago
- Time Magazine
Senate's Byrd Rule Upends Trump's ‘Big Beautiful Bill'
She wasn't elected and she doesn't cast votes. But over the past week, Elizabeth MacDonough, the quietly powerful Senate parliamentarian, may have had more influence over Donald Trump's legislative agenda than anyone else in Washington. After meeting with Republicans and Democrats behind closed doors, MacDonough in recent days has significantly shrunk the size of the President's sweeping tax-and-spending package known as the 'One Big Beautiful Bill' by striking several measures that violated an arcane, decades-old Senate rule known as the Byrd Rule, which prohibits provisions considered 'extraneous' to the federal budget in the kind of legislation Republicans are trying to craft. One of the main GOP provisions the parliamentarian said did not satisfy the Byrd Rule was a measure to push some of the costs of federal food aid onto states, sending Republicans back to the drawing board to find the billions in savings that provision would have yielded. MacDonough also rejected measures to bar non-citizens from receiving SNAP benefits and one that would have made it more difficult to enforce contempt findings against the Trump Administration. MacDonough could issue additional guidance this week. The spate of rulings from the Senate parliamentarian, an official appointed by the chamber's leaders to enforce its rules and precedents, has significantly complicated the prospects of passing Trump's tax and spending bill by the July 4 deadline he imposed on Congress. Republicans have been scrambling for months to secure enough votes for Trump's megabill, which centers on extending his 2017 tax cuts and delivering on several of his campaign promises, such as boosting border security spending and eliminating taxes on tips. Support for the package has softened this month as more Republicans warn that it would add trillions of dollars to the deficit without further spending cuts. But the parliamentarian's latest rulings will force Republicans to either strip those provisions from the bill or secure a 60-vote supermajority to keep them in, a nearly impossible hurdle given that Senate Republicans only hold 53 seats. MacDonough ruled that some of the provisions have little business in a budget reconciliation bill, which can make big changes to how the federal government spends money but, under Senate rules, isn't allowed to substantively change policy. MacDonough's rulings came about after days of behind-the-scenes meetings between her office and Senate staff. They illustrate the often-overlooked power of Senate procedure—and the person tasked with interpreting it. MacDonough, a former Justice Department trial attorney and the first woman to ever serve as Senate parliamentarian, is Washington's ultimate rules enforcer. She was appointed in 2012 and has struck prohibited measures from reconciliation bills several times under both Republicans and Democrats. Now, the parliamentarian's rulings may force Republicans back to the drawing board just as they were hoping to finalize their legislative centerpiece. Here's what to know about the rejected measures. What is the Byrd Rule? The Byrd Rule, adopted in 1985, is a procedural constraint named after the late Senator Robert C. Byrd of West Virginia to prohibit 'extraneous' provisions from being tacked onto reconciliation bills, which are fast-tracked budget packages that allow legislation to pass with a simple majority, bypassing the 60-vote filibuster threshold. The rule makes it so that every line of a reconciliation package must have a direct and substantive impact on federal spending or revenues. Provisions that serve primarily policy goals—rather than budgetary ones—are subject to elimination by a parliamentary maneuver known as a point of order. Whether a point of order is sustained is ultimately made by the parliamentarian, who is essentially the Senate's umpire tasked with providing nonpartisan advice and ensuring that lawmakers are complying with the Senate's rules. Parliamentarians often face backlash during the budget reconciliation process, when they determine whether policy proposals comply with the constraints of the Byrd Rule. What's been cut so far? MacDonough's rulings have invalidated a number of headline-grabbing GOP provisions, including a plan requiring states to pay a portion of food benefits—the largest spending cut for SNAP in the bill. The SNAP measure, which the parliamentarian said violated the Byrd Rule, would have required all states to pay a percentage of SNAP benefit costs, with their share increasing if they reported a higher rate of errors in underpaying or overpaying recipients. Some lawmakers warned their states would not be able to make up the difference on food aid, which has long been provided by the federal government, and could force many to lose access to SNAP benefits. Republican Sen. John Boozman of Arkansas, the chairman of the Agriculture Committee, said in a statement that he's looking for other ways to cut food assistance without violating Senate rules. Another rejected provision would have zeroed out $6.4 billion in funding of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, effectively shuttering the agency. The bureau was created by Democrats as part of the 2010 Dodd-Frank Act in the aftermath of the financial crisis as a way to protect Americans from financial fraud. Republicans have long decried the CFPB as an example of government over-regulation and overreach. 'Democrats fought back, and we will keep fighting back against this ugly bill,' said Senator Elizabeth Warren of Massachusetts, who said the GOP plan would have left Americans vulnerable to predatory lenders and corporate fraud. The Senate parliamentarian also blocked a GOP provision intended to limit courts' ability to hold Trump officials in contempt by requiring plaintiffs to post potentially enormous bonds when asking courts to issue preliminary injunctions or imposing temporary restraining orders against the federal government. Democrats hailed that decision by the parliamentarian, noting that it would have severely undermined the judiciary's ability to check executive overreach. Senate Democrats 'successfully fought for rule of law and struck out this reckless and downright un-American provision,' Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer said in a statement. MacDonough also nixed provisions to reduce pay for certain Federal Reserve staff, slash $293 million from the Treasury Department's Office of Financial Research, and dissolve the Public Company Accounting Oversight Board, which is tasked with overseeing audits of publicly traded companies. Each of these proposals, she ruled, either lacked sufficient budgetary impact or were primarily aimed at changing policy, not federal revenues or outlays. MacDonough also rejected language in the bill drafted by the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee that would have exempted certain infrastructure projects from judicial review under the National Environmental Policy Act. The rejected proposal would have allowed companies to pay a fee in exchange for expedited permitting, a move Republicans argued would streamline bureaucratic delays. Also disqualified was a measure to repeal the Biden Administration's tailpipe emissions rule for cars and trucks manufactured after 2027. MacDonough ruled that the environmental provisions were either insufficiently tied to federal spending or failed to meet the Byrd Rule's strict thresholds for inclusion. Are the parliamentarian's rulings final, or could they be overturned? The parliamentarian's decisions could, in theory, be overturned. Senate Majority Leader John Thune of South Dakota has the authority to ignore her ruling by calling for a floor vote to establish a new precedent—essentially overruling the Senate's referee. Parliamentarians have been ignored in the past, though it is quite rare. In 1975, Vice President Nelson Rockefeller ignored the parliamentarian's advice as the Senate debated filibuster rules. MacDonough has been overruled twice before: in 2013, when Democrats eliminated filibusters to approve presidential nominees, and in 2017, when Republicans expanded the filibuster ban to include Supreme Court nominations. But Thune has signaled he has no intention of going down that path this time. 'We're not going there,' the Senate Majority Leader said on June 2 when asked by reporters about overruling MacDonough. Thune could also fire the Senate Parliamentarian and replace her with one willing to interpret the rules more in line with how Senate Republicans view them.
CBS News
13 minutes ago
- CBS News
Former Illinois senator Carol Moseley Braun releases memoir "Trailblazer: Perseverance in Life and Politics"
Political trailblazer and former U.S. senator for Illinois Carol Moseley Braun has a new memoir out Tuesday. Moseley Braun hit the political spotlight and broke the glass ceiling in 1992, when the Chicago native was elected to the U.S. Senate, becoming the first Black woman ever to accomplish that. She also once ran for mayor of Chicago, though she lost to Rahm Emanuel. She would go on to make history again when she was appointed as ambassador to New Zealand and Samoa. Her pioneering and sometimes controversial political careers is documented in her new memoir "Trailblazer: Perseverance in Life and Politics." The book is out Tuesday.
