GOP's food stamp plan is found to violate Senate rules. It's the latest setback for Trump's big bill.
Get Starting Point
A guide through the most important stories of the morning, delivered Monday through Friday.
Enter Email
Sign Up
'We will keep fighting to protect families in need,' said Sen. Amy Klobuchar of Minnesota, the top Democrat on the Senate Agriculture, Nutrition and Forestry Committee, which handles the SNAP program.
Advertisement
'The Parliamentarian has made clear that Senate Republicans cannot use their partisan budget to shift major nutrition assistance costs to the states that would have inevitably led to major cuts,' she said.
The committee chairman, Sen. John Boozman, R-Ark., said in a statement that his team is examining options that would comply with Senate rules to achieve savings and 'to ensure SNAP serves those who truly need it while being responsible stewards of taxpayer dollars.'
Advertisement
What's at stake in the big bill
The parliamentarian's ruling is the latest in a series of setbacks as staff works through the weekend, often toward midnight, to assess the 1,000-page proposal. It all points to serious trouble ahead for the bill, which was approved by the House on a party-line vote last month over unified opposition from Democrats and is now undergoing revisions in the Senate.
At its core, the goal of the multitrillion-dollar package is to extend tax cuts from Trump's first term that would otherwise expire if Congress fails to act. It also adds new ones, including no taxes on tips or overtime pay. To help offset the costs of lost tax revenue, the Republicans are proposing cutbacks to federal Medicaid, health care and food programs — some $1 trillion. Additionally, the package boosts national security spending by about $350 billion, including to pay for Trump's mass deportations, which are running into protests nationwide.
Trump has implored Republicans, who have the majority in Congress, to deliver on his top domestic priority, but the details of the package, with its hodgepodge of priorities, is drawing deeper scrutiny.
All told, the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office estimates the package, as approved by the House, would
The Senate's strict 'Byrd Rule'
The parliamentarian's office is tasked with scrutinizing the bill to ensure it complies with the so-called Byrd Rule, which is named after the late Sen. Robert C. Byrd, D-W.Va., and bars many policy matters in the budget reconciliation process now being used.
Advertisement
Late Friday, the parliamentarian issued its latest findings. It determined that Senate Agriculture, Nutrition and Forestry Committee's proposal to have the states pick up more of the tab for covering food stamps — what Republicans call a new cost-sharing arrangement — would be in violation of the Byrd Rule.
Many lawmakers said the states would not be able to absorb the new requirement on food aid, which has long been provided by the federal government. They warned many would lose access to SNAP benefits used by more than 40 million people.
Initially, the CBO had estimated about $128 billion in savings under the House's proposal to shift SNAP food aid costs to the states. Cost estimates for the Senate's version, which made changes to the House approach, have not yet been made publicly available.
More questions and decisions ahead
The parliamentarian's office rulings leave GOP leaders with several options. They can revise the proposals to try to comply with Senate rules or strip them from the package altogether. They can also risk a challenge during floor voting, which would require the 60-vote threshold to overcome. That would be unlikely in the split chamber with Democrats opposing the overall package.
The parliamentarian's latest advice also said the committee's provision to make certain immigrants ineligible for food stamps would violate the rule. It found several provisions from the Senate Commerce, Science and Transportation Committee, which is led by Sen. Ted Cruz, R-Texas, to be in violation. They include one to provide $250 million to Coast Guard stations damaged by fire in 2025, namely one on South Padre Island in Texas.
Still to come are some of the most important rulings from the parliamentarian. One will assess the GOP's approach that relies on 'current policy' rather than 'current law' as the baseline for determining whether the bill will add to the nation's deficits.
Advertisement
Already, the parliamentarian delivered a serious setback Thursday, finding that the GOP plan to gut the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, which was a core proposal coming from the Senate Banking, Housing and Urban Affairs Committee, would be in violation of the Byrd Rule.
The parliamentarian has also advised of violations over provisions from the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee that would rollback Environmental Protection Agency emissions standards on certain vehicles and from the Senate Armed Services Committee to require the defense secretary to provide a plan on how the Pentagon intends to spend the tens of billions of new funds.
The new work requirements in the package would require many of those receiving SNAP or Medicaid benefits to work 80 hours a month or engage in other community or educational services.
Associated Press writer Mary Clare Jalonick contributed to this report.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Politico
6 minutes ago
- Politico
Trump threatens more strikes against Iran if it doesn't negotiate a deal
President Donald Trump declared the U.S. bombing of Iran's three major nuclear facilities to have been 'a spectacular military success' during a Saturday night address to the nation, and left the door open to engaging in more strikes. 'Iran's key nuclear enrichment facilities have been completely and totally obliterated,' Trump said, and warned that the U.S. could still attack other, less significant targets in Iran if its leaders don't stand down. 'Iran, the bully of the Middle East, must now make peace,' he said. 'If they do not, future attacks will be far greater and a lot easier.' Standing in the White House Cross Hall to deliver a speech that lasted less than four minutes, Trump stopped short of declaring the U.S. to be at war with Iran, but his words made clear that he was willing to enter a deeper, wider conflict. In fact, the president seemed intent on trying to further intimidate Iran, a dramatic shift from just a few weeks ago, when Trump sounded confident that he was close to a diplomatic agreement with Tehran to further constrain its nuclear program. Trump asserted Saturday that there are 'many targets left' in Iran for U.S. forces to attack and vowed to go after them in short order if Iran didn't relent. 'There will be either peace or there will be tragedy for Iran far greater than we have witnessed over the last eight days,' he said. The remarks came a couple hours after the president's TruthSocial post announcing that the U.S. had struck three nuclear sites inside Iran. For several days, Trump had been dangling the threat of the U.S. assisting Israel's military, which does not have the kind of 'bunker-buster' bombs that were deployed in the operation Saturday night, to take out Iran's nuclear facilities once and for all — a consequence, he suggested, for Tehran's failure to reach a deal to curb its nuclear program. But the news that U.S. forces had carried out the strikes still came as a surprise, given the White House's statement on Thursday that Trump might take as long as two weeks to decide whether to take military action. With Vice President JD Vance, Secretary of State Marco Rubio and Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth standing behind him, Trump offered his congratulations to the military generals who helped plan the attack, the warfighters who carried it out and to Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, with whom he said he 'worked as a team.' Trump made no effort to justify his decision to a MAGA base that has largely opposed intervening in foreign wars. Nor did he address his decision to act without consulting Congress, a move, many Democrats on Capitol Hill have pointed out, that is unconstitutional. Rather, he announced that the Pentagon would hold a press conference at 8 a.m. on Sunday before ending his remarks with a word of appreciation. 'I want to just thank everybody. And in particular God, I want to just say, we love you, God, and we love our great military.'
San Francisco Chronicle
9 minutes ago
- San Francisco Chronicle
Trump's move against Iran may draw more criticism from MAGA's anti-interventionists
President Donald Trump's decision to strike three nuclear sites in Iran could deepen a divide among some of the Republican's supporters, including high-profile backers who had said any such move would run counter to the anti-interventionism he promised to deliver. Notably though, immediately following Trump's Saturday announcement of the strike, some of those who had publicly spoken out against U.S. involvement voiced their support. The lead-up to the move against Iranian nuclear sites had exposed fissures within Trump's 'Make American Great Again' base as some of that movement's most vocal leaders, with large followings of their own, expressed deep concern about the prospect of U.S. involvement in the Israel-Iran war. With the president barred from seeking a third term, what remains unknown is how long-lasting the schism could be for Trump and his current priorities, as well as the overall future of his 'America First' movement. Among the surrogates who spoke out against American involvement were former senior adviser Steve Bannon, Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene, R-Ga., commentator Tucker Carlson and Charlie Kirk, the founder of the conservative youth organization Turning Point. Part of their consternation was rooted in Trump's own vocalized antipathy for what he and others have termed the 'forever wars' fomented in previous administrations. As the possibility of military action neared, some of those voices tamped down their rhetoric. According to Trump, Carlson even called to 'apologize.' Steve Bannon On Wednesday, Bannon, one of top advisers in Trump's 2016 campaign, told an audience in Washington that bitter feelings over Iraq were a driving force for Trump's first presidential candidacy and the MAGA movement. "One of the core tenets is no forever wars,' Bannon said. But the longtime Trump ally, who served a four-month sentence for defying a subpoena in the congressional investigation into the U.S. Capitol attack on Jan. 6, 2021, went on to suggest that Trump will maintain loyalty from his base no matter what. On Wednesday, Bannon acknowledged that while he and others will argue against military intervention until the end, 'the MAGA movement will back Trump.' Ultimately, Bannon said that Trump would have to make the case to the American people if he wanted to get involved in Iran. 'We don't like it. Maybe we hate it,' Bannon said, predicting what the MAGA response would be. 'But, you know, we'll get on board.' Tucker Carlson The commentator's rhetoric toward Trump was increasingly critical. Carlson, who headlined large rallies with the Republican during the 2024 campaign, earlier this month suggested that the president's posture was breaking his pledge to keep the U.S. out of new foreign entanglements. Trump clapped back at Carlson on social media, calling him 'kooky.' During an event at the White House on Wednesday, Trump said that Carlson had 'called and apologized' for calling him out. Trump said Carlson 'is a nice guy.' Carlson's conversation with Sen. Ted Cruz, R-Texas, that day laid bare the divides among many Republicans. The two sparred for two hours over a variety of issues, primarily about possible U.S. involvement in Iran. Carlson accused Cruz of placing too much emphasis on protecting Israel in his foreign policy worldview. 'You don't know anything about Iran,' Carlson said to Cruz, after the senator said he didn't know Iran's population or its ethnic composition. 'You're a senator who's calling for the overthrow of a government, and you don't know anything about the country.' Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene The Georgia Republican, who wore the signature red MAGA cap for Democratic President Joe Biden's State of the Union address in 2024, publicly sided with Carlson, criticizing Trump for deriding 'one of my favorite people.' Saying the former Fox News commentator 'unapologetically believes the same things I do,' Greene wrote on X this past week that those beliefs include that 'foreign wars/intervention/regime change put America last, kill innocent people, are making us broke, and will ultimately lead to our destruction.' 'That's not kooky,' Greene added, using the same word Trump used to describe Carlson. 'That's what millions of Americans voted for. It's what we believe is America First.' About an hour before Trump's announcement, Greene posted on X that, 'Every time America is on the verge of greatness, we get involved in another foreign war.' 'This is not our fight,' she added. 'Peace is the answer.' In another post following Trump's announcement, Greene urged, 'Let us all join together and pray for peace." Alex Jones The far-right conspiracy theorist and Infowars host posted on social media earlier in the week a side-by-side of Trump's official presidential headshot and an artificial intelligence-generated composite of Trump and former Republican President George W. Bush. Trump and many of his allies have long disparaged Bush for involving the United States in the 'forever wars' in Iraq and Afghanistan. Writing 'What you voted for' above Trump's image and 'What you got' above the composite, Jones added: 'I hope this is not the case…' Charlie Kirk Kirk is among those who seemed to have made a quick about-face. About an hour after Trump's announcement, Kirk posted a series of messages on social media supportive of Trump, saying Iran had given the president 'no choice.' Kirk praised Trump for acting 'with prudence and decisiveness" and 'for the betterment of humanity.' Kirk also reposted a 2011 tweet in which Trump had written that 'Iran's quest for nuclear weapons is a major threat to our nation's national security interests. We can't allow Iran to go nuclear.' 'When Trump speaks, you should listen,' Kirk added. It was a different tone from the start of the week, when Kirk said in a Fox News interview that 'this is the moment that President Trump was elected for.' But he had warned of a potential MAGA divide over Iran. Days later, Kirk said that 'Trump voters, especially young people, supported President Trump because he was the first president in my lifetime to not start a new war.' He also wrote that 'there is historically little support for America to be actively engaged in yet another offensive war in the Middle East. We must work for and pray for peace.'
New York Post
9 minutes ago
- New York Post
Expect Gov. Hochul's new Parole Board picks to keep letting cop-killers walk free
Whatever her other efforts to undo New York state's worst criminal-justice moves of recent years, Gov. Kathy Hochul doesn't seem to be trying to clean up the pro-criminal Parole Board. The just-finished legislative session saw the Senate quietly confirm four of her nominees to the board — two to fill longstanding vacancies, two to finally replace members installed by then-Gov. Andrew Cuomo whose terms had expired some time ago. Going on four years after he resigned in a cloud of scandal, Cuomo picks until now still constituted a majority of the board, in part because Hochul hasn't pushed to put her own stamp on it — perhaps out of a calculation that the progressive, pro-criminal faction that controls the state Senate wouldn't confirm any tough-on-crime nominees, so what's the point? This bunch won't make a difference on the let-'em-loose panel, which has sprung at least 43 cop-killers these last eight years. It likely would've been 44, except the board last month kicked the can until after next week's Democratic mayoral primary on releasing David McClary, the gangbanger convicted of assassinating Police Officer Edward Byrne in 1988. With Cuomo running as tougher on crime than other Democrats, some suggest the delay was a bid to shield him from embarrassment before primary day. Anyway, Hochul's picks, who'll rake in $190,000 for this part-time post, look unlikely to shift the board: Lefty ex-Assemblyman Danny O'Donnell is a former public defender. Darlene Grant Bruce serves on the board of a West Harlem community services nonprofit. Elizabeth Kase is a defense attorney who specializes in cannabis law, and a partner at the politically wired firm Abrams Fensterman. José Gomérez is at best a mystery: The NYPD veteran, born and raised in the Dominican Republic, abruptly resigned as Newburgh police commissioner in May 2024 after less than three years on the job. Yet the simple fact is that the Senate wouldn't have confirmed any Parole Board nominees it hard reason to think might get tough: It certainly balks at the gov's efforts to keep the state's courts from shifting further left. Meanwhile, the Legislature keeps making it easier to qualify for parole, and the 2021 passage of the 'Less is More' law, which Hochul signed in her first months as gov, also made it easier for parole violators to stay out of prison. Bottom line: Hochul's unwilling or unable (or both) to stand up to the left on this front, as on so many others. So bet that Officer Byrne's assassin will soon walk, with a steady parade of freed cop-killers and other bad guys to follow — until New York voters start demanding candidates who'll actually support for law and order.
