Millions of low-income Americans could face disruptions to food assistance if a provision in the Republican-led tax bill becomes law, according to state officials, policy experts, and advocacy groups.
The bill—passed by the U.S. House of Representatives on May 22 and backed by former President Donald Trump—proposes shifting $22 billion in administrative and benefit costs for the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) to state and local governments over the coming years.
SNAP, the country’s largest food aid program, supported over 41 million people in 2024 and cost the federal government nearly $100 billion. But the proposed cost shift has raised alarms across the country.
🚨 States Sound the Alarm: "No State Can Absorb That"
State leaders are warning that the proposal could cripple their ability to operate SNAP effectively, potentially leading to narrower eligibility or even withdrawal from the program.
“No state is going to be able to simply absorb that,” said Kentucky Governor Andy Beshear, a Democrat, in an interview with Reuters.
Officials from North Carolina, Oregon, and Michigan echoed similar concerns, saying their states are already stretched thin and cannot meet the new financial demands without slashing services elsewhere.
In a letter to Congress, the National Conference of State Legislatures called the proposal “fiscally unsustainable” and warned it could “harm the very individuals and families the program is designed to support.”
📝 Pushback from Local Governments and Health Officials
The backlash isn’t limited to state capitals. Key national associations have voiced unified opposition, including:
-
National Association of Counties
-
National Association of County Human Services Administrators
-
American Public Human Services Association
Their letters, sent in May to Senate and agriculture committee leaders, argue that the bill would shift an unrealistic burden to localities already grappling with healthcare, housing, and education demands.
🗣️ GOP’s Perspective: “Reduce Waste, Promote Accountability”
Republican lawmakers argue the cost shift is necessary to curb fraud, increase program efficiency, and promote self-reliance. They claim the current system fosters dependency and that states will be better suited to tailor benefits to their populations if given greater control.
A USDA spokesperson stated that Agriculture Secretary Brooke Rollins remains committed to the administration’s agenda and will offer “technical assistance to states” as they navigate the changes—should they be signed into law.
Comments
Post a Comment