President Trump's ‘One Big Beautiful Bill' raising concerns about future of SNAP benefits and food insecurity
'It's going to impact farmers, grocery store owners, and really all around it's going to impact a lot of folks,' said Austin Prickett.
Austin Prickett is the Director of Marketing and Communications for the Regional Food Bank of Oklahoma.
Governor Stitt quietly signs several Education bills
Prickett says rural communities will feel the biggest punch if the legislation is passed.
'They have less resources. It's harder to get to food, it's harder to get to a grocery store. This proposal will put the state on the hook for around $200 million per year to fund these programs,' said Prickett.
The legislation would cut federal spending on SNAP benefits, Medicaid, and the Affordable Care Act, all part of President Trump's efforts to lower taxes for Americans.
Bruce Lesley, President of First Focus on Children, an advocacy organization, says the bill poses a threat to struggling families and the success of children.
'Wealthy kids will be fine because they're going to get their full child tax credit. But for low-income kids, they will either qualify for only partial or no credit, and they also may lose other benefits like their nutrition and health care benefits,' Lesley said.
Oklahoma DHS sent a statement to News 4 about their plans moving forward.
Oklahoma Human Services is working with our partners to learn more about any potential effects on our programs. We will continue to communicate with partners and clients as we learn more.
Oklahoma Human Services
If the bill passes the Senate, it will then go to President Trump for final approval.
Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Hill
an hour ago
- The Hill
Court reaffirms ruling limiting Trump's asylum ban at US, Mexico border
A three-judge panel in the U.S. Court of Appeals on Friday reaffirmed the ruling limiting President Trump's asylum ban at the U.S.-Mexico border, blocking the president's Day 1 order. Shortly after taking office, Trump issued a proclamation seeking to end asylum for all migrants besides those who entered the U.S. at ports of entry, contending the change was needed to address the 'invasion' at the border with Mexico. The American Civil Liberties Union sued the administration on behalf of nonprofits in early February. Last month, a U.S. District Court Judge, Randolph Moss, an appointee of former President Obama, blocked Trump's ban, saying the administration violated the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA). A panel of judges at the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit – Patricia Millett, Cornelia Pillard and Gregory G. Katsas – issued an administrative pause on Moss' early July ruling. Moss argued that the president overstepped his authority in severely limiting asylum for those migrants fleeing danger and persecution. The D.C. circuit panel lifted its stay on Moss' decision. The three-judge panel narrowed the extent of the district judge's decision, permitting the U.S. government to keep utilizing Trump's order to forbid migrants from participating in the asylum system. 'The President secured the border in record time at an unprecedented level by using every available legal tool provided by Congress. A rogue district judge took those tools away, threatening the safety and security of Americans and ignoring a Supreme Court decision issued only days earlier admonishing district courts for granting nationwide injunctions,' Department of Homeland Security spokesperson Tricia McLaughlin told CBS News. 'The Trump Administration is committed to restoring integrity to our immigration system and to our justice system,' McLaughlin added.
New York Post
an hour ago
- New York Post
Corporate America is not falling for the left's outrage over Sydney Sweeney's ‘good jeans' ad
The left is trying its best to stir up a furor over the recent Sydney Sweeney jeans (or is it genes) TV commercial to ignite a backlash similar to the Dylan Mulvaney-Bud Light debacle. Sorry progressives, it ain't happening. Yes, there's lots of chirping from lefty columnists, purple-haired TikTok influencers, late-night hosts who are still employed, and assorted wokesters after American Eagle had the audacity to feature the attractive blond, blue-eyed actress expressing her sartorial flair in a pair of tight-fitting blue jeans. Advertisement 'Genes are passed down from parents to offspring, often determining traits like hair color, personality, and even eye color . . . my jeans are blue,' the 'Euphoria' star says. The ad ends with a voice-over: 'Sydney Sweeney has great jeans.' Blond women? Blue-eyed? Good genes (I mean jeans)? Oh, the horror! That's if you are listening to the leftist commentariat that still hasn't piped down weeks after the spot first appeared. The lefties are freaking because they think the jeans company is looking to bring back the bad old days, pre-George Floyd of course, when white blond oppressors ruled over American culture. Advertisement It's all very Hitler-like to the progressive numbskull class, but not to just about every other segment of American society. Most Americans of all colors and genders either don't care, or they know good genes and jeans when they see it. I know this based on lots of reporting on the mind virus known wokeness — the progressive orthodoxy that embraces everything from cultural Marxism, DEI and, of course, the oppressor-oppressed theology. We are a diverse country, and that's good. The wokesters take it to a level that excludes rather than includes. Good-looking white people, particularly if their hair is that evil shade known as blond, are nowhere near the intersectional matrix they demand for hiring or image making in their version of America. Advertisement That's why Sydney Sweeney, known more for her cleavage than her politics, has become a touchstone in our culture wars, and here's why the attacks won't work: Wokeness was once big in the business world, but notice my use of the past tense. Corporate America listened to these kooks for many reasons, including their own progressive management leanings, with disastrous results. They learned the hard way that most Americans of all races hate being proselytized with political dogma, particularly of the left-wing variety that pushes the limits of identity and gender politics beyond cultural norms. I chronicled this spectacle with a healthy dose of schadenfreude in my book 'Go Woke Go Broke: The Inside Story of the Radicalization of Corporate America.' Just a few short years ago, DEI was the norm; so was radical environmentalism pushed by asset managers through something called ESG investing. It was difficult finding a straight man or woman — God forbid a blond — who survived the Madison Avenue woke censor machine. Budweiser thought its customers were ready for a commercial featuring a half-naked trans woman in a bubble bath. Disney decided it could sell more kids programming featuring same-sex kissing scenes. Money managers like BlackRock thought they could increase returns by advocating environmentalism and de facto racial quotas on their portfolio companies. Advertisement All of the above resulted in some of the biggest brand-destroying disasters in modern business history. Marketing is a lot like politics. It's a business of addition, not subtraction. You build customers just like you attract voters, through messaging that unites rather than divides — or customers flee. There are exceptions, of course. Niche brands like Ben & Jerry's ice cream attempt and succeed at targeting the tree-hugger demo. Try this stuff on a mass audience and you will get the beatdown of the century. The predictable customer revolt impacted the businesses of Budweiser, Disney and BlackRock in such a measurable way that shareholders revolted, too, forcing some of the most progressive CEOs in the world to course-correct. That's why the Sydney Sweeney uproar will go nowhere with the people who matter most: Most American consumers, and American Eagle shareholders. Unless you're stretching it like Silly Putty, there's nothing inherently political about a pretty blond (dare I say 'All American'-looking) woman in jeans and pointing out the health of her genes to sell stuff. Zero. Zilch. Otherwise, Pamela Anderson would have been a poster child for Aryan Nations instead of the 'Baywatch' babe most American men and many women adored, and still do. Shares of American Eagle are up since the Sydney Sweeney ad ran, despite the backlash. NYU Marketing Professor Eitan Muller points out the obvious, telling Fox Business's Teuta Dedvukaj that the commercial 'attracts attention, drives Google searches, and boosts the brand. Yes, she does have great genes — and it rings authentic. That's what you want from an ad.' My bet: You will be seeing a lot more of Sydney Sweeney. Most men will be rejoicing, many women will buy the company's jeans. Management will be rewarded with higher sales and a stock price that matches. The attacks will ultimately fail for the same reason Mulvaney's tenure as a spokeswoman for Bud Light was so short-lived. Recall: The nation's Number 1-selling beer dropped to Number 3 and never recovered. Sydney Sweeney has both good jeans and genes and there's nothing the wokesters can do to change that reality.
Boston Globe
2 hours ago
- Boston Globe
For some, return of Presidential Fitness Test revives painful memories
'I never did a pullup,' she said. 'My jam was just to hang there and cut jokes.' President Donald Trump's announcement Thursday that he was reviving the fitness test, which President Barack Obama did away with in 2012, has stirred up strong feelings and powerful memories for generations of Americans who were forced to complete the annual measure of their physical abilities. Advertisement While some still proudly remember passing the test with flying colors and receiving a presidential certificate, many others recoil at the mere mention of the test. For them, it was an early introduction to public humiliation. Get Starting Point A guide through the most important stories of the morning, delivered Monday through Friday. Enter Email Sign Up 'You would see it,' Burnett said. Her classmates 'would feel body shamed if they didn't perform as well.' Born of Cold War-era fears that America was becoming 'soft,' the test was introduced by President Lyndon B. Johnson in 1966. Although it changed forms over the years, the most recent version included a 1-mile run, modified situps, a 30-foot shuttle run, the sit-and-reach flexibility test and a choice between pushups or pullups. Children who scored in the top 15% nationwide earned a Presidential Physical Fitness Award. Advertisement When Obama abolished the test, he replaced it with the FitnessGram, a program that emphasized overall student health, goal setting and personal progress -- not beating your classmates on the track or the pullup bar. Trump signed an executive order that revived the test and reestablished the President's Council on Sports, Fitness and Nutrition. The order cited 'the threat to the vitality and longevity of our country that is posed by America's declining health and physical fitness.' The health secretary, Robert F. Kennedy Jr., said at a White House event where Trump signed the order that he had fond memories of taking the fitness test as a child. 'It was a huge item of pride when I was growing up, and we need to re-instill that spirit of competition and that commitment to nutrition and physical fitness,' he said. Trump did not say what elements the new test would include, but the announcement came as his administration has also rolled out new physical fitness standards for soldiers in combat roles. News that the test was returning sent many Americans back to a time when they were frightened children in gym shorts and sneakers. Robin Gray, 60, who grew up in Tempe, Arizona, said she remembered being marched into her elementary school gym and told to complete a series of physical tests that she had never prepared for. As a bookish, asthmatic child, she struggled. 'There was this hanging on a bar,' she said. 'We weren't built up to learn how to hang on a bar. It was just how long can you hang here on this one random day?' The test did not encourage her to become physically active, something she did later in life by taking up swing dancing and yoga, she said. Advertisement 'It was survive or fail,' she said. 'It was Darwinist.' Some gym teachers said they never liked giving the test, knowing the effect it had on children who did not excel at sports. 'To tell you the truth, I dreaded it because I knew for some kids, it was one of the units they hated,' said Anita Chavez, who retired last year after 33 years as an elementary school physical education teacher in Minnesota. Chavez said she would offer some students the option of taking the test in the morning without other students present, so they would not feel embarrassed. She also set up stations in the gym so children would stay on the move and not gawk as their classmates struggled to do a pullup. Megaera Regan, who retired in 2021 after 32 years as an elementary school physical education teacher in Port Washington, New York, on Long Island, called the return of the test 'a giant step backward.' 'It really breaks my heart that it's coming back,' she said. 'If our mission is to help kids love being physically active and love moving, we have to do more than testing them in ways in which the majority are going to fail, and they're going to feel ashamed, and they're not going to like physical education.' Still, the test has its supporters, who describe it as a rite of passage -- and even a transformative experience. Steve Magness, 40, an author of books about performance and the science of running, said that he 'wasn't your typical athlete' as a child growing up outside Houston. Advertisement Then he won the mile run and the shuttle run during the Presidential Fitness Test in second grade. Pretty soon, he was known as the fastest runner in his class. He went on to run a 4:01 mile in high school and win a state championship in track, he said. 'That was my introduction to, 'Oh, I'm good at something,' and it pushed me into endurance sports and running,' he said. But even he found one part of the test to be insurmountable. 'I would ace everything else but couldn't touch my toes,' he said. 'That was my nemesis.' This article originally appeared in
