Warning Issued From 23 States Over SNAP Benefit Cuts
Newsweek AI is in beta. Translations may contain inaccuracies—please refer to the original content.
All 23 Democratic governors have penned a letter imploring Congress not to "gut" funding for the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) nor shift financing responsibility to the states.
Why It Matters
Republicans on the Senate Agriculture Committee are working to pass major federal cost cuts to the program, which provides monthly benefits to for about 40 million low- and no-income Americans to help with the cost of groceries, as part of the One Big Beautiful Bill Act.
First revealed earlier this year, Republicans are planning to shift some of the responsibility for funding the food stamp program to states. Under currently rules, states pay for half of the administrative costs of running SNAP, while the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) pays the other half. The USDA also covers the entire cost of benefits.
Numerous states have warned they are unable to afford the extra financial commitment, and could be forced to drop out of the program entirely, which could leave some of America's poorest without food aid.
Newsweek contacted the Senate Agriculture Committee for comment via email outside of regular working hours on Thursday.
What To Know
The letter addressed to Senate and House minority and majority leaders argues that cost-sharing proposals outlined in the bill would "effectively gut this critical food assistance that helps families with children, older adults, and working people afford the rising cost of groceries and put food on the table."
Signed by the 23 governors, it warns that some states may need to withdraw from the program entirely because they cannot afford it, "potentially cutting off millions of Americans from this vital assistance."
Stock image/file photo: SNAP and EBT accepted here sign
Stock image/file photo: SNAP and EBT accepted here sign
GETTY
The letter warns that Congress is putting states in an "impossible ultimatum," forcing them to either find new funding to cover federal SNAP cuts or reduce access to critical food assistance. They called the expectation that states could realistically backfill such cuts "unrealistic," emphasizing that failure to meet the full cost-share would leave states with few choices: cut SNAP enrollment or shut down their programs entirely.
"Strained state budgets cannot backfill these cuts," it reads, "especially as Congress simultaneously proposes to slash Medicaid, disaster relief, and other federally-funded safety net programs."
The following governors have signed the letter:
Arizona Governor Katie Hobbs
California Governor Gavin Newsom
Connecticut Governor Ned Lamont
Colorado Governor Jared Polis
Delaware Governor Matt Meyer
Hawaii Governor Josh Green
Illinois Governor JB Pritzker
Kansas Governor Laura Kelly
Kentucky Governor Andy Beshear
Maine Governor Janet Mills
Maryland Governor Wes Moore
Massachusetts Governor Maura Healey
Michigan Governor Gretchen Whitmer
Minnesota Governor Tim Walz
New Jersey Governor Phil Murphy
New Mexico Governor Michelle Lujan Grisham
New York Governor Kathy Hochul
North Carolina Governor Josh Stein
Oregon Governor Tina Kotek
Pennsylvania Governor Josh Shapiro
Rhode Island Governor Dan McKee
Washington Governor Bob Ferguson
Wisconsin Governor Tony Evers
Revised Senate Plans
Under revised Senate plans, states can decide whether to use their payment error rates from either fiscal year 2025 or 2026 to determine their cost-sharing obligations starting in fiscal year 2028. But beginning in fiscal year 2029, each state's share will be based on the average error rate from the previous three years.
Under the proposal, states that keep their SNAP payment error rates under 6 percent won't have to contribute financially. For all others, the maximum cost a state could be required to cover is capped at 15 percent.
What People Are Saying
Colorado Governor Jared Polis: "Hundreds of thousands of Coloradans rely on SNAP to access food and we urge Congress not to make these drastic cuts. These cuts would hurt children and families, communities and our economies, while stretching state budgets even further."
Darcy Milburn, director of Social Security and health care policy at the Arc of the United States, previously told Newsweek: "Shifting responsibility for funding SNAP onto states would upend state budgets. SNAP is an optional program for states, so state governments may decide to address this fiscal challenge by reducing SNAP benefits, restricting eligibility, or even opting out of SNAP entirely,"
What Happens Next
After being approved by the House of Representatives in May, the SNAP portion of the bill is currently being considered by the Senate Agriculture Committee, with a view to passing the entire bill by Independence Day.
Are you a SNAP recipient worried about cuts the program? Email a.higham@newsweek.com
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Bloomberg
34 minutes ago
- Bloomberg
Trump Tax Bill Faces GOP Resistance Ahead of House Vote
President Donald Trump's multitrillion-dollar tax bill is meeting resistance in the House as Republican lawmakers threaten to defy Trump and sink his domestic agenda. Tyler Kendall reports on Bloomberg Television. (Source: Bloomberg)
Yahoo
34 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Trump keeps saying the GOP mega bill will eliminate taxes on Social Security. It does not
WASHINGTON (AP) — President Donald Trump keeps saying that Republicans' mega tax and spending cut legislation will eliminate taxes on federal Social Security benefits. It does not. At best, Donald Trump's 'no tax on Social Security' claim exaggerates the benefits to seniors if either the House or Senate-passed proposals is signed into law. Here's a look at Trump's recent statements, and what the proposals would — or would not — do. What Trump has said Trump repeatedly told voters during his 2024 campaign that he would eliminate taxes on Social Security. As his massive legislative package has moved through Congress, the Republican president has claimed that's what the bill would do. Trump said on a recent appearance on Fox News' 'Sunday Morning Futures" that the bill includes 'no tax on tips, no tax on Social Security, no tax on overtime.' A temporary tax deduction But instead of eliminating the tax, the Senate and House have each passed their own versions of a temporary tax deduction for seniors aged 65 and over, which applies to all income — not just Social Security. And it turns out not all Social Security beneficiaries will be able to claim the deduction. Those who won't be able to do so include the lowest-income seniors who already don't pay taxes on Social Security, those who choose to claim their benefits before they reach age 65 and those above a defined income threshold. The Senate proposal includes a temporary $6,000 deduction for seniors over the age of 65, contrasted with the House proposal, which includes a temporary deduction of $4,000. The Senate proposal approved Tuesday would eliminate Social Security tax liability for seniors with adjusted gross incomes of $75,000 or less or $150,000 if filing as a married couple. If passed into law, the tax deduction would last four years, from 2025 to 2029. The deductions phase out as income increases. White House touts impact Touting a new Council of Economic Advisers analysis, the White House said Tuesday that '88% of all seniors who receive Social Security — will pay NO TAX on their Social Security benefits," going on to say that the Senate proposal's $6,000 senior deduction 'is estimated to benefit 33.9 million seniors, including seniors not claiming Social Security. The deduction yields an average increase in after-tax income of $670 per senior who benefits from it.' Garrett Watson, director of policy analysis at the Tax Foundation think tank, said conflating the tax deduction with a claim that there will be no tax on Social Security could end up confusing and angering a lot of seniors who will expect to not pay taxes on their Social Security benefits. 'While the deduction does provide some relief for seniors, it's far from completely repealing the tax on their benefits,' Watson said. Economic effect The cost of actually eliminating the tax on Social Security would have massive impacts on the economy. University of Pennsylvania's Penn Wharton Budget Model estimates that eliminating income taxes on Social Security benefits 'would reduce revenues by $1.5 trillion over 10 years and increase federal debt by 7 percent by 2054" and speed up the projected depletion date of the Social Security Trust Fund from 2034 to 2032. Discussions over taxes on Social Security are just part of the overall bill, which is estimated in its Senate version to increase federal deficits over the next 10 years by nearly $3.3 trillion from 2025 to 2034, according to the Congressional Budget Office. Administration officials have said the cost of the tax bill would be offset by tariff income. Recently, the CBO separately estimated that Trump's sweeping tariff plan would cut deficits by $2.8 trillion over a 10-year period while shrinking the economy, raising the inflation rate and reducing the purchasing power of households overall.
Axios
36 minutes ago
- Axios
Scoop: Parker administration taps high-powered law firm to lobby Trump
The Parker administration is tapping a high-powered national law firm to lobby the Trump administration to support the mayor's "safer, greener, cleaner" agenda. Why it matters: Lobbying is a part of most cities' playbook, but maintaining working relationships with the president and federal lawmakers could prove especially crucial for Philadelphia, which relied on $2.2 billion in federal aid last year. Driving the news: Holland & Knight, a Florida-based law firm with a big footprint in Washington, D.C., has secured a new one-year, $150,000 contract with the city, city spokesperson Joe Grace tells Axios. The mayor's office publicly bid the contract earlier this year, saying it needs support and funding increases from the federal government to "assist the city in being the safest, cleanest, greenest city with economic opportunity for all." The contract description on the city's website stressed the need to foster "positive relationships with members of Congress and the president's administration, regardless of political affiliation." The big picture: Unlike her predecessor, Mayor Cherelle Parker has avoided publicly clashing with President Trump — a cautious strategy that has caused consternation among some advocates and residents who want the mayor to forcefully denounce Trump's policies. Between the lines: Parker doesn't appear to want to risk the city's overall future by criticizing the president on issues she can't directly influence, longtime political analyst Larry Ceisler tells Axios. Parker — who last month secured a $6.8 billion budget, raising city spending by nearly 7.5% from last year — "understands her lane as a mayor of Philadelphia," Ceisler says. "She is not getting distracted by all these other things that are going on around her." State of play: Holland & Knight has served as a consultant for several Philadelphiaadministrations over more than a decade, Grace says. The firm has already tallied at least $30,000 in the first quarter of 2025 to lobby for the city on issues ranging from affordable housing and homelessness to city waterregulation, per OpenSecrets. Philly spent $240,000 on lobbying under the Biden administration last year, with half of that amount going to Holland & Knight. What they're saying: Holland & Knight has been instrumental in facilitating conversations with "key contacts within federal government or other cities or municipalities," Grace says.
