Farm Bill passes House committee with $300B SNAP cuts. What it means for 3 million Texans
Traditionally bipartisan, the Farm Bill has become a point of sharp political contention, primarily over funding for the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP). House Republicans are pushing to reduce SNAP funding by up to $300 billion over the next decade, citing fiscal responsibility and a desire to shift resources toward other agricultural priorities. Democrats oppose the cuts, warning they would deepen food insecurity, especially in rural communities where SNAP is widely used.
Last year, the Farm Bill reached this same stage but stalled in Congress due to political divisions over proposed SNAP cuts, then at a significantly lower amount of $30 billion. Since then, changes in congressional leadership have increased that figure tenfold, intensifying the partisan divide. These disagreements prevented the bill from advancing, leading lawmakers to abandon the effort and extend the 2018 Farm Bill for another year as elections approached and political sensitivities around food assistance grew.
Originally set to expire in 2023, the Farm Bill — typically renewed every five years — has since been extended twice, with the current extension set to expire on Sept. 30, 2025.
The House Agriculture Committee voted 29-25 along party lines to advance legislation that would cut up to $300 billion in food aid spending to help fund Republicans' domestic policy megabill and some farm programs. The vote sends the measure to the House Budget Committee for further consideration before a full House floor vote.
If passed, the GOP proposal would create the largest overhaul in decades to SNAP, which helps more than 42 million Americans afford food, by requiring states to share the cost of SNAP benefits. The ongoing standoff over SNAP funding remains the main obstacle to passing a new Farm Bill, placing vital programs for both farmers and low-income families at risk.
Rep. Nikki Budzinski (D-Illinois) told Brownfield Ag News late last month that many Democrats voted against last year's Farm Bill draft because of the potential cuts, which were far less. With that number now increasing significantly, it is unclear whether this draft will advance further or if the bill will become gridlocked again.
With Republicans now controlling the House, Senate, and the presidency, the new Farm Bill is expected to reflect more conservative priorities, including a focus on fiscal responsibility, spending reductions and shifts in resource allocation.
SNAP, the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, is a federal program that helps low-income Americans buy food.
More than 42 million people across the United States receive SNAP benefits, including approximately 3.5 million Texans, according to the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities. In Texas, over $600 million in benefits are loaded each month onto Lone Star cards for families in need.
Benefit amounts vary by household size. According to the USDA, the maximum monthly SNAP benefits are:
1 person: $292
2 people: $536
3 people: $768
4 people: $975
5 people: $1,158
6 people: $1,390
7 people: $1,536
8 people: $1,756
Each additional person: $220
Only two Texans currently serve on the U.S. House Agriculture Committee: Rep. Ronny Jackson (R-13), who represents the Amarillo area, and Rep. Monica De La Cruz (R-15), whose district includes McAllen. Both were appointed to the committee for the 118th Congress, which began in January 2023.
The committee's recent 29-25 vote on the Farm Bill was a strict party-line split, with all Republicans voting in favor and all Democrats opposed. This means both Texas lawmakers supported the SNAP cuts included in the legislation.
De La Cruz has been particularly outspoken in her support for the Farm Bill and its proposed changes. While she acknowledges that approximately 25% of her district's population relies on SNAP benefits, she has raised concerns about what she sees as excessive allocations and potential abuse within the program.
'I want to be very clear: I support SNAP and the benefits that SNAP gives to families who are in a time of need," she said in a hearing last month. "Many South Texans really need and rely on this critical program for their family and for feeding their family. I take it personal when I hear tactics and fear mongering and rhetoric from the other side of the aisle because you're talking about my people. You're talking about people that I live with and in my community."
At the same time, De La Cruz criticized the Democratic Party's portrayal of the Republican effort to cut SNAP funding, describing it as exaggerated and misleading. She argued that, what she described as 'fear tactics,' unfairly paint Republicans as unsympathetic to struggling families, when in her view, the intent is to protect the program's long-term viability by addressing fraud and abuse.
'We need to stop the rhetoric and really the fear tactics when it comes to talking about SNAP and the work we're trying to do in this committee which is to truly give those people who are most in need the benefit that they need," De La Cruz said. "No American should go home and should sleep hungry. Period.'
"It's important that we protect this program because it's feeding people in my community. That being said, we must cut out the fraud and abuse to ensure those that rightfully need this program is in place not for today but for tomorrow," she added.
However, not everyone agrees with De La Cruz's framing of the issue. The Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee (DCCC) sharply criticized her vote, accusing her of siding with wealthy interests at the expense of vulnerable Texans.
'While Monica De La Cruz pretends to care about working Texas families and farmers, the only people she's really fighting for are the wealthy benefactors of Republican's tax cuts for billionaires," said DCCC Spokesperson Madison Andrus after last week's vote. "This bill will rip food off the tables of her district's most vulnerable children and take money directly out of farmers' pockets – De La Cruz's vote is a direct betrayal of the very people she vowed to protect and Texas' 15th won't forget it.'
The proposed Farm Bill includes several key changes aimed at supporting farmers and agricultural producers.
Price Loss Coverage (PLC) reference prices increased by 10% to 20%: PLC is a safety net program that helps farmers when market prices for certain crops fall below a set reference price. Raising these reference prices means farmers could receive higher payments to cover losses if crop prices drop.
Agriculture Risk Coverage (ARC) guarantee raised to 90%: ARC provides revenue support if a farmer's crop income falls below a certain percentage of their historical average. Increasing the guarantee to 90% means farmers will be protected against a greater share of income loss during bad crop years.
Expansion of eligible base acres by 30 million acres: Base acres are the land areas used to calculate subsidy payments. Expanding eligible acres allows more farmland to qualify for support payments, potentially increasing the number of acres that farmers can receive assistance for.
Payment limit increase from $125,000 to $155,000, indexed to inflation: Farm subsidy payments to individual producers are capped to prevent excessive payouts. Raising the limit allows farmers to receive higher payments, with the cap adjusted over time to keep up with inflation.
Crop insurance support — Increasing Supplemental Coverage Option (SCO) premium subsidies from 65% to 80%: SCO is a type of crop insurance that helps cover losses beyond standard policies. Increasing premium subsidies means farmers pay less out of pocket for this insurance, making it more affordable to protect their crops.
Environmental Quality Incentives Program (EQIP) funding rises from $2.66 billion in fiscal year 2026 to $3.26 billion by fiscal year 2031. EQIP helps farmers implement conservation practices like soil health and water quality improvements.
Conservation Stewardship Program (CSP) funding increases from $1.3 billion in 2026 to $1.38 billion in 2031. CSP rewards farmers who maintain high environmental stewardship on their land.
Members of Congress who sit on the Senate and House Committees on Agriculture, Nutrition and Forestry are primarily responsible for drafting farm bills.
The Farm Bill is a $1.5 trillion program that consists of a lot more than just crops and livestock. In fact, it impacts everyone in one way or another, whether through school lunch and government assistance or support of natural resources, such as our forests.
The legislation is broken into 12 sections, or titles. Each title addresses different aspects of agriculture and related sectors. Here's a summary of each title:
Commodities: Covers price and income support for farmers producing non-perishable crops, dairy and sugar, along with agricultural disaster assistance.
Conservation: Includes programs for natural resource conservation on working lands and land retirement and easement programs.
Trade: Covers food export subsidy programs and international food aid.
Nutrition: Encompasses SNAP and other nutrition programs to assist low-income Americans, as well as school lunches.
Credit: Focuses on federal loan programs to help farmers access financial credit.
Rural development: Supports rural economic growth through business and community development, rural housing and infrastructure.
Research, extension, and related matters: Funds farm and food research, education and extension programs.
Forestry: Addresses forest-specific conservation programs.
Energy: Encourages biofuel production, renewable energy installation and energy-related research.
Horticulture: Includes farmers market programs, research funding for horticultural crops and organic farming initiatives.
Crop Insurance: Provides subsidies for crop insurance premiums and supports the development of insurance policies.
Miscellaneous: Covers various advocacy and outreach areas such as support for beginning, socially disadvantaged, and veteran farmers, agricultural labor safety, workforce development and livestock health.
This article originally appeared on Austin American-Statesman: Farm Bill advances with cuts to food stamps. How many Texans use SNAP?
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Hill
4 minutes ago
- The Hill
NPR editor-in-chief Edith Chapin resigning amid attacks from Trump administration
This week, NPR's editor-in-chief and acting chief content officer, Edith Chapin, announced she is stepping down — a decision she says was entirely her own. But the timing couldn't feel more symbolic. Her resignation comes just days after Congress voted to eliminate all $500 million in federal funding for the Corporation for Public Broadcasting, which supports NPR and PBS. And while NPR itself doesn't rely heavily on federal dollars, the same can't be said for its member stations — especially in rural areas where these grants keep the lights on. This isn't just a media story. It's a story about who gets to stay informed — and who gets left behind. Let's start with Chapin. During her time at NPR, she didn't just hold a title — she elevated the newsroom. She led the charge to hire senior editors specifically tasked with ensuring fairness, accuracy, and balance across NPR's reporting. In a time when media bias has become a political football, Chapin doubled down on journalistic standards. She once said, "We need to hear from all kinds of people — and that is our job. And we need to be as clear and transparent as we possibly can, and our audiences can decide how useful we are for them." Her departure is a loss for public journalism at a moment when it is already under siege. Now, let's talk about that funding cut. It's a move that's small-minded and shortsighted. Here's why: First, rural communities will be hit the hardest. Small stations don't have the same access to donors or corporate sponsors as big-city outlets. Without federal funding, they risk shutting down entirely — cutting off essential access to local news, weather alerts, and educational programming. Second, public media is a lifeline, not a luxury. Nearly three in four Americans rely on public radio for public safety updates. It's also the home of beloved shows like "Sesame Street" and "Daniel Tiger," especially for families who can't afford streaming platforms. Third, not everyone has Wi-Fi. Lawmakers arguing that public media is 'obsolete' forget that rural broadband is still unreliable in many parts of the country. Radio is still a reliable source of information that many Americans are using. This funding cut also defies the original purpose of public broadcasting, which was meant to provide unbiased, educational content for all Americans. Stripping it away because of perceived political slights? That's retaliation — not policy. So yes, Edith Chapin may have chosen to leave. But we all lose something when a principled journalist walks away in the shadow of a system that's being dismantled. And what's at stake isn't just news — it's access, it's education, and it's equity. Lindsey Granger is a News Nation contributor and co-host of The Hill's commentary show 'Rising.' This column is an edited transcription of her on-air commentary.
The Hill
4 minutes ago
- The Hill
Bessent: Trump ‘not going to fire' Powell
Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent on Wednesday insisted that President Trump isn't going to fire Federal Reserve Chair Jerome Powell, but suggested that the pressure on the Fed to lower interest rates will continue. Bessent was asked on MSNBC's 'Morning Joe' if the president should say he will let Powell finish his term to give certainty to the markets, after indications that he would try to fire the head of the central bank have rattled the markets. The secretary pushed back on the question. 'I'm not sure where that question comes from because President Trump has repeatedly said he's not going to fire Chair Powell,' Bessent said. 'He might like for him to resign, but he's not going to fire him. He's said that on numerous occasions, I think he may have even said it again yesterday.' The president said Tuesday he doesn't think Powell should resign before his term is up in May but bashed him for not lowering interest rates. 'I think he's doing a bad job, but he's going to be out soon anyway. In eight months, he'll be out,' the president said. Also, when pressed on the pressure campaign on the Fed chair to lower rates, Bessent said that's part of the role. 'I think anyone who goes into public service should expect pressure, I get pressure from the president, from the Congress, from constituents,' Bessent said. Trump last week indicated to Republicans during a meeting in the Oval Office that he plans to fire Powell, a senior White House official told The Hill, and markets quickly dipped, with the S&P 500 falling into the red. He said later that day it is 'highly unlikely,' but he doesn't 'rule out anything.' While he appeared to reach a breaking point with Powell, he has since backed off amid warnings about how such a move would impact the markets from officials and outside voices.
Politico
5 minutes ago
- Politico
Thune keeps options open on recess
Speaker Mike Johnson is managing a delicate balance between appeasing antsy Republicans over the Jeffrey Epstein files and buying President Donald Trump time by shutting down the House early for August recess. The Louisiana Republican tried to quell dissent in a closed-door House GOP meeting Tuesday. He told members to stay united, arguing it would take time for the administration to release files that would also protect the names of Epstein's victims. But Republicans are getting impatient. In an Oversight subcommittee hearing Tuesday, lawmakers voted to compel the full committee to subpoena Epstein accomplice Ghislaine Maxwell. Oversight Chair James Comer (R-Ky.) later told reporters he had warned GOP leadership last week that if the Epstein files came up in his committee, most of his members would vote on the side of transparency. 'Everyone knew that,' Comer said, adding that his team will visit Maxwell in prison for the interview once they negotiate details with her attorneys. The saga has given Democrats just the platform they needed to land a successful blow on the White House. In her latest column, Rachael Bade outlines just how much the party has found its mojo in effectively hijacking the House and sticking it to Trump. Democratic efforts to further drive the MAGA wedge has legs beyond this week. The bipartisan bill led by Reps. Thomas Massie (R-Ky.) and Ro Khanna (D-Calif.), which would compel the release of more files, could hit the floor as soon as lawmakers return in September. That means Republican leaders are bracing for Democrats to keep the Epstein issue hot during August recess. And some of their own members who are itching for an outlet acknowledge that five weeks off may not stop Johnson's headache. 'The Epstein issue has contributed to their desire to just get us out of town because they hope that the energy will dissipate,' Massie told reporters Tuesday. 'I doubt that's the case.' What else we're watching: — Dems' appropriations strategy: As the Senate continues working through appropriations bills, Democrats met Tuesday to discuss their demands ahead of a government shutdown deadline in September. The Democratic leaders emerged Tuesday with no specific ultimatums for Republicans but called for them to negotiate in good faith. — Senate's version of the CLARITY Act: Senate Banking Chair Tim Scott (R-S.C.) and Sens. Cynthia Lummis of Wyoming, Bill Hagerty of Tennessee and Bernie Moreno of Ohio released draft legislation Tuesday for a digital asset market structure overhaul. It's the Senate's version of the House's CLARITY Act, which passed the House on July 17 with support from 78 Democrats and would divvy up regulation of digital assets under the Securities and Exchange Commission and the Commodity Futures Trading Commission. — More funding clawbacks: Republican leaders are in talks with the White House about a second rescissions package, after pushing through the first rescissions package last week. The package would include Education Department funding, which was first reported by the Daily Signal. House Majority Leader Steve Scalise did not disclose the specifics of upcoming rescissions but told POLITICO talks were well underway. Meredith Lee Hill, Hailey Fuchs, Jasper Goodman, Juan Perez Jr. and Eli Stokols contributed to this report.
