Ty Jones Cox

States are increasingly calling for special sessions this year, and it’s not just routine business. From addressing the impact of federal policy, to state tax debates, to shoring up disaster aid and political power plays, 2025 is shaping up to be a year of legislative overtime.🧵

CBO's new estimate confirms: the Republican reconciliation law includes the largest #SNAP cut in history ($187B or ~20%). It will take food assistance away from more than 2M low-income ppl & cut food benefits for tens of millions more. Some states could even end SNAP entirely.

What does that mean? More people will lose food assistance so that the mythical jobless video gamer gets off the couch.

Reminder – Republicans say they’re targeting mythical able-bodied men playing video games, but they actually wrote a law that specifically targets and takes food away from parents, veterans, people facing homelessness, and older workers who face complications finding jobs.

Most Working-Age SNAP Participants Work But Job Instability Overstates Joblessness in Some Analyses | Center on Budget and Policy Priorities The Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) helps more than 40 million people put food on the table each month. SNAP has existing, harmful work-reporting requirements, but recent proposals...

No matter the spin - research has shown over and over again that work requirements do not increase employment. They do not increase earnings. They just cut people off from the support they need to meet their basic needs. www.cbpp.org/blog/most-wo...

This means continuing to monitor participation & food costs to ensure WIC can serve every eligible person who seeks benefits.

Policymakers should invest in the health of our youngest children by adhering to the longstanding bipartisan commitment to fully fund #WIC in 2026.

The Senate bill, on the other hand, provides sufficient funding for WIC & protects the science-based fruit and vegetable benefit. Policymakers must adopt this approach as conversations about 2026 funding continue. www.appropriations.senate.gov/imo/media/do...

Trump Budget Would Slash WIC Fruit and Vegetable Benefits for Millions | Center on Budget and Policy Priorities For more than 25 years, Presidents and Congresses of both parties have adhered to a commitment to provide enough funding for the WIC program — the Special Supplemental Nutrition Program for Women,...

The House bill also starts the process laid out in President Trump’s budget of slashing the #WIC fruit and vegetable benefit, raising the risk that our youngest children in families w/ low incomes don’t get enough healthy food to eat. www.cbpp.org/blog/trump-b...

Just after passing the deepest cut to #SNAP in history, the House ag appropriations bill underfunds #WIC & risks eligible families being turned away for the first time in nearly 3 decades—especially if food costs rise or participation grows. docs.house.gov/meetings/AP/...

Yesterday, Senate appropriators approved their bill to set 2026 #WIC funding. In stark contrast to the House bill, the Senate version maintains the nearly 30-year commitment to providing enough funding to serve all eligible applicants with the full science-based food benefit.

The bill House Republicans passed last week would be the deepest cut to #SNAP in history. Our new paper explains the 4 ways this bill would take food assistance away from low-income people, including families with kids, seniors, and people with disabilities. Link below ⤵️

The risk of these dire consequences would rise during recessions, when more families need SNAP but state budgets are even more stretched. The Senate must reject this harmful structural change that risks taking food away from kids, seniors, people with disabilities, and others.

States, which must balance their budgets, are in no position to absorb these new costs. If a state can't fully pay, its only choices are to drop out of #SNAP entirely or cut enough that they can afford the cost-share for a much smaller program that reaches far fewer people.

Research Note: Senate Republican Leaders’ Proposal Risks Deep Cuts to Food Assistance, Some States Ending SNAP Entirely | Center on Budget and Policy Priorities States, which must balance their budgets every year, would struggle to absorb these substantial new costs.

The federal government would still be turning its back on the 50-year national commitment to ensure that the lowest-income families in every state have access to the food assistance they need. See how much each state could owe: www.cbpp.org/research/foo...

Under the slightly revised version, each state’s unfunded mandate would be based on error rate data that is 3, rather than 2 years old. States would know the share of SNAP benefits they are being forced to absorb a year earlier. But no one should think this fixes this policy.

The new policy is reportedly nearly identical to the original – it would still take food away from eligible low-income people & worsen hunger.

There is confusion about whether the Parliamentarian has indicated that a slightly revised version of the #SNAP cost-shift to states in the Senate Republican bill complies with the Byrd rule. But what’s clear is: the provision’s harmful impact is unchanged.

Senate Republicans should abandon both provisions altogether.

Second, ending SNAP eligibility for up to 250k ppl w/ a lawful immigration status, including refugees, people granted asylum & some trafficking survivors, is a stark departure from our long-standing, bipartisan commitment to people w/ humanitarian protection.

If states can't pay, their choices are to drop out of the program or cut SNAP enough that they can afford the cost-share for a much smaller program. Either way, eligible low-income people in the state lose the help they need—it's just a matter of whether it's many or all of them.

Research Note: Senate Republican Leaders’ Proposal Risks Deep Cuts to Food Assistance, Some States Ending SNAP Entirely | Center on Budget and Policy Priorities States, which must balance their budgets every year, would struggle to absorb these substantial new costs.

First, slashing federal $ for food benefits & imposing those costs as an unfunded mandate on states means some states could cease to have a SNAP program at all, ending a 50-year nationwide commitment to addressing hunger. See how much your state could owe: www.cbpp.org/research/foo...

These are both fundamentally harmful policies that would take food away from low-income people & worsen hunger no matter how policymakers may attempt to rewrite or restructure them to pass muster with Senate rules. Senate Republicans must reject them.

The only “option” Sen Rs shld consider is removing these cuts entirely.

Chairman Boozman Statement on Ag Committee’s Reconciliation Provisions | The United States Senate Committee On Agriculture, Nutrition & Forestry WASHINGTON – U.S. Senate Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry Chairman John Boozman (R-AR) issued the following statement on the budget...

The Parliamentarian ruled 2 of the most harmful #SNAP cuts in the Senate Republican bill violate the Byrd rule, including an unprecedented cost-shift to states that could end SNAP entirely in parts of the U.S. www.agriculture.senate.gov/newsroom/rep...

The full Congress should ensure they meet this commitment by investing in the health of our youngest children & provide enough #WIC funding to serve all eligible applicants without cutting fruit & vegetable benefits.

Nonetheless, House appropriators committed to monitoring program needs & taking “additional action as necessary to ensure that funding provided in fiscal year 2026 remains sufficient to serve all eligible participants.” docs.house.gov/meetings/AP/...

With these cuts, House Rs would break the nearly 30-year bipartisan commitment to fully fund WIC so that all eligible families who apply can receive the program's full food benefits, nutrition education, and breastfeeding support.

Also, the House bill cuts overall #WIC funding. Even with the benefit cut & remaining FY25 funds, the bill doesn't include enough $ for expected participation & risks eligible families being turned away—especially if food costs rise or participation grows, which is highly likely.