GOP’s food stamp plan is found to violate Senate rules. It’s the latest setback for Trump’s big bill

By: D. D. Reese

The Senate parliamentarian has dealt a significant blow to Republicans’ flagship tax-and-spending reconciliation bill by declaring a key provision, shifting some costs of the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) to states, in violation of Senate rules. This move threatens to eliminate billions in projected savings and could reshape the overall bill just days before Senate voting was scheduled to start.

Republican leaders, aiming to offset the bill’s steep $4.5 trillion in tax cuts and new national security spending, had relied on this cost-shift for tens of billions in savings. That financial lifeline is now imperiled under the Byrd Rule, which prohibits extraneous policies unrelated to budget outcomes in reconciliation legislation. However, work requirements extending SNAP eligibility conditions for older Americans, up to age 65, remain allowable for now.

Proponents argue that the proposal would prompt states to manage SNAP more carefully, alleviating federal spending and reinforcing personal responsibility. In response to the parliamentarian’s ruling, Sen. John Boozman (R-Ark.) said Republicans are exploring alternative savings that comply with Senate rules and still safeguard SNAP’s role in helping those in need.

Opponents contend the mandate to transfer costs to state budgets could result in reduced benefits or outright ineligibility for millions. Sen. Amy Klobuchar (D-Minn.), ranking member of the Senate Agriculture Committee, called the parliamentarian’s decision a crucial defense of vulnerable families facing hardship. Sen. Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.) described it as a modest yet meaningful victory, warning that the remaining SNAP provisions, like stricter work requirements, could still undermine access for seniors and struggling households.

The parliamentarian also struck down other contentious provisions, including penalties for nutrition aid distributed in error, bans on eligible immigrant participation, and efforts to defund the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau. These decisions underscore the procedural hurdles of using reconciliation to enact sweeping policy changes.

Senate Republicans now face a choice: revise the legislation to comply with Senate rules, eliminate the disallowed elements, or push forward and risk delayed passage or a 60-vote threshold to override procedural objections. With the Fourth of July deadline looming, every dollar counts.

Beyond procedural strategy, the fate of the SNAP cost-sharing has broader implications. The bill also carries potential economic effects. Cutting federal spending on food assistance could reduce overall consumer demand for groceries, potentially decreasing demand for fuel in supply chains and transport industries. This could modestly suppress upward pressure on energy prices.

Conversely, policymakers have projected the full reconciliation package could add at least $2.4 trillion to the national deficit over the next decade, contributing to inflationary pressures and prompting Federal Reserve caution on interest rates. Any reduction in consumer aid programs may curtail low-income spending, affecting industries and possibly limiting short-term energy demand as households cut back.

In the end, the parliamentarian’s ruling raises critical questions about the final shape of the Senate legislation, its impact on vulnerable Americans, and the interplay between fiscal policy and energy price dynamics.