Senate Judiciary Chair Chuck Grassley said Monday he won’t advance two of President Donald Trump’s U.S. attorney picks after they ran into opposition from one of their home-state senators.

Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer said earlier this month he would not return his blue slip for Jay Clayton’s nomination to serve as U.S. attorney for the Southern District of New York or Joseph Nocella Jr.’s in the Eastern District.

The blue slip isn’t a Senate rule but instead a precedent that allows senators to effectively block the approval of nominees to U.S. district courts and U.S. attorney’s offices in their states.

Asked if Schumer’s objections meant that the two nominees won’t advance, Grassley said in a brief interview, “We’re going to honor the blue slip.”

Rep. Gerry Connolly, the top Democrat on the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee, will step down from his leadership post on the panel and not run for reelection.

The Virginia Democrat, whose constituency includes many federal workers, cited the return of his esophageal cancer — first diagnosed in late 2024 — as the reason for his planned departure.

“With no rancor and a full heart, I move into this final chapter full of pride in what we’ve accomplished together over 30 years,” Connolly said in a statement Monday, saying he would pull back from his ranking member position “soon.”

Connolly had beaten out Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez for the top leadership position on the panel in a contest last fall that in many ways had tested the House Democratic Caucus’ appetite for generational change. Several aging committee leaders had stepped aside in the face of challenges from Democrats who promised to bring a more vigorous opposition to the Trump administration to the table, though Connolly and his allies had stressed that the veteran lawmaker had invaluable investigative experience.

Ocasio-Cortez is no longer a member of the Oversight Committee and joined Energy and Commerce this year, so she could have a difficult time mounting a comeback bid — though it’s not clear she intends to do so. Others who might step up to the plate include Reps. Ro Khanna of California and Jasmine Crockett of Texas.

America’s largest anti-hunger program could be transformed under proposals now being debated by congressional Republicans, with some of the costs for the safety-net program potentially pushed onto states for the first time. But White House officials are urging caution as GOP lawmakers move to finalize their massive domestic policy bill, with concerns mounting about benefit cuts hitting President Donald Trump’s own voters.

Lawmakers are discussing more than a dozen iterations of the still-tentative plan to scale back federal spending on the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program by forcing states to split at least some of the cost, according to five people granted anonymity to describe the private deliberations. Governors would have to decide whether to foot the bill or put new limits on who would be eligible for food aid in their states.

Given the changes to Medicaid that Republicans are also pursuing, White House economic and political advisers are sensitive to piling more strain on deep-red states and Trump voters — and further imperiling passage of the megabill. Those advisers have generally urged a careful approach to overhauling food aid, and already Republicans on Capitol Hill have stepped back from the most drastic alternatives.

The talks around efforts to cut federal spending on SNAP, which currently helps to feed more than 40 million low-income Americans and is formerly known as food stamps, are still ongoing. The House Agriculture Committee, which oversees the program and is tasked with securing $230 billion in savings, is further behind schedule than most other panels, senior GOP leadership aides said.

The plan is part of a larger set of House GOP proposals to overhaul SNAP, which is a ripe target for many House Republicans, who argue that the program is rife with overpayment issues. The list includes limiting future increases to food aid benefits for families, blocking undocumented immigrants from accessing benefits, implementing stricter work requirements and forcing states to pay penalties for overpayment errors.

While the SNAP changes are politically sensitive, they have not been as big of a flashpoint inside the GOP as potential cuts to Medicaid. But one White House official, granted anonymity to speak candidly about the dynamics, said the administration wants to avoid a “one-two punch” ahead of the midterms to low-income MAGA voters and red states that could be forced to stretch their budgets.

Versions of the plan now under consideration wouldn’t phase-in any cost-sharing until after the 2026 midterms, or possibly even after the 2028 presidential election. That reflects an awareness among Trump officials and senior Hill Republicans that their most vulnerable members are already facing a barrage of Democratic ads claiming they’re slashing safety-net programs to pay for tax cuts for the wealthy. Republicans also want to give states time to adapt to the proposals.

The potential SNAP changes would disproportionately hit the Senate battlegrounds of Georgia and North Carolina, the presidential swing states of Arizona and Pennsylvania, as well as blue states like New York and California, home to a significant bloc of vulnerable House GOP members.

House Republicans have also tempered an earlier plan that would have gradually increased the states’ share of SNAP costs to 25 percent by the end of the next decade. The most drastic recent proposals reach 22.5 percent at the end of the 10-year window while waiting longer to phase-in the requirement.

No final decisions have been made, according to the officials with knowledge of the plans, and plans for a House Agriculture meeting to hash out the legislation remain in flux. Republicans were targeting May 8 for the markup, but May 7 is now more likely, the officials said — and it could be delayed into the following week.

A House Agriculture Committee spokesperson said Chair G.T. Thompson (R-Pa.) “is doing his due diligence to leave no stone unturned in finding reforms that will curb wasteful spending and that includes looking at how states administer SNAP, which spends over $13 billion per year in erroneous payments.”

“All options to rein in that waste and incentivize better state administration of the program are on the table,” the spokesperson added. A White House spokesperson did not respond to an inquiry Sunday.

Republicans are struggling to reconcile the gap between the House GOP’s $230 billion instruction for spending cuts across the Agriculture Committee and the Senate’s $1 billion minimum target.

There was some doubt among lawmakers that the House could find $230 billion in SNAP reductions, and senior Republicans privately assured at-risk GOP members that the final bill would land somewhere in the middle. But after Speaker Mike Johnson promised hard-liners he would deliver steep spending cuts, one House Republican lawmaker said the Agriculture panel will “have to hit” its target.

Beyond the White House sensitivities over SNAP, Republicans are weighing a slew of competing concerns. Vulnerable members are highly sensitive to changes that could strip benefits from their constituents and want a more moderate approach, according to two Republicans granted anonymity to discuss the talks.

But a large segment of the GOP conference wants steep cuts across a program they argue blue states exploit — starting with the rollback of a pandemic-era increase in benefits under then-President Joe Biden. Many argue that forcing states to pay for even a small percentage of SNAP benefits would make states administer the program more carefully.

Most White House officials who have been involved in conversations around the cost-sharing proposal in recent months aren’t outright opposed to it. But on private calls with Hill Republicans, Trump officials have cautioned against punishing states who voted overwhelmingly for the president in 2024.

One of the people with knowledge of the plans noted that deep-red states such as West Virginia are “going to be hit pretty hard by this,” and Mississippi, Louisiana, Oklahoma, Alabama, Florida and other states that voted overwhelmingly for Trump would also incur a significant financial burden.

Senior Republicans are making efforts to shore up support among vulnerable Republicans, many of whom hail from blue states that could see a huge financial responsibility for SNAP if the GOP plans ultimately survive.

The House Agriculture Committee’s portion of the Trump megabill is expected to include language to reauthorize the Secure Rural Schools program, which provides federal funding for critical public services in counties with significant amounts of tax-exempt federal lands. That legislation is supported by Rep. David Valadao (R-Calif.) and other at-risk Republicans who have warned in private and public against deep cuts to safety-net programs.