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.

CENTRAL ISLIP, New York — A federal judge on Friday sentenced disgraced former Rep. George Santos to more than seven years in prison for wire fraud and aggravated identity theft in a case that resulted in his expulsion from Congress and capped a colorful flameout for the first-term Republican.

The 87-month sentence for Santos, who wept as it was announced, comes after a memorable one-year stint in Congress in which he was exposed, in prosecutors’ words, as a “pathological liar and fraudster.”

In imposing the lengthy sentence, U.S. District Judge Joanna Seybert decried his “flagrant thievery,” describing him as “an arrogant fraudster talking out of both sides of his mouth.”

His voice shaking, Santos told the court, “I betrayed the confidence entrusted to me by constituents, donors, colleagues and this court.”

He must report to prison by July 25. Seybert also ordered him to pay more than $373K in restitution, due immediately, and to serve two years supervised release.

Santos’ political saga gripped Washington and New York, where he flipped a Long Island House seat in a little-watched 2022 race that led to his prominent rise and ultimate downfall. After prosecutors charged him in May 2023, he refused to resign, buoyed by the support of many House Republicans. That support eventually dwindled, however, and Santos became the first member since the Civil War to be booted from the House without a conviction.

In August 2024, he pleaded guilty to two felony charges and acknowledged he used his campaign fundraising apparatus for personal gain. He admitted to submitting false reports to the FEC during his congressional run and to stealing the personal identity and financial information of elderly and cognitively impaired campaign donors. He fraudulently charged their credit cards, making unauthorized contributions to his campaign and others.

He also admitted to persuading donors to contribute money to a company that he claimed was a social welfare organization or super PAC, when in fact he used their contributions to put himself up at the Venetian Hotel in Las Vegas, shop at Hermès, Louis Vuitton and Brooks Brothers, pay off his credit cards and gift himself thousands of dollars in cash.

“His campaign for Congress didn’t turn him into a fraudster,” prosecutor Ryan Harris said at the sentencing. “It simply revealed him for what he already was.”

The criminal investigation and a separate congressional inquiry, coupled with significant media coverage, revealed that Santos had promoted scores of lies about his educational and professional background, as well as numerous other falsehoods, including that his mother died in the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks.

The House of Representatives voted to expel Santos in 2023 after the ethics committee released an explosive report that found “significant evidence” of Santos’ criminal wrongdoing. Democrats last year won back his Long Island seat in a special election.

“From his creation of a wholly fictitious biography to his callous theft of money from elderly and impaired donors, Santos’s unrestrained greed and voracious appetite for fame enabled him to exploit the very system by which we select our representatives,” prosecutors wrote in their sentencing memo.

They had recommended he receive an 87-month sentence, in large part because, they argued, he wasn’t remorseful. In fact, after prosecutors submitted their sentencing memo, they provided an additional filing to the court highlighting Santos’ social media posts to demonstrate that he remains “unrepentant.”

In one post, he referred to himself as a “scapegoat,” and in another, he denied having used campaign contributions to shop at Hermès. “No matter how hard the DOJ comes for me,” he wrote in another post, “they are mad because they will NEVER break my spirit.”

In a letter to the court, Santos argued that he is “profoundly sorry for the criminal conduct to which I pled guilty,” but that he has the right to “protest” the Justice Department’s request for the lengthy sentence. Santos himself suggested he serve two years, the legal minimum for one of the counts to which he pleaded guilty.