Congress

White House wariness tempers GOP plans to share food-aid spending with states

Published

1 year ago

April 27, 2025

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.

Congress

Clean energy group sets its sights on a new GOP target: Lauren Boebert

Published

59 minutes ago

October 7, 2026

Blue Light Newsroom

A clean energy group is launching a $1.5 million spend against Rep. Lauren Boebert (R-Colo.), its latest effort this midterm cycle targeting Republicans who actively work against renewables.

The Invest in Tomorrow Coalition’s first ad in the spend, which was obtained by Blue Light News, focuses on an embarrassing incident for Boebert: when she was ejected from a live musical performance of “Beetlejuice” for allegedly vaping, singing and recording the show.

“If Lauren Boebert can’t be trusted in a room full of kids, then she can’t be trusted in the halls of Congress,” the ad says.

The spot makes no mention of clean energy or Boebert’s attacks on the so-called “Green New Scam.” The strategy mimics the group’s previous playbook that it has deployed to help defeat Reps. Andy Ogles (R-Tenn.) Chip Roy (R-Texas) and Ralph Norman (R-S.C.) in their Republican primaries earlier this year, as the latter two sought statewide office. The PAC had tried to paint Ogles as an absentee member of Congress and Roy as insufficiently MAGA.

The group, which is backed by solar executives, has become an increasingly forceful player this cycle, which has seen a massive influx of outside spending.

“This industry has been villainized and used as a punching bag at times by the right, and the industry hasn’t always punched back,” said Chris Coffey, the CEO of Tusk Strategies, which is helping run the group. “Maybe when they’re deciding who to villainize next year, they will at least be like, ‘You know what? I don’t need problems with those guys.’”

Boebert’s district is historically deeply red. But Invest in Tomorrow also commissioned a poll, which shows she is underwater: 39% of likely voters view her favorably and 55% view her unfavorably. It also found Boebert leading the district’s Democratic nominee Eileen Laubacher by 5 points.

The poll, conducted by Impact Research from Sept. 21 to 24, polled 403 likely voters and had a margin of error of ±4.8%.

Congress

Trahan unveils AI liability discussion draft

Published

8 hours ago

October 7, 2026

Blue Light Newsroom

Rep. Lori Trahan on Wednesday unveiled a discussion draft for a bill that would make artificial intelligence developers liable when their products cause harm.

The legislation comes after OpenAI’s agents escaped containment and autonomously hacked into AI platform Hugging Face and accessed U.S. government websites.

The Clear Liability for Artificial Intelligence Misconduct Act aims to make it easier for those harmed by so-called rogue AI to bring claims against developers. Trahan’s bill does not preempt new state laws on AI liability — historically a prerequisite for attracting Republican support in the House.

“When someone breaks the law and hurts you, you can take them to court. That shouldn’t change just because the wrongdoer is an AI agent,” Trahan (D-Mass.) said in a statement. “Developers have already built systems capable of acting on their own and causing real damage. The CLAIM Act makes sure they answer for what their systems do.”

Legal experts have warned that existing laws require proof of intent or negligence, standards that can be difficult to show in court when AI models go rogue.

Trahan’s bill would ensure AI developers are unable to argue that their AI systems are incapable of intent. Instead, courts “would presume an AI system acted with the state of mind a person taking the same actions would have had.”

Trahan spokesperson Francis Grubar said work on the CLAIM Act began almost immediately after theJuly introduction of the FRONTIER Act, legislation with Rep. Jay Obernolte (R-Calif.) that would grant the government power to restrict the deployment of AI models deemed to pose catastrophic risks. While that bill aims to prevent serious harms before they happen, Grubar said the CLAIM Act would address how to impose accountability for existing damages.

Unlike an AI liability proposal announced last week by Sens. Josh Hawley (R-Mo.) and Chris Murphy (D-Conn.), Trahan’s legislation would not amend the 1986 Computer Fraud and Abuse Act. Grubar said the CLAIM Act would instead impose clearer liability on a broader range of harms, as well as autonomous or AI-enabled cyberattacks.

The CFFA, an anti-hacking law that bars individuals from accessing a computer without consent, requires proof of intent to hack into a computer system, which can’t be as easily applied to AI agents.

The Hugging Face incident, along with a flurry of other disclosed hacking incidents by rogue AI agents from OpenAI and other AI developers, has sparked a debate over how companies should be held legally liable for their AI systems.

OpenAI CEO Sam Altman, in an interview with Blue Light News’s Decoded podcast, said there should be a new “liability framework” to hold developers accountable for AI-powered cyberattacks. His comments come after White House officials like Director of National Intelligence Jay Clayton, who was recently appointed as AI czar by President Donald Trump, previously said that existing product liability laws are sufficient for now in addressing AI’s risks.

Congress

Vance to sit for CBS town hall in Michigan ahead of midterms

Published

9 hours ago

October 7, 2026

Blue Light Newsroom

Vice President JD Vance will take questions from Michigan voters in a CBS News town hall airing Oct. 17 as the Trump administration prepares a closing message to voters ahead of the midterms.

The town hall comes amid a blitz of campaign events for Vance and President Donald Trump as their party faces multiple headwinds that could cost them control of the House and Senate.

Michigan’s Senate contest between Democrat Abdul El-Sayed and Republican Mike Rogers has become one of the cycle’s closely watched battleground contests. Michigan also has several competitive House races and will elect a new governor for the first time in eight years.

Vance campaigned in Michigan with Rogers, gubernatorial nominee John James and Mike Bouchard Jr., the GOP nominee in the 10th Congressional District, at an Aug. 31 rally in Sterling Heights. Rep. Lisa McClain also appeared at the event.

The one-hour special, moderated by “CBS Evening News” anchor Tony Dokoupil, will be recorded earlier in the week. Vance and Dokoupil will discuss issues facing voters, including affordability, tariffs, immigration, health care, artificial intelligence, the war with Iran and the state of American democracy, according to CBS News.

The two were scheduled for a town hall interview in March, but the vice president postponed due to the war with Iran.

The vice president’s office did not immediately respond to a request for comment.