WASHINGTON — The Senate faced a significant setback as the parliamentarian ruled against a key proposal in Republicans’ tax and spending cut legislation. This proposal aimed to transfer some costs of the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) from the federal government to the states, a central part of the GOP’s strategy for achieving budgetary savings. Such parliamentary rulings are typically followed closely, complicating the party’s path forward just days ahead of an expected vote on President Donald Trump’s ambitious $4.5 trillion tax reform package.
Senate Republican leaders are now in a race against time. The loss is anticipated to strip away billions in savings that were projected from SNAP, a program that supports over 40 million Americans. Meanwhile, the parliamentarian did uphold a measure that would require work for food stamp eligibility for some recipients, specifically those aged up to 65.
Sen. Amy Klobuchar, the leading Democrat on the Senate Agriculture Committee, expressed her determination to protect vulnerable families from losing critical support. She emphasized that shifting costs would severely impact many individuals relying on food aid. The committee’s chair, Sen. John Boozman, R-Ark., acknowledged the ruling and stated his team is working to explore legal options that meet Senate requirements while still aiming for savings.
The parliamentarian’s decision comes amidst intensive scrutiny of the sprawling 1,000-page bill. Republicans aim to extend tax benefits initiated during Trump’s first term and introduce additional cuts, particularly to Medicaid and healthcare programs, which could result in an estimated $1 trillion reduction in federal spending over the next decade. However, the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office warns that this initiative could also add at least $2.4 trillion to the national debt and leave millions without health coverage.
Further complicating Republican efforts is the strict Byrd Rule, enforcing limitations on budget reconciliation procedures. The current ruling also indicated that provisions rendering certain immigrant populations ineligible for food stamps violated Senate rules, further eroding GOP options. Meanwhile, other proposals, including funding for storm-damaged Coast Guard facilities, were similarly deemed noncompliant.
Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer described the parliamentarian’s ruling as a “small but important victory” but cautioned that the overall package remains problematic, calling it one of the most severe assaults on food assistance in American history. During a conference call with fellow Democrats, Schumer criticized the GOP’s aim to finance tax cuts for wealthy individuals at the expense of needy families.
GOP leaders now face crucial decisions ahead. They might attempt to amend the proposals or remove problematic elements entirely, but any challenges on the Senate floor could derail their ambitions without the necessary bipartisan support. With the lingering complexities of the bill and an increasingly divided Congress, the outlook for the legislation remains uncertain.
As lawmakers continue their deliberations, significant questions loom regarding the potential impacts of these proposals. Advocates for food assistance programs remain vigilant, emphasizing the importance of safeguarding resources for the most vulnerable populations in the face of looming change.