CLASP
The Center for Law and Social Policy
By Elizabeth Lower-Basch and Ashley Burside
Updated: July 7, 2026
This brief, part of the TANF 101 series, provides in-depth information on cash assistance under the Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) block grant.
Download the updated brief here.
This statement can be attributed to Wendy Chun-Hoon, president and executive director of the Center for Law and Social Policy (CLASP)
Washington, D.C., July 2, 2026–July 4th will mark one year since Congress passed and Donald Trump signed into law the Budget Reconciliation Act of 2025. Also known as H.R.1, the bill included the largest cuts to Medicaid and SNAP in the programs’ histories and prioritized funding to separate immigrant families and give tax breaks to the wealthy. As families continue to deal with the rising costs of living, they are now also left without health care and food assistance.
H.R.1 slashed nearly a trillion dollars from Medicaid and Affordable Care Act Marketplace tax credits. More than 1 million people have dropped Marketplace coverage and more than 10 million are projected to lose Medicaid coverage over the next decade. The bill’s impact on food assistance is already being felt, as SNAP participation has declined in every state since H.R.1 became law. Based on the latest available data, SNAP participation has fallen by more than 4 million people, or roughly 10 percent; and in the 12 states with available child-level data, more than 700,000 children have lost SNAP food assistance–all because the majority in Congress and the administration prioritized billionaires over families. We expect these harms to grow as states fully implement new eligibility restrictions and other measures in response to future state cost-sharing requirements.
These numbers do not reflect a decline in hunger or reduction in poverty. They represent millions of families who continue to struggle with medical bills, rising food costs, and economic hardship but are now being pushed out of the very programs designed to help them. And people who are technically eligible to keep Medicaid or food assistance will face significant new paperwork barriers, including more frequent Medicaid renewals that will make it harder to access the benefits they qualify for.
H.R.1 provided $170.7 billion in additional funding for immigration enforcement to the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) and carved out lawfully present immigrants from basic needs programs. This historic ballooning of immigration enforcement funding has turbocharged family separations and child and family detention, threatening child safety and well-being. An estimated 205,000 children,145,000 of whom are U.S. citizens, have experienced having a parent in detention. To make matters worse, these U.S. citizen children are also likely among those who are now losing access to the Child Tax Credit, at a time when they and their families are in most need of support. These changes will increase child poverty; and, building on the exclusions from the 2017 tax reforms that excluded eligibility for children without a Social Security number, affect nearly 4 million children. Moreover, the high level of disenrollment in SNAP and Medicaid is in part due to H.R.1’s exclusion of lawfully present immigrants, such as asylum seekers and refugees, as well as the chilling effect on people whose children are likely eligible but are disenrolling because they are concerned about their participation being used against them in immigration proceedings.
The DHS funding granted through H.R.1 is enabling immigration actions that are actively endangering our nation’s children. At least 79 children have been tear gassed or pepper sprayed and over 6,200 children have seen the inside of an immigration detention camp, where they experienced disruptions to their education, poor nutrition, and delayed medical care. The fear and uncertainty is affecting not only the children directly impacted by these policies, but also their classmates, teachers, and neighbors. The harms of H.R.1 will reverberate for generations.
Policymakers should invest in policies that support family unity and actually center community well-being, such as community-led food systems that keep families fed, regardless of political shifts. Congress must rescind the harm caused by H.R.1 and restore access to health coverage, food assistance, and economic supports. Repairing this harm will require that Congress moves away from policies rooted in suspicion, punishment, and unsupported fraud narratives and instead advance policies grounded in evidence, dignity, and the realities families face.
By Suzanne Wikle
The first year and a half of Trump’s second term and the 119th Congress makes it very clear that policymakers are waging a wholesale attack on people’s ability to afford health care – a basic human right that everyone should have. Republicans’ assault on health care goes far beyond the $1 trillion they cut from Medicaid and ACA last year as part of H.R.1, the Budget Reconciliation Act of 2025.
The Republican-led H.R.1 is estimated to cause nearly 17 million people to lose their health insurance in the next decade, in large part because of new Medicaid eligibility requirements forcing people to prove they are working, volunteering, or exempt from the requirements. Last week, the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) released an interim final rule to states about implementation details. As pointed out by 48 patient advocacy groups, the guidance goes against promises made by Congressional Republicans and makes it harder for people who are “medically frail” to stay eligible for Medicaid.
Prior to the rule being published, states were under the impression from CMS that they would be able to use existing data to identify someone as medically frail (e.g., someone with a cancer diagnosis). Under the published rule, people will now have to prove that a medical condition “significantly impairs” their ability to work. This will be incredibly burdensome for individuals and increase the workload of state eligibility workers. The administration didn’t have to do this and could have made it easier for people with cancer diagnoses or other illnesses to remain eligible for Medicaid. But administration officials went out of their way to write the rules in a way that will cause more people to lose their health insurance.
States are starting to speak up about the cost to implement H.R.1’s Medicaid changes. In addition to taking health care away from millions of people, states are on the hook for tens of millions of dollars to change computer systems and hire new eligibility staff. The Trump Administration is adding to state budget woes by again going beyond what H.R.1 required in terms of financing changes related to State Directed Payments – a wonky but important way federal dollars flow to states to keep Medicaid programs afloat. H.R.1 cut these funds to states and then CMS released guidance last month that will triple the financing cuts that were included in the legislation. If this stands in the final guidance, state budgets will face even greater Medicaid cuts, which will lead to even more people losing health care.
To add to the devasting cuts in H.R.1, CMS issued a proposed rule for insurers in the 2027 Marketplace. Once again, CMS continued its assault on people by significantly changing the rules to favor insurers and harm people. The proposed rule allows insurers to require people to pay more out of their pocket with higher deductibles and cost-sharing. Moreover, the rule would allow insurers to offer “no network” plans – literally putting the responsibility on people to ask their doctors if they will accept their insurance plan’s reimbursement rate. This is nothing but a giveaway to insurance companies and will undoubtedly lead to people paying more, delaying or forgoing health care, and likely taking on more medical debt.
Congress’s willingness to let enhanced subsidies for Marketplace insurance expire at the end of 2025 led to 1.2 million fewer people with insurance so far, and even more with lower tier plans that require more out-of-pocket costs and may have fewer benefits or more restrictive medication coverage. The recent actions by the Trump Administration will only add to the growing number of people who recently lost their health insurance.
The pattern is clear – at every opportunity and with every tool at its disposal, the Trump Administration is making it harder and more expensive for people to have health insurance and get the care they need. The full impact of H.R.1 and these proposed rules will take years to materialize, but there is no doubt that millions of people will lose their health insurance or have to pay more out of their pocket to use their insurance. It doesn’t have to be this way. We know that poverty a policy choice, but so is meeting people’s basic needs.
It’s clear that the current Congress and administration are intent on dismantling health care instead of solving the health care crisis in this country. CLASP will continue to work with partners to elevate the need for true solutions that live up to our belief that health care is a basic human right.
By Teon Hayes and Jesse Fairbanks
Harmful and false narratives about people who use basic needs programs emerged in the 1900s and continue to influence policymaking to this day, including the idea of “welfare fraud.” Policymakers interested in limiting government spending have long alleged that basic needs programs are riddled with “fraud.” In their view, “fraud” is perpetrated by people with low incomes who “take advantage” of programs that are funded with taxpayer dollars. These policymakers claim that people who use basic needs programs simply “don’t want to work,” implying that a family can afford housing, child care, food, and health insurance just by working one minimum-wage job.
Fraud is the willful misrepresentation of facts for personal gain, and it’s most often committed by people with institutional power.
Recent policy changes that have been proposed to address “fraud” in basic needs programs include new eligibility restrictions, verification processes, work reporting requirements, performance metrics, and databases. Such proposals are dangerous and will lead to millions of eligible people losing their benefits. Layer upon layer of “anti-fraud” measures are redundant. Adding unnecessary procedural barriers to the application process makes accessing these programs a headache for everyday people. Proposals such as stricter verification processes are also expensive for states to implement, and they don’t prevent improper payments.
Improper payments are unintentional mistakes caused by agency processing errors, missing paperwork, or other miscommunications. They include both overpayments and underpayments.
There are three powerful beliefs at the root of narratives about widespread “fraud” in basic needs programs. Each one relies on antiquated, racist ideas of who does or doesn’t deserve help from the government to sustain itself.
Root 1 – Meritocracy and Individualism
Americans are taught that people with resources and wealth earned their money through hard work and sacrifice. This fantasy that any individual has the power to achieve economic mobility if they just “try hard enough” has led some to believe that people with low incomes can’t afford basic needs because of individual choices; therefore, no one deserves help from government. Poverty is the result of systemic failures outside of an individual’s control, like stagnant wages not keeping up with rising costs in an economy that views basic needs as a commodity rather than a public good. Structural barriers drive racial and other inequities in economic hardship. Examples of structural barriers include limited educational opportunities, discrimination in labor and housing markets, and over-policing of Black, brown and immigrant communities.
Root 2 – Racial Capitalism
The United States became a powerful capitalist country because of the unpaid labor of enslaved Africans. However, many Americans still hold racist assumptions about why Black people experience poverty at higher rates than white people. From the “Sambo” stereotype in early 1900s minstrel shows to the “welfare queen” on the news in the 1970s, racist narratives have long portrayed Black communities as more likely to misuse public resources. Black people disproportionately experience poverty because the federal government failed to deliver reparations to formerly enslaved people, continued to discriminate against their descendants, and allowed people to terrorize Black communities. Black Americans were even excluded from America’s first basic needs programs, which created the white middle class.
Root 3 – Nativism and Colonialism
The United States expedited efforts to steal Indigenous land after it became an official country in 1776. Soon after, America developed its first immigration laws restricting citizenship to free white people, primarily to deny rights to Black and Indigenous people. America’s immigration policies over the past 250 years have continued to discriminate against people of color, justifying exclusions with false claims that immigrants will threaten people’s jobs and consume finite resources. Many Americans find this scarcity narrative compelling because it allows them to villainize and attack a group of people, rather than a system. Often immigrants have fled countries that faced destabilization because of intervention from countries in the West, like the United States. Immigrant communities enliven American culture and contribute significantly to the economy, all while being denied access to major basic needs programs.
Advancing a Progressive Narrative
Developing arguments that counter harmful dominant narratives requires us to treat the soil that nourishes American culture. We must counter individualist, racist, and nativist narratives about “fraud” in basic needs programs at the root.
Gardeners depend on a few different techniques to improve soil quality. One technique with roots in Indigenous cultures involves growing complementary crops that minimally compete for resources, known as intercropping. When done correctly, this practice can replenish the soil.
To popularize a progressive narrative about fraud and its impact on basic needs programs, as well as refocus America’s cultural priority on meeting people’s basic needs, we need to mix-and-match crops that appeal to different audiences. However, we can’t forget to plant the crops that are foundational to challenging the dominant narrative at its roots.
Aerate the Soil: Tell the Truth and Present an Alternative Worldview
These talking points challenge the belief that recipient-level “fraud” in basic needs programs is a relevant issue. Policymakers constructed this lie to sow public distrust in the programs. They scapegoat Black and immigrant communities to justify policy changes that hurt us all, including the middle class. But using billions of dollars to surveil benefit recipients won’t make groceries, housing, and gas affordable for everyday people. Instead, the government can invest tax dollars into public goods and services that help people afford their basic needs and achieve economic mobility. Every person deserves a stable home, food, and health care.
Fend Off Pests: Name Systemic Actors Committing Actual Fraud
These talking points narrow the public’s definition of fraud. The dominant narrative depends on an ambiguous definition of the term that incriminates people experiencing poverty. On the contrary, fraud is the act of obtaining something valuable through willful misrepresentation, and it’s committed by people with the institutional power to abuse government resources. Nearly 1,000 millionaires have not filed their tax returns and owe an estimated $34 billion in taxes. Health care companies commit millions in fraud through schemes like upcoding or unbundling every year. Wealthy people and corporations who avoid paying their taxes withhold critical revenue from our schools, libraries, and core
basic needs programs like Medicaid.
These talking points undermine the core argument that people with low incomes take advantage of basic needs programs. These programs can be challenging to navigate because of complicated rules and excessive paperwork requirements. In fact, so much documentation is required that eligible people are often deterred from applying. Because application and recertification processes are burdensome, people can unintentionally make mistakes. Adding more steps to the process may even lead to an increase in improper denials as state workers struggle to implement new rules. If the goal is to prevent application errors, policymakers should streamline programs by, for example, aligning eligibility criteria across programs so people can navigate them more easily.
This event has already happened. Please see the full recording, learn more about the speakers, and find a list of resources below.
On June 25, 2026, the latest installment of CLASP’s Equity Matters series focused on how racism shapes fraud narratives of public benefits programs in the current public discourse. Our panel highlighted the history of racism in public benefits program administration, the ways that fraud narratives harm recipients, how policies have either exacerbated or refuted these narratives, and how advocates and lawmakers can support both public benefits recipients and administrators.
Watch the full recording below:
Speakers:
Framing
- Wendy Chun-Hoon, Executive Director, CLASP
- Jesse Fairbanks, Policy Analyst, Public Benefits Justice
- Teon Hayes, Senior Policy Analyst, Public Benefits Justice
Discussion
- Adriana Cadena, Executive Director, Protecting Immigrant Families Campaign
- Christina Hasaan, Community Engagement Consultant and Alumnus, CLASP Community Partnership Group
- Ifeoma Ike, Founder and Chief Equity Weaver, Pink Cornrows
- Jamila Michener, PhD, Associate Professor, Director of the Center for Racial Justice and Equitable Futures—Cornell University
- Parker Gilkesson Davis, Senior Policy Analyst, CLASP (moderator)
Resources from the Event
| Download Social Media Toolkit | Download Zine and Instructions |
| Download Slides | Download the Q/A Discussion |
| Download Fact Sheet | ➔ Subscribe for more Equity Matters Updates! |
|
Report A Community-Driven Anti-Racist Vision for SNAP This report offers recommendations for changes to the SNAP program that move it in an anti-racist direction. This includes examining issues around sufficiency; availability; trauma; trust; respect; promotion of opportunity; and the perspectives of participants. |
|
Testimony CLASP Testimony on the Racialized History of Fraud in SNAP Parker Gilkesson Davis, senior policy analyst on the public benefits justice team, shares her experience as a North Carolina caseworker around a paper she published analyzing the racialized history of fraud in SNAP. |
|
Report SNAP “Program Integrity:” How Racialized Fraud Provisions Criminalize Hunger CLASP takes on the racialized history behind SNAP fraud, details the significant damage caused by efforts to “rein in” this perceived problem, and offers policy recommendations for reversing the harm. |
|
Fact Sheet Five Ways State Agencies Can Support EBT Users at Risk of ‘Skimming’ Skimming is a crime that’s inconvenient and frustrating, regardless of who falls victim to it. But it is even more detrimental for people receiving SNAP and TANF who are living in poverty. |
|
Know Your Rights Know Your Rights about “Intentional Program Violations” If you’ve been accused of “fraud” in the SNAP program, this “Know Your Rights” factsheet may be helpful. |
|
Report Lifting Administrative Burdens to Advance Health and Racial Equity This paper from CLASP and the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities (CBPP) details the racist roots of administrative burdens in Medicaid, describes how these burdens continue to harm eligible people – particularly people of color – and provides specific recommendations for states to reduce administrative burden as a key strategy for advancing racial equity in Medicaid. |
By Teon Hayes
New brief from CLASP argues that allowing SNAP participants to buy rotisserie chicken is a helpful but a far too limited reform. SNAP’s ban on most hot or prepared foods does not reflect the realities of many families, workers, older adults, disabled people, or people without reliable kitchens. Congress should remove the hot foods ban more broadly and modernize SNAP around dignity, choice, and access.
Food flexibility will mean little if paired with benefit cuts, work requirements, or added barriers. Real reform should expand access, protect eligibility, and trust people to choose the food that meets their needs.
By Suzanne King
[EXCERPT]
Unfortunately, said Teon Hayes, a senior policy analyst with the Center for Law and Social Poverty, that narrative has gained new life just as people who rely on SNAP face increasing affordability challenges.
…
“We are experiencing an affordability crisis,” Hayes said, “and, unfortunately, people who are relying on public benefits are hit even harder. We’re no longer talking about just the price of eggs and milk. We’re talking about families struggling to afford basic living expenses.”
…
“We’re going to feel this for generations to come, and that’s what really, really scares me,” Hayes said. “Right now, we’re still good. States haven’t really experienced the cost shift yet. But in 2027, 2028 when it is in full effect, I think we’re going to be having a different conversation.”
Read the full article in The Beacon.
By Kaelin Rapport and Isha Weerasinghe
U.S. intervention in foreign countries can have long-lasting and irrevocable consequences, both here and abroad. Since the Trump Administration launched military strikes in Iran on February 28, the human and economic toll has been high. Hundreds of lives have been lost and scores of families in Iran have been displaced from their homes. And in the U.S., many people are struggling with a higher cost of living that could push individuals and families into economic insecurity.
War has not yet been officially declared on Iran; likewise, Congress has not formally approved the war. Yet according to a hearing on April 29 where Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth and other Pentagon officials briefed the House Armed Services Committee, the cost of these U.S.-initiated military strikes has been close to $25 billion. Others believe this estimate to be low, considering the Pentagon asked for $200 billion for the conflict. These estimates do not include the potential costs of lifetime disability benefits for the 55,000 troops deployed in the region who have been exposed to toxins and environmental hazards, or the costs to U.S residents.
Oil and Food Costs
The U.S. blockade of the Strait of Hormuz has delayed and, in some cases, completely stopped cargo ships from reaching their destinations around the world. Overall transit through the Strait has been down by up to 95 percent. While oil shortages and rising prices have received widespread media attention, the delivery of other commodities integral to daily life for most Americans has also been halted.
On April 27, U.N. Secretary-General António Guterres warned his colleagues of the looming food crisis spurred by the war. In addition to oil, the Strait of Hormuz is a significant global pathway in the distribution of liquified natural gas and fertilizers. Natural gas is a key component of nitrogen-based fertilizer production. Large amounts of sulfur, used in phosphatic fertilizer, is also produced in the region. Approximately 20 percent of the world’s oil supply and 33 percent of all seaborne fertilizer passes through the Strait.
The Climate Solutions Lab estimates that U.S. households have spent approximately $245 more on gasoline and diesel since the beginning of the war. Higher fuel prices mean higher fertilizer production and supply chain costs. As a result, people will have to pay more to grow and package consumable products across the board. Oil is a key building block in petrochemicals, which are present in more than 95 percent of the plastic and synthetic materials used around the world.
While grocery prices are already high, the U.S. Department of Agriculture’s Consumer Price Index predicts that prices for all foods will increase by 2.9 percent this year. The longer the conflict continues, the higher prices will rise, especially if the Strait remains closed through the spring and summer planting seasons. Farmers will soon have to make decisions about their crops for 2027, and constrained access to quality fertilizers will negatively impact global food security for months to come.
With no end to the blockade in sight, we are faced with a clear picture of the future: everyday items will be more expensive.
Debt and Mental Health
The total cost of the war could be as high as $1 trillion, or $5,000 per American household. Many people were already using their credit cards to cover basic needs like groceries prior to the war. Higher gas and food prices, as well as increased utility costs and steadily rising inflation rates will force them to rely on their credit cards even more. More people are carrying various forms of debt, including larger amounts of credit card debt, which can not only impact individual credit scores but also increases predatory lending and debt collection. This could result in higher car insurance premiums and higher deposits for utilities, and could also create barriers to housing and/or employment, as increased debt tends to erode a person’s economic mobility and security.
All of these increased costs to food, gas, utilities, and housing affect individual and family mental health. According to the American Psychiatric Association, financial stability is a core social determinant of mental health. Equally concerning are the impacts of the ongoing military conflict on the well-being of soldiers abroad; their families and communities; the immigrant diaspora; and the general public.
While Americans pay for war with their tax dollars, causing humanitarian and economic turmoil, our existing safety net has been decimated by H.R. 1, which will cut over $1.1 trillion in funding from health care and at least $186 billion from food assistance programs over the next decade. These cuts to state-level funding will have far-reaching consequences. One likely outcome is that states will divert funds away from education to fill the gaps in health care and food assistance coverage, which will drive young people with low incomes into the armed forces as other opportunities for upward economic mobility dry up.
Past wars have had negative economic repercussions for U.S. residents. Most conflicts since World War II have been marked by increased debt, taxation and inflation, and decreased spending and investing during or after U.S. involvement. That trend continues with the War in Iran. Increased energy and food costs will ensure that more families will go hungry, take on more debt, and further entrench populations with low incomes in poverty. The cycle of war continues: where policymakers approach each new conflict with amnesia about the lasting consequences, domestically and internationally, of the past ones.
Excerpt:
Experts stress that America has the resources to make life more affordable. And frequently, communities are fighting for those solutions themselves, from movements for student-debt cancellation or student loan forgiveness to tenants organizing to fight for affordable housing or needed repairs. Developing policy that pulls people out of survival mode has to be part of addressing affordability, according to Isha Weerasinghe, director of public benefits justice at the Center for Law and Social Policy. “We want to move forward, move above existing to thriving,” explains Weerasinghe. That means not just being in a place of paying to exist, or the stress of making ends meet, but being able to think about spending money on things you enjoy, too. “That seems very simplistic, but it’s so important,” said Weerasinghe. “Why can’t we all deserve that?”
…
Right now, the country is experiencing high inflation, labor cuts, trade restrictions, and the devastation of H.R. 1. Weerasinghe and the CLASP team want to think about a public benefits system that is more inclusive. For example, while the team works on SNAP reform, they are also thinking about food sovereignty, or solutions that have worked for communities for centuries despite disinvestment. Weerasinghe stresses that expanded inclusivity also ensures that immigrants are able to access all benefits. Then, what supports that in terms of revenue is building strategies around tax benefits to improve the system, like the child tax credit or the earned income tax credit.
If more people are able to access resources, it means more buy-in to the system, which means more people can get the services they need. For example, Weerasinghe explained, if more people have access to Medicaid, and there were less restrictions on how providers were able to reimburse for their services, it means more money in the health care system. Or, take SNAP: When there are less people who are receiving SNAP, while food prices are going up, fewer people participating means less purchasing power. That, in turn, impacts small businesses as well as larger ones—and since it impacts their profits, it leads to job cuts, which will affect the economy overall. More inclusivity benefits the economy across the board.
For people like Theresa and her family, she knows firsthand how these policies could actually make life easier and more affordable. “Taxpayer money should be spent investing in the present and future of our country,” she said, “not gutting social programs to provide tax cuts for corporations and billionaires.”
“The purpose of social programs—a lot of them were built in the ’60s, in the time of the civil rights movement as well—they’re built as a bridge to ensure that people have access to services and to make sure that all people have an ability to survive, but also to thrive,” Weerasinghe adds. “I think we have somehow come back to square one with this, and we have forgotten the purpose of why those programs were built in the first place.”
Read the full article in Dame Magazine here.
By
Excerpt:
You may be thinking, “Why just rotisserie chicken and not more hot food?” Well, the rule was part of a larger policy to encourage Americans to cook their own meals at home, the Center for Law and Social Policy reported. Still, for families with little access to kitchen supplies or those with members with special needs, being able to use their benefits to purchase a hot chicken is a start… Several Democrats, however, are not backing down from their mission to include most, if not all, hot foods on the SNAP list.