Skip to main content

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.

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

Discussion

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.

>> Read the full brief

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. 

By Parker Gilkesson Davis

The Farm Bill is one of the most important pieces of legislation Congress considers in terms of agriculture and food. It determines funding for programs such as the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP), which helps millions of families afford groceries each month. 

If you’re less familiar with what the Farm Bill does and why it matters, we break it down in this 2023 Farm Bill video. 

The Farm Bill was originally set to be reauthorized in 2023, but Congress was unable to reach agreement and instead extended the existing bill. Now, after months of delay and ongoing negotiations, Congress is preparing to make a decision that will directly impact whether millions of families can afford to eat.

As written, the current Farm Bill proposal would codify harmful SNAP cuts, enacted through H.R. 1, that have already made it more difficult for families across the country to buy food. Since those changes took effect last September, over 2.5 million people have lost SNAP benefits; in states like Arizona, participation has dropped by 47 percent. 

This proposal bakes in the harm caused by H.R. 1. As written, it would further codify those SNAP changes, including expanded work requirements that are already putting veterans, foster youth aging out of care, older adults, and others at risk of losing their benefits entirely. Critically, the bill also fails to address or even slow the cost shift to states, which will place significant financial and administrative strain on state agencies and further destabilize access to benefits. At a minimum, Congress should use the Farm Bill to halt or delay these cost shifts and begin reversing the damage that’s already been done.

SNAP is the nation’s most effective anti-hunger program, reducing poverty, improving physical and mental health outcomes, and supporting local economies. At a time when families are already struggling with high food costs, Congress should be strengthening this program, not deepening cuts and widening inequities in food access.

Members of Congress have a choice. They can vote “yes” and continue down a path that takes food away from families. Or they can vote “no” and take meaningful steps to reverse the  harmful changes from H.R. 1 and, at a minimum, slow or halt cost shifts that will only destabilize families further. Congress must vote no on this Farm Bill and proactively move forward with solutions that actually put food back on the table.

People are not less hungry, and there is not less of a need for assistance. Rather, people are being pushed out of the program. This is what it looks like when policy fails to meet people’s needs. The Farm Bill doesn’t have to be simply a piece of legislation. It can be a commitment to ensuring food is restored to tables.

By Christina Hasaan

For decades, the federal Supplemental Security Income (SSI) program has enforced a monthly asset limitof $2,000 for individuals and $3,000 for married couples. These outdated limits, which have not changed since 1989, may have initially been intended to ensure strict eligibility. But now they act as a savings penalty, trapping individuals living with disabilities into cycles of poverty, instability, and financial fear.

SSI is a needs-based program for individuals with disabilities who have limited income and assets, and should not be confused with Social Security Disability Insurance (SSDI), which provides benefits to individuals with disabilities who have worked and paid into the Social Security system. Although SSDI does not include the same asset limits as SSI, recipients face income and work restrictions that can similarly limit financial security.

Two companion bills introduced in the 119th Congress—H.R. 25403 and S. 1234,the SSI Savings Penalty Elimination Act—would raise these asset limits to $10,000 for individuals and $20,000 for married couples. If passed, these bills would finally modernize a policy that shapes the lives of more than 7 million recipients nationwide and over 300,000 residents in my home state, Pennsylvania.

This report centers the lived experiences of people whose stories illustrate the system’s failures and the urgent need for reform. Their perspectives provide insight into the unique challenges with navigating disability, stigma, financial insecurity, and restrictive policy requirements.

>>Read the brief here.

On April 15th, Ashley Burnside presents on proposed changes to the TANF program in Washington D.C. to the Court Services & Offender Supervision Agency (CSOSA) Community Justice Network members.

By Ashley Burnside

Families throughout the nation are facing a worsening affordability crisis. Tax credits, like the Child Tax Credit (CTC), can provide a temporary cash influx during tax season to help families pay off high-interest debt, afford bigger expenses like a car repair, or bolster their savings for an emergency. But because the CTC has an earnings requirement, it won’t reach 19 million children because their families don’t earn enough. It will also exclude 2.6 million children with parents who don’t have Social Security numbers. The CTC lifted approximately 2.4 million children above the poverty line in 2024, reducing child poverty by about 20 percent. In comparison, an expanded CTC would lower the child poverty rate by nearly half. Lawmakers should expand the CTC to reduce child poverty and to invest in families.

Raising a child has always been expensive, but parents across the country are facing steeper costs each month, while wages are not keeping up. Rent and housing costs are increasing, as are the costs for groceries, child care, utility bills, and more. The war in Iran has also skyrocketed gas prices, which will hit families who rely on driving to commute to work especially hard. The CTC alone will not solve this affordability crisis, but it is one tool that can help parents pay their bills and provide more enrichment opportunities for their children during tax time.

The CTC is a tax credit available to families with children under the age of seventeen who meet income and eligibility criteria. H.R. 1 (also called the One Big Beautiful Bill Act), which became law last summer, increased the maximum CTC from $2,000 to $2,200 per child and indexed the credit to inflation. But the law did not increase the CTC for the families who need it most.

An estimated 19 million children, or thirty percent of all kids, won’t get the full CTC due to their families not earning enough in 2026. This is because families must have a certain amount of earnings to be eligible for the full credit due to the way it is structured. As a result of many systemic factors, including employment and wage discrimination, generational racism, and segregated housing opportunities, the children not receiving the full CTC due to their families not earning enough are likelier to be Black, Latino, or Native American compared to white and Asian children. [Note: This statistic includes Asian communities as an aggregate, and therefore may mask specific outcomes for Asian American, Native Hawaiian, and Pacific Islander subgroups.] About half of Black children won’t get the full CTC in 2026; neither will 42 percent of Latino children or over half of Native American children, compared to about one in five white and Asian children. Meanwhile, a family making up to $400,000 per year will be eligible for the full CTC under current law.

The H.R.1 law also newly made certain immigrant families ineligible for the CTC. Individuals who are not eligible for Social Security numbers can use an Individual Taxpayer Identification Number (ITIN) to file their taxes. Up until the passage of H.R.1 last summer, if the child in the household had a Social Security number, their parents could claim the CTC on their behalf if they have ITINs. Now, at least one parent must have a Social Security number to claim the CTC for the child.

CLASP estimates that 2.6 million children who are U.S. citizens will be newly ineligible for the CTC this year due to this discriminatory policy change. They won’t be the only children left out; because of a policy enacted under the 2017 Trump tax bill, children must have Social Security numbers to be eligible for the CTC. This policy means that about 1 million additional children without Social Security numbers have been excluded from receiving the CTC for the last eight years. These policies will have profound impacts on many immigrant populations and increase the number of people living in poverty.

The small increase to the CTC passed under H.R.1 pales in comparison to the tax breaks that were passed for the very wealthy and for corporations. For example, the law cuts the estate tax, allowing more higher income families to inherit generational wealth without facing the estate tax. It also reduced the top marginal tax rate from 39.6 percent to 37 percent, benefitting those with incomes over $640,000 ($768,000 for married couples). The rich will get richer under this bill, while families will only get a maximum of $200 more per child under the CTC. And this law leaves millions of children out from benefitting from that credit altogether.

Lawmakers should permanently expand the CTC, make it fully available to the thirty percent of children who will be left out of getting it this year, and remove the discriminatory eligibility restrictions for families with ITINs. The American Family Act (H.R 2763/S.1393) is one bill that would make these changes. Lawmakers should also expand the Earned Income Tax Credit to help it reach more young workers and workers without dependent kids. Finally, lawmakers should also reinstate the Direct File tool that helps tax filers claim their taxes for free.

The tax code is an important tool for investing in families and workers. Lawmakers have advanced tax policies that don’t reach people living in poverty and that exclude immigrant families, while allowing the wealth gap to widen by implementing changes allowing the rich to get richer.