CLASP
The Center for Law and Social Policy
Updated April 2025
Since 1965, Medicaid has been providing affordable access to health care for children, workers, seniors, and persons with disabilities through a shared state-federal funding arrangement. Medicaid provides health insurance for more than one in five Americans, including 80 percent of children living in poverty; 44 percent of children with special health care needs; 43 percent of nonelderly adults with disabilities; and more than 60 percent of nursing home residents. Medicaid covers about one-third of the non-elderly Black and Hispanic populations and 17 percent of the white population. People of color are more likely to be insured by Medicaid because of systemic racism and economic oppression that has denied them access to quality jobs, including those that provide health insurance.
Medicaid is overwhelmingly popular among voters. More than 80 percent of people want to increase or maintain Medicaid spending. But despite the program’s popularity, Republicans are again threatening to make dangerous changes to Medicaid, some of which would impact its funding structure. Under current law, Medicaid is funded through a shared state-federal funding arrangement. The federal government pays states a percentage of Medicaid costs, called the Federal Medical Assistance Percentage (FMAP). The federal government’s contribution varies based on per capita income and other criteria. Republicans want to limit how much federal money flows to states to help pay for Medicaid coverage for every eligible person through per capita caps or block grants.
This statement can be attributed to Rricha deCant, director of legislative affairs at the Center for Law and Social Policy (CLASP)
April 10, 2025, Washington, D.C. – Today, the U.S. House of Representatives approved a budget resolution bill by a vote of 216-214 that was passed by the Senate last week. Its passage highlights the willingness of Congressional leaders to fund tax breaks for the rich and corporations and drive up the deficit through massive Medicaid cuts of $880 billion and SNAP cuts of $230 billion.
The proposal would also slash other public benefit programs that people with low incomes rely on. Instead of passing a budget resolution that would help families grapple with rising costs in an already chaotic economy, Congressional leaders are making it more difficult for families, children, and workers to have access to health care, food, and other essentials.
This measure now opens the door for Congress to write a budget reconciliation bill that could have far-reaching impacts on the lives of millions of Americans for decades to come.
By Teon Hayes and Marquelle Ogletree
Millions of families depend on the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) to put food on the table, but its future is at risk. The House budget resolution proposes slashing at least $230 billion from the program—a staggering 20 percent reduction in total funding that would be the largest cut in SNAP’s history. To make matters worse, these cuts are happening at a time when the cost of living and food prices are rising across the country, and a deep sense of unease is growing among historically marginalized communities as they face uncertainty about their safety and what lies ahead. The country is already in a fragile state—now is not the time to deepen the crisis by cutting essential benefits.
To grasp the impact of these cuts, it’s crucial to understand SNAP’s history. Originally launched in 1939 as the First Food Stamp Program, SNAP has long helped families combat hunger by expanding their food purchasing power. These current, unprecedented threats would undermine the program’s core mission.
The cuts proposed in the House budget resolution are not about eliminating fraud, waste, or abuse. Rather, members of Congress are simply trying to reduce the number of people who receive benefits so they can use the savings to help fund tax breaks for the nation’s wealthiest individuals and corporations. Such reductions do not serve the best interests of people experiencing poverty. Instead, they represent an attack on families with low incomes who rely on SNAP to put food on the table.
To illustrate the human impact, consider the story of Sarah, a mother of two and an elementary school paraprofessional in Georgia, who relies on SNAP to help feed her family. Each of these proposed changes will not affect families in isolation. When benefits are reduced, food choices restricted, and eligibility tightened, Sarah will face impossible trade-offs between food, rent, and child care. The loss of one safety net provision will cascade into others, pushing Sarah’s family and thousands of others deeper into financial insecurity and making it even harder for them to regain stability.
Reversing the 2021 Thrifty Food Plan Update and Freezing Future Adjustments
In 2021, SNAP benefits were updated to better reflect the true cost of a nutritious diet. Even after the update, SNAP benefits in Georgia are roughly $6.15 per person per day. If this update is reversed, Sarah’s benefits will shrink, making it even more difficult to buy enough food for her family. Instead of fresh produce, she will be forced to rely on cheaper and less nutritious options to stretch her benefits as far as possible. Sarah knows how to prepare a balanced, healthy meal, but she lacks affordability and access. She makes food choices based on what is available and what will keep her children full the longest. Unfortunately, the only corner store within five miles of her home recently closed due to economic downturns, leaving her with even fewer options. If future SNAP benefit adjustments are limited to inflation alone, the program will continue to fall behind the rising cost of food, making survival even more difficult.
Restricting Food Choices
Limiting what kinds of food SNAP recipients can purchase would make grocery shopping even more challenging for Sarah. With few grocery stores in her neighborhood, her primary option was the now-closed corner store, which already had a limited selection of fresh food. If new restrictions prevent her from buying certain items such as “accessory foods”, she may struggle to find eligible foods nearby, creating more stress for Sarah and her family.
It is important to recognize that restricting food choices is about policing people experiencing poverty, not improving public health. These restrictions contradict the very purpose of SNAP, cutting benefits while simultaneously limiting food options only deepens food insecurity.
Expanding Time Limits and Work Requirements
As a working mother, Sarah already juggles multiple responsibilities. Expanding strict work requirements would mean that if she ever lost hours to take care of a sick child or deal with an emergency, she could lose her SNAP benefits altogether. These requirements ignore the unpredictable challenges faced by workers earning low wages and push struggling families deeper into hardship.
Recent proposals extend work requirements for able bodied adults without dependents who have children ages 7–17 and older adults up to age 65. These changes disregard a fundamental reality: the majority of people who rely on public benefits already work, have disabilities, or serve as full-time caregivers. Increasing work requirements exacerbates poverty without addressing its root causes.
Shifting SNAP Costs to States
If Congress forces states to cover a portion of SNAP benefits, states will be burdened with significant new costs, leading to funding shortfalls and benefit cuts. In times of economic downturn, when more families need assistance, Sarah could see her benefits reduced or face longer wait times for help. In addition, the strain on states has affected other critical programs Sarah utilizes such as Medicaid and child care subsidies. States struggling to fill the funding gap may impose stricter eligibility requirements, shorten benefit periods, or cut the size of individual SNAP allotments, deepening food insecurity for millions.
Before advocating for this shift, Congress should revisit history. When states were given more responsibility for social safety net programs, such as with “welfare reform” in 1996, caseloads dropped significantly—not because fewer people needed assistance, but because states imposed stricter rules and administrative burdens to limit access. The result? More families going hungry and a weakened safety net that failed to reach families in need.
Furthermore, giving states flexibility in how they allocate funding for critical programs can be a dangerous game. We see this failure playing out in Mississippi today. Despite having one of the highest poverty rates in the country and a population of 2.9 million residents, only 1,600 families received Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) benefits in 2024. This staggering disparity highlights how states can divert funds away from direct support for families in need, often based on political priorities rather than actual demand. If SNAP follows a similar path, states could spend federal dollars on anything except ensuring people have food.
We cannot allow basic needs like food to become a political battleground. Shifting SNAP costs to states would repeat these failures, leaving millions at greater risk of hunger simply because of where they live.
The Bigger Picture
Sarah’s story is not unique. It reflects the daily struggle of over 42 million individuals who are parents, seniors, and workers that rely on SNAP. The choices Congress makes determine whether a child goes to bed hungry, whether an elderly neighbor skips meals to afford medication, or whether a single mother like Sarah is forced to choose between rent and groceries. SNAP is not just a program. It is a lifeline that allows families to afford food and hold onto hope in the face of hardship. Weakening it would mean more empty refrigerators, more children going to school on empty stomachs, and more families pushed further into crisis. We cannot allow that to happen.
Updated April 2, 2025 by Priya Pandey
Originally published in 2019 by Rebecca Ullrich and updated in February 2022 by Alejandra Londono Gomez
Early childhood programs play an important role in the lives of young children and their families. But in our current political climate, families across the country are questioning whether it’s safe to attend or enroll.
In January 2025, the Trump Administration rescinded the Biden Administration’s guidelines for Immigration and Customs Enforcement and Customs and Border Protection enforcement actions in certain “protected areas.” Immigration enforcement actions had previously been restricted at or near these locations, which include early childhood programs such as licensed child care, preschool, pre-kindergarten, and Head Start programs.
In response, we have updated “A Guide to Creating ‘Safe Space’ Policies for Early Childhood Programs,” which gives practitioners, advocates, and policymakers information and resources to design and implement “safe space” policies that safeguard early childhood programs against immigration enforcement, as well as protect families’ safety and privacy. The guide also includes sample policy text that early childhood providers can adapt for their programs.
By Ashley Burnside
As we anticipate Tax Day, the April 15 deadline for Americans to file their annual tax return, many households are waiting for their refunds, which will include critical tax credits like the Earned Income Tax Credit (EITC) and the Child Tax Credit (CTC). Although the wealthy can find ways around paying taxes, the tax filing process should be designed to ensure that everyone pays their fair share. That’s because the revenue from our tax returns is reinvested into critical public goods that we all rely on, like public schools and roads.
But this year, the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) is under threat, and the agency will have less bandwidth and fewer resources to process tax returns and provide support to the taxpayers who need it. The proposed IRS layoffs and funding cuts to the agency will harm taxpayers and hurt our economy. And the data requests for access to payment systems by Elon Musk’s Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE) are a threat to the security and protection of Americans.
IRS Funding and Staffing is a Critical Investment to Help Americans File Their Taxes
Having a fully staffed and funded IRS is important to our country’s well-being. Workers are required to file their taxes each year, but the process can be expensive, time-consuming, and complicated. Many taxpayers turn to private companies like Turbo Tax and H&R Block to file their taxes because they aren’t able to access free services within their communities—leading to an average cost of $140 to file taxes. Americans spend an average of 8 hours filing their return.
All of us have surely been left scratching our heads at some point when trying to understand what numbers to use when reporting our income or whether a particular deduction applies to our circumstances. For gig workers and college students, the tax filing process can be especially complex. Tax filers are often scared to file incorrectly and to be penalized—creating even more anxiety in an already complicated process.
For all these reasons, we must have a fully funded and fully staffed IRS with comprehensive customer service available and resources to make tax filing more accessible. But the Trump Administration has threatened to cut up to half of the IRS workforce and to dramatically cut funding for the agency.
When we invest in IRS staff who can help audit wealthy taxpayers, this leads to more revenue for our nation. Unfortunately, these staff are under threat from the Trump Administration. Through the Inflation Reduction Act, lawmakers invested $80 billion in the IRS, and this additional revenue has already had positive benefits. The IRS improved its ability to offer customer service – reducing phone wait times to an average of just over 3 minutes during the 2024 tax filing season. The agency answered about 90 percent of phone calls during the filing season as well. The IRS also used the increased funding to begin improving outdated interfaces and technology and to audit complex, high-income tax filers who evade paying their taxes. As of December 2024, the IRS collected $1.3 billion from very wealthy taxpayers who had not paid their overdue tax debt or filed their tax returns. Importantly, every $1 spent on auditing individuals with high incomes garners an additional $12 in revenue for our nation.
Investments in the Direct File Tool and Taxpayer Assistance Clinics are Vital
The IRS has established the Direct File tool, which provides a free and easy way for people to file their taxes online. In 2024, the program’s first year, 12 states used Direct File and users saved an estimated $5.6 million in tax preparation fees. This year, 25 states have implemented the tool. Lawmakers should invest in the IRS to help make the Direct File tool permanently available. In addition, lawmakers should invest in Volunteer Income Tax Assistance (VITA) clinics that help people file their taxes.
Stealing Private Taxpayer Data Will Reduce Trust and Lead to Less Revenue
DOGE is attempting to access private taxpayer data—including from filers with Individual Taxpayer Identification Numbers (ITINs), which are often used by immigrants. This risks the trust and security of Americans and may make people in immigrant communities reluctant to file their taxes, reducing the revenue our nation gets from these taxpayers. The administration has also proposed transferring IRS staff to the Department of Homeland Security where they could assist with deportations. Diverting IRS employees away from their primary functions, such as collecting revenue from the ultra-wealthy who may be evading taxes, to focus instead on deportation would reduce public revenues by billions of dollars annually. This would ultimately reduce efficiency within IRS tax collection systems.
We Must Invest in the IRS, Not Deplete It
Lawmakers should invest in the IRS, not deplete it. Tax filers are better off when our nation invests in resources like the Direct File tool and customer support services. And our economy is better off when lawmakers invest in staff who can audit the wealthiest individuals to raise revenue for public goods and ensure everyone is following the law and paying their fair share. Due to these disruptions in the IRS, the Department of Treasury anticipates a decrease of more than 10 percent—some $500+ billion—in tax receipts in 2025 compared to 2024. The proposed cuts to the agency are part of a larger plan by lawmakers to fund tax breaks for the very wealthiest Americans and corporations at the expense of everyday people.
This brief, part of the TANF 101 series, explains the fixed block grant awarded to states under Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF).
By Suzanne Wikle
Republicans in Congress have proposed enormous cuts to Medicaid, which provides insurance to more than 70 million people—or 1 in 5 Americans. One way they plan to cut Medicaid is by increasing red tape and limiting eligibility under the false guise of “work requirements.” This proposal will cause people to lose their health care.
By Ayurella Horn-Muller & Naveena Sadasivam
(EXCERPT)
Policy analyst Teon Hayes of the Center for Law and Social Policy said the funding freeze and corresponding food and farm program terminations are going to “send a shockwave” throughout the nation, given the growing demand for charitable food donations. “A federal funding freeze of this magnitude definitely amplifies this strain, and the reduction in funding of these programs … is definitely going to weaken local food systems,” said Hayes. All of this is compounding with an ongoing push by Congressional Republicans to drastically reduce nutrition program funding in the farm bill and the budget reconciliation bill, she said.
This statement can be attributed to Cemeré James, interim executive director of the Center for Law and Social Policy (CLASP)
Washington, D.C., March 14, 2025 – The full-year continuing resolution (CR) passed today by Congress undermines the security, stability, and well-being of millions of workers, immigrants, families, and children throughout the country. It provides no guardrails to stop the administration from using funds for whatever purposes President Trump and Elon Musk deem necessary to further their own political agenda. This CR does nothing to improve the lives of low-income families and children struggling across the country.
While the CR does avoid a government shutdown, it increases military spending by $6 billion, allocates an additional $485 million for Immigration and Customs Enforcement, and decreases nondefense spending by $13 billion. It also largely keeps spending levels the same as FY2024, at a time when inflation and costs are rising. This means that even though specific programs may not be targeted by line-item cuts, the current funding levels won’t go as far. For example, since federal housing vouchers won’t cover as many people, 32,000 people could face eviction.
Without safeguards specifying Congressional intent on how funds are spent, the administration could significantly cut or eliminate funding for programs that support housing assistance; public K-12 schools; Historically Black Colleges and Universities; maternal health; child care and early education; and postsecondary education. This undercuts Congress’s “power of the purse” and threatens its oversight authority over the Executive Branch.
This is one of the reasons that ultra-conservatives, who in the past have staunchly opposed stopgap funding measures like continuing resolutions, have been explicit about their support for this CR: it enables administration officials to continue dismantling and defunding government programs that they oppose.
The CR also includes a cruel provision that requires Washington, D.C. to cut more than $1 billion from its current budget. These are D.C. funds that come from locally paid taxes, not federal funds. Although the Senate voted on a standalone bill to restore funding back to D.C., until the House votes on the bill, D.C. could still face hiring freezes and furloughs throughout city agencies. This could result in unsafe streets, increased wait times for EMS calls, and a hiring freeze for teachers, among other devastating impacts to the city’s economy. We urge the House to pass the bill as soon as possible to restore D.C.’s budget.
CLASP remains committed to supporting families and communities and ensuring that they can meet their basic needs. This CR does not achieve that goal.
This statement can be attributed to Ashley Burnside, senior policy analyst at the Center for Law and Social Policy (CLASP)
Washington, DC, March 13, 2025—CLASP is disappointed to see the cancellation of the Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) pilots in five states previously approved by the Administration for Children and Families. Congress authorized these pilots under the Fiscal Responsibility Act of 2023 to provide up to five states with the opportunity to measure outcomes in their TANF programs by examining metrics around earnings and family stability and well-being. States will now need to reapply to be a part of the pilot.
Under current law, states must engage TANF recipients in work requirements to meet a rigid measure called the Work Participation Rate, which doesn’t account for the individualized needs of recipients who face multiple barriers to employment. The pilot could be a positive step in allowing states to be innovative in how they support families facing financial emergencies and providing pathways to economic stability for families.
The sudden reversal of the pilot for the five states that were approved last fall is concerning. These states have already been selected and have begun working with contractors to implement their pilots. This cancellation reflects an ongoing pattern of federal agencies ignoring actions by Congress and wasting time and resources at the state and federal levels. The Administration for Children and Families should support innovation at the state level, not hinder it.