Tag: American politics Page 2 of 3

The recent announcement from the Office of Personnel Management (OPM) that gender-affirming health care will be excluded from the Federal Employees Health Benefits (FEHB) and Postal Service Health Benefits (PSHB) programs beginning in 2026 represents a profound step backward in civil rights and health equity. Under this directive, chemical and surgical interventions for gender transition will no longer be covered, though counseling for gender dysphoria must remain available. Insurance carriers are required to develop exceptions processes for individuals currently undergoing such care, yet the parameters of those processes remain undefined. Providers of gender-affirming care are also barred from being listed in plan directories, effectively discouraging access (Office of Personnel Management, 2025; Moss, 2025).

To understand the gravity of this reversal, it is necessary to recall how hard-fought the gains for transgender health care under FEHB were. In 2014, OPM lifted the longstanding blanket exclusion of gender-affirming procedures, and by 2016 carriers were instructed not to categorically deny such care. This change aligned federal benefits with emerging medical consensus that gender-affirming treatments are not elective but medically necessary. The World Professional Association for Transgender Health (WPATH) and the Endocrine Society have long affirmed that access to hormone therapy and surgeries significantly reduces psychological distress, improves quality of life, and prevents serious health complications (Hembree et al., 2017; Coleman et al., 2022). For nearly a decade, transgender federal employees and retirees could rely on this coverage as a matter of equity and recognition of their humanity.

As a transgender woman who has been receiving gender-affirming health care for more than eleven years, this policy shift strikes me not just as a bureaucratic adjustment but as a direct threat to my life and well-being. Having undergone an orchiectomy, I rely on estradiol not simply as an affirming treatment, but as essential hormone replacement. Without it, my bones, cardiovascular health, cognition, and emotional stability would be at severe risk. Estradiol for me is no different than thyroid medication for someone with hypothyroidism—it is medically necessary, lifelong care. To see it lumped under a politically charged category of “optional” transition services is both scientifically inaccurate and deeply insulting.

What unsettles me most is the uncertainty this policy creates. OPM’s promise of an “exceptions process” offers little clarity. Will it protect those of us with medical histories spanning over a decade of consistent care? Or will it force us into endless appeals and denials, treating every prescription refill as a battle? This ambiguity is destabilizing, and I cannot help but feel that it is intentional—designed to make care harder to access and to discourage providers from stepping forward.

As a federal retiree, I gave years of service under the assumption that the benefits I earned would protect me equitably. Now, I feel as though my identity has made me a target within the very system I trusted. The estimated 14,000 transgender federal employees and retirees who will be affected are not faceless statistics; we are people who dedicated our careers to serving this country, only to be told that our health care needs are unworthy of recognition (Lambda Legal, 2025; them.us, 2025). The exclusion also signals a dangerous precedent: that essential medical care can be stripped away not because of evidence or cost, but because of politics.

This change must be understood in its broader social context. Over the past decade, transgender Americans have seen both progress and backlash. The Affordable Care Act’s Section 1557 extended nondiscrimination protections in health care, and the Supreme Court’s ruling in Bostock v. Clayton County (2020) affirmed that gender identity is protected under Title VII. Yet, simultaneously, states across the country have passed laws restricting access to gender-affirming care, particularly for youth, framing these measures as cultural wedge issues. The OPM directive extends that wave of exclusion into the federal system, embedding discrimination into the nation’s largest employer-based insurance program.

For me personally, this is not an abstract policy debate. It is about whether I will be able to continue accessing the medication that keeps me healthy and alive. It is about whether the years of progress we celebrated were only temporary reprieves. And it is about what message this sends to younger transgender people entering federal service today: that their health and dignity can be used as bargaining chips in political battles.

I cannot help but feel anxious about what the future holds, but I also feel resolved. This rollback will not go unchallenged. Advocacy groups such as Lambda Legal, the National Center for Transgender Equality, and others have already condemned it as unlawful and are preparing legal strategies (Lambda Legal, 2025). As a transgender woman and a retiree, I plan to add my voice to that chorus, because silence is what allows discrimination to endure. We have fought too hard, and for too long, to let the ground be taken out from under us without resistance.

References

Coleman, E., Radix, A. E., Bouman, W. P., Brown, G. R., de Vries, A. L. C., Deutsch, M. B., … Winter, S. (2022). Standards of Care for the Health of Transgender and Gender Diverse People, Version 8. International Journal of Transgender Health, 23(sup1), S1–S259. https://doi.org/10.1080/26895269.2022.2100644

Hembree, W. C., Cohen-Kettenis, P. T., Gooren, L., Hannema, S. E., Meyer, W. J., Murad, M. H., … T’Sjoen, G. G. (2017). Endocrine Treatment of Gender-Dysphoric/Gender-Incongruent Persons: An Endocrine Society Clinical Practice Guideline. The Journal of Clinical Endocrinology & Metabolism, 102(11), 3869–3903. https://doi.org/10.1210/jc.2017-01658

Lambda Legal. (2025, August 19). Lambda Legal condemns Trump administration’s illegal exclusion of gender-affirming care from employee health benefits. Retrieved August 22, 2025, from https://lambdalegal.org/newsroom

Moss, K. (2025, August 20). Coverage for gender-affirming care will be eliminated from FEHB plans in 2026. Government Executive. Retrieved August 22, 2025, from https://www.govexec.com

Office of Personnel Management. (2025). Carrier Letter 2025-01b: Chemical and surgical sex-trait modification exclusion. Retrieved August 22, 2025, from https://opm.gov

them.us. (2025, August 20). Trump Admin to end coverage of gender-affirming care for federal workers. them. Retrieved August 22, 2025, from https://www.them

A Militarized Spectacle and a Day of Defiance

By Katherine Walter

On June 14, 2025

In Donald Trump

CHICAGO, ILLINOIS, UNITED STATES – JUNE 14: Thousands of demonstrators gathered at Daley Plaza, holding up signs and vocalizing slogans as they participated in a large march across downtown Chicago on June 14 to voice their opposition to the policies of President Donald Trump’s administration on ‘No Kings’ Day national protest.(Photo by Jacek Boczarski /Anadolu Agency via Getty Images) (Photo by Jacek Boczarski/Anadolu via Getty Images)

Today, June 14, 2025, marks a symbolic and deeply contested moment in American political life. What should have been a celebration of national unity and civic pride—the 250th anniversary of the U.S. Army and Flag Day—has instead become a flashpoint for ideological division and widespread protest. In Washington, D.C., former President Donald Trump presided over a lavish and heavily militarized parade, coinciding with his 79th birthday, a convergence of personal and national milestones that critics say dangerously conflates the state with one man’s cult of personality (Wise and Lonsdorf 2025).

The military parade included over 7,000 troops, armored tanks, fighter jets, and even vintage WWII aircraft rumbling down Constitution Avenue, where an 18-mile security perimeter cordoned off large swaths of the city (Associated Press, 2025; Times of India, 2025). The estimated cost of the spectacle—between $25 and $45 million—was shouldered by a combination of government funds and undisclosed private donations (The Sun, 2025). Trump’s speech delivered at the opening of the parade was infused with nationalist rhetoric, invoking military obedience, patriotism, and “loyalty above politics.” Conspicuously absent was any mention of democratic norms, freedom of the press, or checks and balances. In this omission, critics say, lies the deeper threat of the parade: not simply the flaunting of military might, but the implicit message that personal rule and military force are superior to democratic deliberation.

This view has been sharply contested across the nation today through an estimated 2,000 protests organized under the banner of “No Kings Day” (Archie, 2025). These grassroots actions, held in nearly every state, serve as a counter-narrative to the parade’s pageantry. Demonstrators gathered in city parks, college campuses, public squares, and outside federal buildings to denounce what they see as a creeping authoritarianism that seeks to replace public service with personal loyalty, and democratic power with centralized control. As one protest sign read in Boston, “Democracy doesn’t need tanks. It needs voters.”

According to NPR’s reporting, “No Kings Day” is more than a single-day action—it is part of an ongoing movement rooted in civic resistance to the iconography of authoritarianism (Wise and Lonsdorf 2025). Protestors cite not only the militarization of public spaces, but also the Trump-era erosion of institutional norms: court-stacking, attacks on journalists, politicization of the Department of Justice, and the increasing normalization of dehumanizing rhetoric toward immigrants and political opponents. As one organizer in Chicago explained, “This is not about left or right. It’s about the line between democracy and dictatorship.”

In Seattle, protestors formed a human chain around the local federal courthouse. In Austin, a group of veterans read aloud passages from the Constitution in front of the state capitol. In New York, an interfaith coalition gathered at Riverside Church to pray for the resilience of American democracy. Many rallies included signs bearing slogans like “No Throne in the White House” and “The Republic, Not the Emperor.”

The irony of staging a military parade ostensibly to celebrate freedom while thousands gather to protest against perceived tyranny was not lost on foreign observers. Le Monde in France called the day “a surreal juxtaposition of liberty and submission.” German outlets compared the parade to historical shows of power under monarchies and fascist regimes. And in Canada, the phrase “No Kings” trended across social media, boosted by solidarity rallies in Toronto and Vancouver.

The optics of the parade—and its timing—are particularly provocative. According to NPR (Wise and Lonsdorf 2025), the event was initially pitched by Trump’s advisors as a “celebration of American greatness,” but it quickly evolved into what one anonymous source described as “theatrical power projection.” Though the Army’s 250th anniversary offers a legitimate historical milestone, critics argue that wrapping it around Trump’s personal brand diminishes the institution’s apolitical legacy. “This isn’t about honoring the military,” said Dr. Nathaniel Cortez, a historian of civil-military relations. “It’s about co-opting the military to serve political theater.”

In the past, presidential celebrations of the military have been framed by humility and respect for civilian oversight. Trump’s approach, however, recalls more disturbing precedents: Charles de Gaulle’s Bastille Day parade in 1968 during a political crisis, or the Soviet-style parades of Red Square. Such displays function as political pageants designed to link the identity of the leader to the strength of the state. That is precisely what many Americans protested against today.

Moreover, the fusion of military ritual with personal celebration—Trump’s birthday being the secondary justification for the date—signals a transformation of public commemoration into an extension of personal mythology. The implication is subtle but sinister: that the nation’s power flows not from the people but from the person who commands the spectacle. As NPR (Wise and Lonsdorf 2025) noted, the parade’s symbolism mirrors that of dynastic traditions where leaders mark their rule not through elections, but through choreographed shows of loyalty and grandeur.

Even Trump’s defenders have struggled to explain why a peacetime display of this magnitude is necessary, especially given its cost. Some Republican lawmakers voiced quiet discomfort but avoided public criticism. Others leaned into the cultural symbolism, echoing Trump’s call for “patriotic renewal.” In contrast, Democratic leaders have been blunt in their condemnation. Senator Ayanna Hartsfield (D-MA) called the parade “an absurd coronation fantasy that has no place in a constitutional republic.”

In this broader context, “No Kings Day” is not simply a reaction to a parade. It is a demand for clarity about what kind of country the United States aspires to be. The protestors are asking fundamental questions: Does patriotism require submission to military power, or is it best expressed through dissent? Is democracy sustained by displays of force, or by critical, engaged citizenship? Who ultimately holds the power—the people or the personalities?

By evening, as the sun set over the National Mall and the last aircraft flew over the Lincoln Memorial, the contrast between the military’s rumble and the people’s chants could not have been more distinct. One was loud, orchestrated, and state-sanctioned. The other was messy, diverse, and democratic.

It is easy to become desensitized to the spectacle. But moments like this one call for vigilance. Authoritarianism rarely arrives at once. It comes in increments—in normalization, in silence, in distraction. Today, many Americans refused to be silent or distracted. Instead, they marched, spoke, resisted, and insisted: there are no kings here.

References

Archie, A. (2025, June 14). ‘No Kings’ protests against Trump planned nationwide to coincide with military parade. NPR. https://www.npr.org/2025/06/14/nx-s1-5432708/no-kings-protests-military-parade

Associated Press. (2025, June 14). The Army is set to celebrate 250 years with a parade that coincides with Trump’s birthday. https://apnews.com/article/4cca4da0e89908d39c820240744375a1

Bauer, J. (2025, June 13). Major ‘No Kings Day’ protest brewing. New York Post. https://nypost.com/2025/06/13/major-no-kings-day-protest-brewing-amid-military-parade-plans/

The Cut. (2025, June 14). What to Know About ‘No Kings Day’. https://www.thecut.com/article/no-kings-day-protests-what-to-know.html

The Sun. (2025, June 14). Trump parade LIVE: Crowds begin to gather in Washington DC. https://www.the-sun.com/news/14479749/donald-trump-us-army-parade-birthday-live/

Times of India. (2025, June 14). Donald Trump’s 79th birthday: Washington to host US Army parade and celebrations on June 14. https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/world/us/donald-trumps-79th-birthday-washington-to-host-us-army-parade-and-celebrations-on-june-14/articleshow/110044218.cms

Washington Post. (2025, June 13). ‘No Kings’ protests nationwide to push back on Trump’s ‘overreach’. https://www.washingtonpost.com/nation/2025/06/13/no-kings-protest-anti-trump-army-parade/

Wise, A. & Lonsdorf, K. (2025, June 14). Trump marks Army anniversary and birthday with military parade in D.C. NPR. https://www.npr.org/2025/06/14/nx-s1-5429660/military-parade-trump-army-anniversary-birthday

Trump’s War on Dissent

By Katherine Walter

On June 8, 2025

In civil rights, Donald Trump

EDITORS NOTE: Graphic content / US Department of Homeland Security Police officers and members of the National Guard stand guard outside the Metropolitan Detention Center, MDC, in downtown Los Angeles, California on June 8, 2025. Hundreds of National Guard troops took up positions in Los Angeles on June 8 on US President Donald Trump’s orders, a rare deployment against the state governor’s wishes after sometimes violent protests against immigration enforcement raids. (Photo by Frederic J. Brown / AFP) (Photo by FREDERIC J. BROWN/AFP via Getty Images)

On June 8, 2025, President Donald J. Trump took the extraordinary step of deploying the California National Guard to Los Angeles without the consent of Governor Gavin Newsom. The move was prompted by days of civil unrest following aggressive ICE raids in predominantly Latino neighborhoods in Southern California. While the official justification cited the need to restore order, the action fits within a broader historical pattern of Trump’s antagonism toward civil protest, particularly those that question his policies or leadership. The deployment is significant not only for its legal implications but also for the insight it offers into Trump’s authoritarian inclinations and his evolving use of federal power.

The protests began on June 6, when ICE agents conducted a coordinated series of raids on businesses in Los Angeles, including several clothing wholesalers and a Home Depot, reportedly detaining 44 undocumented workers (Associated Press, 2025a). Demonstrators gathered almost immediately in response, particularly in the communities of Paramount and Compton. Local news outlets and protest organizers described the raids as racially motivated and disproportionate. Over the next two days, confrontations between protesters and law enforcement escalated. Reports from the Los Angeles Times indicated the use of tear gas, pepper spray, and flash-bang grenades by federal agents (Vanity Fair, 2025). Protesters were accused of throwing rocks and concrete chunks, and by June 7, over 100 arrests had been made (Schneid, 2025).

On the morning of June 8, Trump invoked Title 10 of the U.S. Code to federalize the California National Guard, ordering the immediate deployment of approximately 2,000 troops to the Los Angeles area (Associated Press, 2025a). The initial wave of around 300 soldiers was stationed outside federal immigration facilities, including detention centers in downtown Los Angeles. Department of Homeland Security personnel, joined by local law enforcement, used smoke and crowd-control tactics to clear demonstrators from the perimeter of these buildings (Vanity Fair, 2025). More troubling still, Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth placed active-duty Marines at Camp Pendleton on high alert, stating that additional support would be mobilized if local resistance intensified (Wall Street Journal, 2025).

The legal basis for this intervention drew immediate scrutiny. Unlike the Insurrection Act—which has historically required consent from governors unless rebellion or national security threats are imminent—Title 10 allows the president to assume control of a state’s National Guard under more ambiguous circumstances. Trump’s use of this authority without consultation or approval from Governor Newsom represented a sharp departure from precedent (Washington Post, 2025). While prior instances of federal deployment have occurred—most notably during the civil rights era in 1965 and again during the 1992 Los Angeles riots—those actions typically involved collaboration between state and federal governments. Trump’s unilateral order broke with this tradition and raised immediate constitutional concerns.

Governor Newsom condemned the move, calling it “a political stunt masquerading as public safety” (Schneid, 2025). He emphasized that while some violence had occurred, local law enforcement had the situation under control. Los Angeles Mayor Karen Bass similarly criticized the decision, asserting that federal interference had inflamed tensions rather than de-escalated them (Associated Press, 2025b). Civil liberties organizations, including the ACLU, filed emergency injunctions in federal court, arguing that the federalization of the Guard in this context violated the Tenth Amendment and constituted an overreach of executive authority (Reuters, 2025).

Trump, meanwhile, defended his decision by invoking the language of law and order. On his Truth Social account, he referred to the demonstrators as “Radical Left agitators” and accused them of trying to undermine ICE’s lawful operations. He further announced a new federal regulation banning the use of masks at protests, which critics argued would further chill lawful dissent (The Daily Beast, 2025). In a televised address, he declared that “these protests are not about immigration—they’re about chaos, and we will not allow our cities to be taken over by mobs” (Vanity Fair, 2025). The administration’s framing of the protests as a rebellion rather than protected expression marked a dramatic escalation in tone.

This pattern is not new. During the summer of 2020, following the police murder of George Floyd, Trump threatened to deploy active-duty troops to major cities under the Insurrection Act. At the time, his Secretary of Defense, Mark Esper, opposed the idea, and the deployment was ultimately shelved in favor of National Guard assistance requested by governors (Baker et al., 2020). Still, the president’s language—especially his tweet that “when the looting starts, the shooting starts”—signaled an aversion to protest and a readiness to treat dissent as criminality. Twitter flagged the post for glorifying violence. Although he stopped short of federalizing troops in 2020, Trump’s second term has shown a greater willingness to follow through on such threats.

What has changed between 2020 and 2025 is both the legal assertiveness and the composition of Trump’s inner circle. Pete Hegseth, a conservative media personality and military veteran, now heads the Department of Defense and has shown no hesitation in using federal power to advance Trump’s agenda (Wall Street Journal, 2025). The administration no longer faces internal resistance to military deployments within U.S. borders, and Hegseth’s public statements indicate an expansive view of executive authority over domestic security.

The deployment of the National Guard in Los Angeles is troubling not only for its immediate impact but also for the precedent it sets. Legal scholars argue that the president’s invocation of Title 10 without compelling justification stretches the intent of the statute and undermines the balance of power between federal and state governments (Washington Post, 2025). By reframing peaceful protest as rebellion, the Trump administration expands the conditions under which future presidents might justify similar interventions. The deployment also serves to delegitimize public dissent and normalize military presence in response to constitutionally protected speech.

Politically, the move appears calibrated to energize Trump’s base. By portraying the protests as violent and anarchic, Trump crafts a narrative of national chaos that only he can control. This strategy, first evident in 2016 and refined in 2020, has become more explicit in his second term. Commentators have described the Los Angeles deployment as a “dress rehearsal” for federal crackdowns in other cities, particularly those governed by Democratic officials (The Daily Beast, 2025).

Civil liberties advocates warn that this could lead to an erosion of protest rights nationwide. If the federal government can override local control whenever political opposition manifests in the streets, then public assembly may become subject to partisan suppression. Already, activists report increased surveillance, aggressive policing, and prosecutions under federal statutes that were rarely used in past administrations (Reuters, 2025).

Perhaps most ominous is the symbolic weight of military deployment in a democratic society. The sight of uniformed troops in American cities sends a chilling message about the limits of dissent. It transforms the public square into a battleground and reduces the space for political disagreement. As historians have pointed out, democracy depends not only on laws and elections but also on norms of restraint and mutual respect. The willingness to call out troops against fellow citizens erodes those norms and creates a political culture of fear and coercion.

Trump’s aversion to civil protest is not merely personal—it is ideological. He views opposition as illegitimate and protest as rebellion. This worldview has shaped his policies and informed his rhetoric from the beginning of his political career. The events of June 8, 2025, are not an anomaly but the logical conclusion of a long-standing approach to governance—one that prioritizes control over compromise and sees federal power as a tool to crush dissent rather than uphold democratic rights.

As Americans reflect on this moment, the stakes are clear. The deployment of the National Guard to Los Angeles raises profound questions about the future of civil liberties, the separation of powers, and the health of our democratic institutions. It challenges us to consider whether protest will remain a protected right or become a pretext for martial intervention. And it forces us to ask what kind of country we want to be: one where dissent is respected, or one where it is suppressed at the point of a gun.

References

Associated Press. (2025a, June 8). What to know about Trump’s deployment of National Guard troops to LA protests. https://apnews.com/article/national-guard-trump-los-angeles-protests-2025

Associated Press. (2025b, June 8). California governor calls Trump’s move “inflammatory” as Guard arrives in L.A. https://apnews.com/article/newsom-trump-national-guard-2025

Baker, P., Shear, M. D., & Schmitt, E. (2020, June 3). Trump’s authority to send troops into states, explained. The New York Times. https://www.nytimes.com/2020/06/03/us/politics/trump-military-authority.html

Reuters. (2025, June 7). White House aide calls Los Angeles anti-ICE protests an insurrection. https://www.reuters.com/world/us/trump-declares-los-angeles-protests-insurrection-2025

Schneid, R. (2025, June 8). Trump sparks backlash as National Guard arrives in L.A. on his orders. TIME. https://time.com/trump-national-guard-backlash-los-angeles-2025

The Daily Beast. (2025, June 8). It’s summer in Trump’s America and fascism is in bloom. https://www.thedailybeast.com/donald-trump-has-a-bad-case-of-premature-despotism

Vanity Fair. (2025, June 8). National Guard troops arrive in Los Angeles after Trump signs orders. https://www.vanityfair.com/news/story/national-guard-arrive-in-los-angeles-after-trump-signs-orders

Wall Street Journal. (2025, June 8). Trump advisers once opposed using active-duty troops at protests. Not anymore. https://www.wsj.com/politics/elections/trump-advisers-once-opposed-using-active-duty-troops-at-protests-not-anymore-96afb208

Washington Post. (2025, June 8). Trump charts new territory in bypassing Newsom to deploy National Guard. https://www.washingtonpost.com/national-security/2025/06/08/trump-national-guard-la-protests-law

The Hidden Costs of Trump’s Big Beautiful Bill

By Katherine Walter

On May 29, 2025

In Donald Trump

WASHINGTON, DC – MAY 22: U.S. Speaker of the House Mike Johnson (R-LA) speaks to the media after the House narrowly passed a bill forwarding President Donald Trump’s agenda at the U.S. Capitol on May 22, 2025 in Washington, DC. The tax and spending legislation, called the “One, Big, Beautiful Bill” Act, redirects money to the military and border security and includes cuts to Medicaid, education and other domestic programs. Johnson was flanked by House Committee Chairmen who helped craft the legislation. (Photo by Kevin Dietsch/Getty Images)

As a former Senior Program Specialist with the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) at the USDA’s Food and Nutrition Service, I am deeply concerned about the ramifications of President Donald Trump’s recently passed “One Big Beautiful Bill Act” (OBBB). While touted as a transformative economic package, this legislation poses significant threats to both the national economy and the well-being of millions of Americans, particularly through its drastic cuts to SNAP.

The OBBB extends the 2017 tax cuts and introduces additional reductions, primarily benefiting corporations and high-income individuals. Proponents argue that these measures will spur economic growth. However, the Congressional Budget Office projects that the bill will add approximately $3.8 trillion to the national deficit over the next decade (Vanity Fair, 2025). This increase in debt raises concerns about long-term fiscal sustainability and the potential for higher interest rates, which could stifle economic growth rather than promote it.

One of the most alarming aspects of the OBBB is the proposed $300 billion cut to SNAP over the next ten years (Kiplinger, 2025). These cuts would tighten eligibility requirements, shift program costs to states, and limit future benefit increases (Newsweek, 2025). Such changes threaten to increase food insecurity among low-income families, children, the elderly, and individuals with disabilities.

In Wisconsin, for instance, the state could lose over $300 million in food assistance, potentially affecting more than 700,000 residents (Economic Times, 2025). These reductions not only jeopardize the health and well-being of vulnerable populations but also place additional financial burdens on state governments and local communities.

SNAP benefits are not just a lifeline for recipients; they also play a crucial role in supporting local economies. Every dollar spent on SNAP generates approximately $1.50 to $1.80 in economic activity (KCRG, 2025). Cuts to the program could therefore have a cascading effect, reducing revenue for grocery stores, farmers, and food producers. In Iowa, the president of the Iowa Farmers Union expressed concern that reduced SNAP benefits would hurt farmers by decreasing demand for their products (KCRG, 2025).

The OBBB’s approach to shifting SNAP administrative costs to states—up to 75%—represents an unfunded mandate that could strain state budgets (Newsweek, 2025). States would be forced to make difficult decisions, potentially cutting other essential services or increasing taxes to cover the shortfall. This shift undermines the federal-state partnership that has been fundamental to the success of SNAP.

The “One Big Beautiful Bill Act” presents a facade of economic progress while undermining the very foundations of food security and fiscal responsibility. As someone who has dedicated a career to ensuring access to nutrition assistance, I find the proposed cuts to SNAP not only detrimental to individual well-being but also harmful to the broader economy. Policymakers must reconsider these provisions to protect vulnerable populations and maintain the integrity of programs that have long served as a safety net for millions of Americans.

References: