U.S. Rep. Kathy Castor and advocates warn that proposed cuts to the SNAP nutrition program in the U.S. House bill could cause nearly 3 million Floridians to lose food assistance. The bill would require states, including Florida, to pay 5–25% of SNAP benefits and increase administrative costs, potentially costing Florida \$1.6 billion by 2028. Many SNAP recipients are children, seniors, disabled, or veterans. The bill also expands work requirements and adds bureaucratic hurdles that could reduce access. Critics say the cuts mainly serve to fund tax breaks for the wealthy, while Florida’s budget and political climate raise doubts about filling funding gaps.
Here are some of the consequences that will follow if Congress cuts a key federal nutrition program, as proposed in the U.S. House’s version of Donald Trump’s “big, beautiful bill.”
“I won’t be able to get healthy foods like I am right now, as I have health issues,” said Peggy Shannon, 70, who lives in a senior rental apartment complex, whose only other income comes from her monthly Social Security check.
“The SNAP program helps provide all of that for me,” said Shannon, who described becoming “very depressed” upon learning of the potential cuts to the program, which still must go through the U.S. Senate before becoming law.
“Receiving SNAP benefits does help, especially if you’re trying to get your education or if you’re income is not where it needs to be,” said Jennifer Nicholson, a partially disabled single mother of four who is allowed to work a certain number of hours per month.
“Kids eat, especially with the summer months coming. They’re going to be home and they’re going to eat more and more. So cutting SNAP at this time would be very hard for some people,” she added.
SNAP means Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, cuts to which could cause nearly 3 million Floridians to lose access to federal food assistance, Tampa Bay area Democratic Rep. Kathy Castor and social service advocates warned during a press conference featuring the two women in St. Petersburg on Tuesday.
The program provides low-income people and families with financial assistance to pay for groceries. It’s funded through a combination of federal and state resources. The federal government now pays 100% of SNAP benefits, while the states and the feds share the administrative costs.
Included in the major tax bill advocated for by the Trump administration, and passed last week in the U.S. House, is a mandate that states pay between 5% and 25% of monthly SNAP benefit costs based on each state’s payment error rates (which reflect the amount of underpayments and overpayments.)
Florida’s error rate in 2023 was 12.6%, according to the U.S. Department of Agriculture. That puts the state on the hook for 25% of the costs, or $1.6 billion in 2028 alone, if the bill were to take effect, according to an analysis by the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities (CBPP).
And all states would also have to increase their portion of administrative costs from 50% to 75%.
Whether Florida’s Republican-led Legislature would be willing to fill that gap is questionable, and Castor isn’t optimistic.
“Part of the proposal is to say that, ‘Well, we’re not really cutting everyone, we’re just asking states to provide more money,’” she said.
“We know here in the state of Florida we have an unfortunate track record that often comes when the feds say we’re backing off,” she added.
“Part of the responsibility here in the state of Florida, a state without an income tax, and one where we don’t want an income tax, means that you have to be good stewards of the tax dollars that are there, and right now I would question if they are fundamental good stewards of our tax money as they send more money off to private, for-profit charters,” she said.
Deficits forecast
In addition, Florida economists project budget deficits starting as early as the summer of 2026 — another potential obstacle for the Legislature to get involved in increasing its share to SNAP.
More than 59% of SNAP participants in Florida are in families with children, and more than 41% are in families with older adult or disabled members, according to the CBPP.
Citing U.S. Department of Agriculture data, the Florida Policy Institute estimates that 99,000 veterans in Florida participate in the SNAP program. FPI bills itself as an independent nonprofit organization dedicated to advancing state policies and budgets that improve the economic mobility and quality of life for all Floridians.
U.S. House Agriculture Committee Chairman Glenn Thompson praised the restrictions on SNAP after the proposal passed his committee earlier this month. A spokesperson for Thompson told Newsweek that SNAP spends more than $13 billion per year in erroneous payments.
Among the new requirements in the bill are expanding work requirements for “able-bodied adults without dependents” to people up to age 64, from the existing gap of 59. Also, administrative requirements would increase, including more stringent identity and income documentation.
“What we know about SNAP in particular is that most people are working. Or they’re on a pathway, as you heard from [the people who spoke today] to get there,” said Castor.
The Tampa Bay area representative labels the legislation “the billionaire giveaway bill.” She says it increases bureaucratic hoops that will make it more difficult for people to collect benefits, adding that because individuals have busy lives they might miss one of those reporting periods.
“Which would mean that they would lose their food assistance, and that’s what Republicans in Congress are banking on, because the independent Congressional Budget Office [CBO] did an analysis … that says that all those bureaucratic barriers do nothing to reform the system, they simply work to kick people off, and that’s where they achieve savings to give the billionaire tax breaks,” she said.
Budget impasse
The Florida Legislature, which is in the midst of budget impasse, fueled by disagreement over the amount of tax relief to pass and how much money the state should spend, has not discussed what the loss of SNAP funding would mean to the state.
Florida Republican members of Congress are hailing the passage of the bill, noting other provisions of the measure.
“No tax on tips; No tax on overtime; Permanently Secures the Border; Largest Deficit Reduction in 30 years; Ends Taxpayer-Funded Healthcare for illegals,” U.S. Rep. and gubernatorial candidate Byron Donalds noted in a social media message last week.
“Huge win! The House just passed the Big Beautiful Bill — lower taxes and bigger paychecks,” South Florida U.S. Rep. Maria Elvira Salazar said in a video posted on X. “Your wallet just got a raise!”
Florida U.S. Sen. Rick Scott is reported to be concerned about the fiscal implications of the Trump tax bill, which economists have said could raise the federal deficit by at least $3 trillion.
“I want to get a deal done; I support the president’s agenda. I support the border, I support the military, I support extending the Trump tax cuts — but we have to live in reality. But we got to live in reality here: We got a fiscal crisis,” Scott said, according to The Hill.
YOU MAKE OUR WORK POSSIBLE.
SUPPORT
Florida Phoenix is part of States Newsroom, a nonprofit news network supported by grants and a coalition of donors as a 501c(3) public charity. Florida Phoenix maintains editorial independence. Contact Editor Michael Moline for questions: info@floridaphoenix.com.
Note: The following A.I. based commentary is not part of the original article, reproduced above, but is offered in the hopes that it will promote greater media literacy and critical thinking, by making any potential bias more visible to the reader –Staff Editor.
Political Bias Rating: Center-Left
This content primarily critiques proposed cuts to the SNAP program linked to a Republican-led tax bill associated with former President Trump, emphasizing the negative impact on vulnerable populations such as seniors, children, veterans, and disabled individuals. It highlights concerns raised by Democratic Representative Kathy Castor and social service advocates, framing the bill as favoring wealthy individuals (“billionaire giveaway”) at the expense of social safety nets. While it presents some Republican perspectives on the bill’s benefits and fiscal concerns, the language and focus on potential social harm indicate a center-left leaning, advocating for the protection of government assistance programs and critical of conservative budget priorities.
SUMMARY: Governor Ron DeSantis vetoed House Bill 6017, which sought to repeal Florida’s 35-year-old Wrongful Death Act limiting economic damages families can seek if an unmarried loved one over 25 dies due to medical negligence. DeSantis argued repeal would raise malpractice premiums and worsen the state’s physician shortage without caps on damages or attorney fees. Families impacted by the law criticized the veto, disputing claims that premiums would rise and warning caps would block justice. The decision aligns with healthcare industry interests, while affected families continue advocacy despite limited access to the Governor. Senator Clay Yarborough respects the veto and won’t push for an override.
www.news4jax.com – Patrick Whittle And Michael Casey, Associated Press – 2025-05-29 10:29:00
SUMMARY: Karen Read’s second trial resumed after the prosecution rested following a month of testimony focusing on evidence and witnesses who reported Read repeatedly saying “I hit him” about the death of her boyfriend, Boston officer John O’Keefe. She is charged with second-degree murder, manslaughter, and leaving the scene after allegedly backing her SUV into O’Keefe on a snowy night in January 2022. The prosecution avoided controversial witnesses from the first trial, emphasizing physical evidence like a broken taillight and cocktail glass with O’Keefe’s DNA. Read’s defense plans a robust case with over 90 witnesses, maintaining she was framed.
www.thecentersquare.com – By Tate Miller | The Center Square contributor – (The Center Square – ) 2025-05-29 10:25:00
A National Taxpayers Union Foundation report highlights interstate migration trends, showing Florida and Texas gaining residents and tax revenue, while California, New York, and Illinois experience significant losses due to high tax burdens. Over the past decade, New York lost $111 billion, California $102 billion, and Illinois $63 billion in net adjusted gross income, while Florida and Texas gained $196 billion and $54 billion, respectively. The report attributes migration primarily to tax policies, with many high-income earners moving to states with lower taxes. Remote work has accelerated this trend. States losing residents face shrinking tax bases and should reform tax codes to retain populations and promote economic growth.
(The Center Square) – Florida and Texas have gained the most by interstate migration, while California, Illinois, and New York have lost the most, according to a new analysis, with the report’s author saying such shifts are due to tax policies: “Americans seek greener pastures.”
The National Taxpayers Union Foundation report revealed that “California, New York, Illinois, and other states with high tax burdens continue to hemorrhage taxpayers and tax revenue, while Florida remains the undeniable winner from movement of taxpayers and their dollars from state to state.”
The National Taxpayers Union Foundation (NTUF) is a nonprofit research and educational organization focused on taxes, government spending, and regulations, according to its website.
The report notes that “in the last decade, New York lost $111 billion in net adjusted gross income (AGI), California lost $102 billion, and Illinois lost $63 billion to interstate migration.”
“On the other hand, Florida gained $196 billion, and Texas gained $54 billion,” according to the report.
National Taxpayers Union Foundation with permission
The report acknowledges that the money loss states face due to interstate migration “does not account for the fact that taxpayers no longer paying taxes are also no longer drawing upon government services.”
“However, estimated revenue changes are driven primarily by the movement of high-income earners, who tend to pay far more in taxes than they receive back in government services,” according to the report.
The report’s author and director of the Interstate Commerce Initiative at NTUF Andrew Wilford told The Center Square that “Americans are voting with their feet and saying that they are tired of tax-and-spend policies and the stagnant economies they result in.”
“States that insist on doubling down on these policies will only be left with a shrinking population as overtaxed Americans seek greener pastures,” Wilford said.
Wilford told The Center Square that “interstate migration trends have only accelerated over the last decade as remote work has given taxpayers more freedom to move to more favorable tax environments.”
“States that fail to adapt can only expect faster ‘dollar drain’ to states that have taken steps to provide residents with a competitive tax code and economic opportunity,” Wilford said.
National Taxpayers Union Foundation with permission
“Interstate migration has a clear impact on state revenue,” Wilford said.
“California, New York, and Illinois are projected to lose a combined $10 billion in tax revenue this year, revenue that, since they refuse to cut spending, will have to come from higher taxes on taxpayers who are still there,” Wilford said.
“On the other hand, despite its low taxes, the influx of taxpayers from other states is projected to lead to $4.2 billion in additional revenue for Florida this year alone,” Wilford said.
Factors inducing interstate migration besides tax rates identifed in Wilford’s report include “family, weather, housing availability, education, transportation infrastructure, employment opportunities, and cost of living generally.”
However, it appears that taxes are the biggest factor for state moves, for the report’s data shows that taxpayers’ location changes are from high-tax states to low-tax states.
“The American federalist system is a double-edged sword,” the report states, meaning that while states have the power to each set their own tax policies, taxpayers hold the power of refusal and can move to another state with preferable policies.
The report calls this competition “one of the most valuable tools in taxpayers’ arsenals to get their individual voices heard.”
“Though a simple majority gets a state legislator elected, residency decisions are made at the household level,” the report said.
“While they have the power to set their own tax policies, taxpayers retain the freedom to leave for greener pastures should tax burdens in those states become overwhelming.”
Wilford’s report advised that “states should recognize that a tax code that attracts businesses and workers and allows them to thrive is the path to long-term prosperity.”
“Meanwhile, states on the losing end of the interstate migration battle should stop trying to make up for lost revenue with higher taxes on residents and nonresidents alike, and start trying to fix what is making their residents leave in the first place,” the report said.
Note: The following A.I. based commentary is not part of the original article, reproduced above, but is offered in the hopes that it will promote greater media literacy and critical thinking, by making any potential bias more visible to the reader –Staff Editor.
Political Bias Rating: Center-Right
The article primarily reports on the findings of a National Taxpayers Union Foundation (NTUF) report concerning interstate migration driven by tax policies. While the article is framed as reporting, it endorses and promotes the report’s viewpoint, which clearly favors lower taxation and criticizes “tax-and-spend” policies in states like California, New York, and Illinois. The language used—such as “Americans are voting with their feet,” “taxpayers seek greener pastures,” and the emphasis on “competitive tax codes” and “economic opportunity”—reflects a pro-tax-cut and limited government spending ideological stance. These elements align with a center-right economic perspective that champions market-based solutions and fiscal conservatism. Hence, even in the guise of reporting, the article leans toward a center-right bias through its selection of sources, framing, and tone advocating for tax reductions and criticizing high-tax states’ policies.
