Brookings calls for FEMA reforms to make disaster declaration, response easier for rural areas

   

Courtesy of the Library of Congress (Unsplash)

A recent analysis by the Brookings institution examines the challenges faced by rural communities after a disaster and makes recommendations for improvements in federal assistance. Rural counties were subject to a majority of major disaster declarations, the report said, while being home to just 14% of Americans.

The situation is complicated by a significant shortage of the same resources available to metropolitan areas. Small communities not only are financially strapped but lack the level of emergency preparedness and response necessary to recover. Often, responders serve in multiple roles in the community, like police, fire and ambulance services. Administrations have small staffs and lack experience dealing with complicated federal programs.

The report’s authors, Anthony F. Pipa and Julia Davatzes, point to other notable challenges. “The larger geographic areas of rural communities and lower population densities, for example, translate into longer evacuation times and longer distances for emergency personnel to travel to reach affected individuals. There are rural places that rely on a single egress or ingress route; if damaged, all transit to and from the community is interrupted.” Also, there are generally larger groups of the elderly and the disabled, along with a higher percentage of low-income residents.

In response to these needs, the report calls for reformation of the Federal Emergency Management Agency. Pipa and Davatzes note that in the years between 2016 and 2025, “rural counties made up almost two-thirds” of those included in major U.S. disaster declarations. They make the following recommendations:

• Ensure new policies are implemented and will improve rural communities' ability to respond and recover from disasters;

• Update the disaster declaration process in consideration of rural assets;

• Adjust cost-share and reimbursement systems with rural capacities in mind;

• Provide additional technical assistance;

• Streamline grant and reporting requirements;

• Make sure rural areas have easy access to FEMA staff;

• Increase research and data transparency.

In N.C., the $50 billion federal Rural Health Transformation Program won't eliminate health care deserts

North Carolina plans to use its RHTP money on hospitals
and clinics that are open. (KFF photo)

The $50 billion Rural Health Transformation Program Congress created in 2025 to ensure the passage of President Donald Trump's One Big Beautiful Bill Act may sound like it's made to help closed rural hospitals or hospitals on the brink of shuttering, but in reality, the act strictly limits the amount of RHTP grant money struggling hospitals can use to stay afloat.

The RHTP funding restrictions haven't stopped midterm-stumping politicians in North Carolina from touting the program as a salve for rural hospitals in financial straits, report Sarah Jane Tribble and Amanda Seitz of KFF Health News. "Republican candidates in competitive midterm elections are casting the fund as a lifeline that will shore up critical rural health services across America."

In Martin County, N.C., where lawmakers face competitive midterm elections, some residents believe RHTP funds will help reopen their shuttered hospital, Tribble and Seitz report. "Martin County won’t get direct relief from Trump’s rural health fund — because its hospital isn’t open." The state plans to use its $213 million in RHTP funds on "existing health and social service organizations."

Without rural hospitals, residents in states like North Carolina, where most citizens live in rural counties, are especially vulnerable. During a medical emergency, when every second counts, rural residents must survive the travel distance to get medical care. Some don't make it. Tribble and Seitz explain, "Martin County does not have paramedics on its ambulances, and it can be 20 miles or more to the closest — and often overcrowded — emergency rooms."

Brian Floyd, the chief operating officer for ECU Health, which operates out of Greenville, N.C., told KFF, "It’s a real healthcare crisis that has already proven itself to have lost lives that perhaps didn’t have to be lost. They just want to not die because there’s nowhere to go when you have an emergency."

'Onerous' reporting requirements prevented many specialty crop farmers from applying for USDA aid

Specialty crop farmers don't grow hundreds of acres of one 
type of plant. (Photo by Zoe Richardson, Unsplash)

Despite the need for an economic boost, many specialty crop farmers chose not to participate in the Department of Agriculture's recent $1 billion Assistance for Specialty Crop Farmers program. 

"Small-scale fruit and vegetable farmers are skipping out on federal farm aid, citing onerous reporting requirements they say are not compatible with their farms and may not substantially pay off," reports Rebekah Alvey of Civil Eats.

Although the USDA let smaller-scale farmers know they had until March 13 to complete their acreage reports to apply for assistance, the agency did not inform them when and how the aid would be distributed. Alvey explains, "Without knowing the potential benefits of the assistance, many specialty-crop farmers decided not to submit an acreage report, disqualifying them from the aid."

The current USDA acreage reporting forms are geared toward commodity row-crop farmers, leaving many specialty farmers unsure how to meet the requirements. Minnesota-based farmer Sara George told Civil Eats, "If you have kale, you have to do acreage reporting of your kale. I don’t plant an acre of kale, I plant two rows of kale.”

An average corn farmer is likely to plant thousands of acres, which is far different from the "small, diversified specialty-crop operations [that] grow a range of crops, on a fraction of an acre of land, and sell to a variety of sources," Alvey explains. "Under those conditions, a detailed crop report can be difficult to put together."

Specialty farmers who chose to apply for the ASCF program were told to work with their local Farm Service Agency to resolve reporting questions, but getting help from the FSA proved difficult for some. "George reached out to [her] local FSA offices with questions about the forms," Alvey reports. "But staff seem to have limited information as well and are also new to filing these reports for specialty crops."

Opinion: The Rural Health Transformation Program challenges states to build and overhaul systems

R.J. Marse

When the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services announced $50 billion in funding for the Rural Health Transformation Program, many Americans may have assumed the money would help struggling rural hospitals shore up their finances and stay open. 

But RHTP program dollars aren't meant to prop up declining systems by helping them maintain the status quo of rural health care, writes R.J. Marse, General Counsel at Sprinter Health, in his opinion for Healthcare IT Today. "At $50 billion over five years. . . the amount is significant, but more noteworthy is the program’s intent."

The program aims to change how rural health care is approached and practiced by incentivizing innovation, technology and successful outcomes across a system.

RHTP challenges rural health systems to go beyond traditional health care infrastructure by designing and launching treatment that includes "telehealth and remote monitoring. . . technology-enabled solutions that allow providers to practice at the top of their license," Marse writes. "It even allows states to invest in early-stage healthcare companies, a signal that the ultimate goal is innovation."

Marse explains, "Funding is conditioned on outcomes, so while the aim is to reach more rural patients in more rural communities, interventions will need to do so in ways that measurably improve health and lower long-term costs."

RHTP structural demands push rural health care systems to combine modern medical treatment models with the inherent challenges of working with a rural population. Marse writes, "RHTP demands confronting the fact that many rural patients will not engage with care unless it comes to them – or, at least, closer to them. . . . Rural care transformation must, by necessity, be hybrid. It should deliver care virtually when appropriate, and physically when and where it’s needed."

"Rural health doesn’t need another bailout. It needs fundamentally different operating models that can endure when federal dollars dissipate," Marse explains. "Five years from now, RHTP will be judged not by how much money was spent, but by what was built." 

Wyoming officials aim to keep the state's Rural Health Transformation Program award going in 'perpetuity'

Wyoming is the most sparsely populated state in
the U.S. (Photo by Karsten Koehn, Unsplash)

As Wyoming's rural hospitals struggle to make ends meet and hire enough medical providers, state officials have hatched a plan using money from its Rural Health Transformation Program funds to buffer losses, create more robust provider training and incentives, while using investments to help the money stretch for decades, reports Arial Zionts of KFF Health News.

If Wyoming's plan receives federal approval to invest a substantial portion of its $205 million award, the state's "Rural Health Transformation Perpetuity fund could provide $28.5 million for the state to spend every year," Zionts explains. "Wyoming would spend the money on scholarships for health students and incentive payments to help keep small hospitals and rural ambulance services afloat."

The federal RHTP program requires states to spend their awards by established deadlines, or the money will be shelled out to other states. The question is, will the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services, which manages RHTP, see placing the money in an investment account as "spending it."

Stefan Johansson, the director of Wyoming’s health department, thinks it will. "He said that CMS called in December to specifically ask questions about the fund and that he believes the agency has formally approved it," Zionts reports. "But 'the devil’s always in the details,' he said, as the state works with CMS during the budget review period."

CMA has already told some states that RHTP grants "cannot be used to 'generate income.'" Zionts adds. "Wyoming officials wrote in the state’s application that the perpetuity fund won’t be making or keeping any profit. . . .Other states proposed funds in their applications, but Wyoming’s appears unique, according to a KFF Health News review of state applications."

As five states roll out 'no junk food' SNAP rules, retailers scramble to update their systems and educate SNAP users

States in green have been granted federal SNAP waivers to restrict SNAP benefit purchases. (USDA map)

State food-choice restrictions on Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program purchases have some grocery stores in a conundrum, trying to determine which foods are allowed and which aren't.

Beginning Jan. 1, Indiana, Iowa, Nebraska, Utah and West Virginia rolled out their new "no junk food" SNAP purchase limits, but a total of "eighteen states have adopted new food-stamp restrictions," report Jesse Newman and Laura Cooper of The Wall Street Journal. As a whole, rural Americans are more likely to use SNAP benefits, but less likely to know about benefit changes because of online access limits.

Each state has limited different items and has varied its wording of restrictions, which can be confusing. For instance, in Indiana, mini-donuts can be purchased with SNAP benefits, but candy bars cannot. The Journal reports, "Grocery executives said that determining which products are food-stamp eligible and which aren’t has become a complex undertaking."

Retailers, who are working to ensure that only SNAP-allowed items can be purchased, have had "employees sifting through state-issued flow charts, scanning product bar codes and checking ingredient lists across thousands of goods in stores," Newman and Cooper explain. Allowed items have to be cataloged and entered into computer systems as well.

Beyond the labor hours needed to update their SNAP catalogs, retailers and industry groups said "guidance from USDA and many state agencies on how to implement the new restrictions has been insufficient," Newman writes.

For states that implemented their restrictions on Jan. 1, many SNAP enrollees seem unaware of the changes. Mark Griffin, chief executive of grocery chain B&R Stores, said "his company is dealing with lines at checkout counters as clerks tell longtime customers they can no longer use food stamps to buy soda or candy," the Journal reports.

The SNAP changes are part of a federal push to help Americans make healthier dietary choices; however, opponents to SNAP restrictions point out that "limiting grocery options ignores the real causes of poor diets, such as low incomes, high food prices and access to healthy food," the Journal reports. Last month, the Trump administration unveiled new dietary guidelines that it hopes can address some of the chronic diet-related diseases in Americans.

Specialty crop farmers and corn growers urge lawmakers to make needed changes to upcoming bills

U.S. specialty crops include fruits and vegetables.
(Adobe Stock photo)

U.S. farmers and farming advocates are pushing lawmakers to draft bills that include additional aid for specialty crop growers and include wording that allows for the year-round use of 15% ethanol-blended gasoline (E15), write Pro Farmer editors for Farm Journal.

Many specialty crop growers were disappointed with the Trump administration's 2025 aid package, which allocated $11 billion for row-crop farmers and $1 billion for specialty crop farmers. Specialty crops include fruits, veggies, nuts, nursery crops, Christmas trees and maple syrup.

Specialty Crop Farm Bill Alliance co-chair Cathy Burns told Nicole Heslip of Brownfield Ag Network, "Specialty crops account for one-third of crop sales in the U.S., and we have the same harmful headwinds that the rest of agriculture is experiencing."

Burns suggested "5 billion in relief would help alleviate some of the unprecedented economic challenges facing growers from labor, input costs, lost markets, and unfair competition from competitors," Heslip writes.

Allowing year-round sales of E15 gasoline has been on farmers' wish lists for years. Michelle Rook of Farm Journal reports, "Analysis from the National Corn Growers Association indicates that it would boost corn use by approximately 2.4 billion bushels annually and be one of the quickest ways to increase demand and chew through the record pile of corn in the U.S."

In the past, states had to apply for waivers to extend E15 sales into the summer months. 

South Dakota lawmakers grapple with Rural Health Transformation funding and sustainability

Monument Health in Rapid City, S.D., will receive RHTP funding.
(Photo by Seth Tupper, South Dakota Searchlight)

Legislative and practical worries about staffing and sustainability have some South Dakota lawmakers worried that the $189.5 million the state received from the Rural Health Transformation Program won't be enough to strengthen its rural hospitals in the long term, reports Makenzie Huber of South Dakota Searchlight.

Sen. Taffy Howard, R-Rapid City, has "questions and frustrations about the funding," Huber writes. Because of the way RHTP is structured, if South Dakota lawmakers don't spend the money, "another state will spend it instead."

South Dakota's RHTP application targeted 10 initiatives, including "creating a 'data atlas' for providers and facilities to share local and state agency data, improving the rural health care workforce, improving chronic disease management, establishing regional maternal and infant health care hubs, and regionalizing behavioral health care," Huber explains. 

To support its initiatives, the state's plan includes numerous incentives designed to attract and keep needed medical staffing, such as "sign-on bonuses, relocation assistance, and rural service stipends," Huber writes. Medical professionals who accept incentives must work in their assigned rural community for at least five years.

In reviewing all the initiatives, several lawmakers "asked questions about workforce needs and how those would be addressed outside of the incentives mentioned," Huber reports. "Howard told officials that she’s skeptical about the proposal and its sustainability." Howard pointed out that infant care hubs and mental health treatment may need more than "one-time funding to operate in financially strapped rural communities."

While state lawmakers are hopeful RHTP funding can sustainably improve rural health care, many remain concerned about what the loss of federal Medicaid dollars will mean for many rural patients and hospitals. 

Rep. Erik Muckey, D-Sioux Falls, told Huber, "This still doesn’t answer the question about how to sustain quality health care going forward because of massive cuts to Medicaid.” 

Trump announces $12 billion in farm aid, but many farmers don't think bailout checks address bigger challenges

American farmers need more markets. (USDA photo)

The Trump administration announced a $12 billion aid package for U.S. farmers hurt by the president's “long-reaching tariffs,” report Brian Schwartz, Natalie Andrews and Patrick Thomas for The Wall Street Journal. “Much of the aid —$11 billion— will be in the form of one-time payments through the Farmer Bridge Assistance program.” 

International tariff wars, particularly those between the U.S. and China, have contributed to a financially challenging year for American farmers, with soybean farmers bearing the largest losses. “Crop prices have remained low, especially after harvesting the largest crop on record this fall,” Schwartz explains. “Through the first nine months of 2025, farm bankruptcies rose by nearly 50% compared with the same period in 2024.”

Although many farmers need the additional funds to pay down debt and invest in next year’s planting, many see them as a short-term solution. Erin Ailworth, Ilena Peng and Michael Hirtzer of Bloomberg News report, “Growers who have struggled with low crop prices, rising costs, and lost markets, [have called] Trump’s farm aid a temporary fix for deeper economic challenges.”

Missouri farmer Marty Richardson told Bloomberg, “This is kind of a Band-Aid — we need more markets more than we need aid.”

While U.S. soybean farmers suffered from a summer and fall without sales to China, presumably due to Trump’s tariffs, many know the country has been working for years to reduce its dependence on American soybeans. Bloomberg reports, “Trump’s first trade war resulted in China accelerating a diversion of its supply chain away from the U.S. to places like South America. U.S. farmers have lost crucial market share to competitors, particularly Brazil.”

Some American growers don’t think 2026 will be any better than this year. Sam Taylor, a farm inputs analyst, told Bloomberg, “This time next year, we’re going to be having much the same conversation about margins for growers, about the potential need for economic support.”

Farmers can start applying for the aid package next month. WSJ reports, "Agriculture Secretary Brooke Rollins said that the money will start going out at the end of February." 

What does it mean when cuts from the 'One Big Beautiful Bill Act' close a rural town's only health care clinic?

The OBBBA cuts billions in federal spending on rural
health care over the next 10 years. (Wikipedia photo)

After the only health care clinic in rural Churchville, Virginia, closed, residents in this 200-person community are struggling to adjust.

"Gone are the days of seniors walking down the road from their house to see the town doctor," reports Eva McKend of CNN News. "Augusta Medical Group cited the health care provisions in the One Big Beautiful Bill Act for closing the rural clinics in Churchville and two other locations."

Even when the clinic's closure means some residents have to drive an hour to Charlottesville to see doctors, community members are reluctant to say anything negative about President Trump or his signature OBBBA legislation.

Across from the town's coffee shop, and just a few feet away from the shuttered clinic, a bold banner waves with the words "Thank you, TRUMP, Save America Again."

Democrats are planning to make health care a "defining issue nationally in next year’s midterms," McKend writes. "But the environment in Churchville illustrates the challenges the party faces, particularly in rural communities."

Dale White, a Churchville resident and church administrator, says the "concerns about the clinic are overblown," McKend writes. White told her, "These are old-time rural farming folks, and they’ve been going to get medical care in Staunton and Fishersville, Waynesboro and Charlottesville since they can remember."

Many rural hospitals, clinics and providers that serve Medicaid patients were struggling to stay afloat before the OBBBA cuts. McKend reports, "The policy research organization KFF estimates that Trump’s bill will cut federal Medicaid spending in rural communities by $137 billion over the next decade."

Secretary of Agriculture plans to have all food stamp beneficiaries recertify to receive benefits

Recent SNAP spending peaked around 2020 during the Covid pandemic. (The Conversation graph, from USDA data)

The secretary of the U.S. Department of Agriculture, Brooke Rollins, announced last week that all Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) recipients will be required to recertify to continue receiving benefits. 

Rollins said recertification is needed to help root out fraud and corruption in the SNAP program, formerly known as food stamps, reports Grace Yarrow of Politico. 

Rollins told Newsmax that she plans to “have everyone reapply for their benefits, make sure that everyone that’s taking a taxpayer-funded benefit through . . . food stamps, that they literally are vulnerable and they can’t survive without it.”

The most common types of SNAP fraud include applicants who lie about their living or financial situations to qualify for benefits, enrollees who trade their food benefits for cash and criminals who "skim" EBT cards to steal their benefits.

Rollins did not give a process or timeline for all SNAP beneficiaries to recertify, but she has "teased an announcement of a new plan to overhaul the program in the coming weeks," Yarrow writes.

President Donald Trump maintained that SNAP is intended for people who can't afford the most basic grocery items and are unable to work.

He told Fox News, "SNAP is supposed to be if you’re down and out. . . But people who are able-bodied can do a job — they leave their job because they figure they can pick this up, it’s easier. That’s not the purpose of it.”

Although SNAP spending peaked at $128 billion during the pandemic, U.S. taxpayers still paid $100 billion for the program in 2024, which served roughly 42 million Americans. 

$12 billion aid package for farmers is ready and waiting for federal government shutdown to end

Economic headwinds have left U.S. farmers struggling 
to plan 2026 crops. (Photo by Luke Thornton, Unsplash)

The Trump administration is preparing a $12 billion initial bailout package to help U.S. farmers "harmed by the president’s tariff policies," report Grace Yarrow and Meredith Lee Hill of Politico. 

The federal government shutdown is the one thing holding back the current farmer aid package. Politico reports, "Sen. John Hoeven (R-N.D.) told reporters that a Market Facilitation Program — similar to the $28 billion farmer bailout Trump issued during his first-term trade wars — is 'all teed up and good to go.'"

The announced aid comes on the heels of the declared tariff truce between the U.S. and China. According to the article, "Trump secured new commitments from China to purchase U.S. soybeans, sorghum and wood, and to drop retaliatory tariffs on other agricultural products like meat, wheat and dairy."

American farmers have been trying to make a living despite tariff limitations, high labor and machinery costs and low commodity prices. Added economic stressors have made it difficult for farmers to plan 2026 crops.

Trump administration announces no food aid for millions of people in November unless government shutdown ends

Roughly 20 million children rely on SNAP benefits for
food each month. (USDA photo)

As the second-longest federal government shutdown continues, millions of Americans who rely on grocery money from the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) may go hungry. 

The upper banner of the Department of Agriculture's website reads, "The well has run dry. At this time, there will be no benefits issued November 1." About one in eight Americans relies on SNAP for food, which includes roughly 20 million children. 

The clash between Senate Republicans and Democrats has left each side blaming the other for the continued shutdown and the possibility of a SNAP benefit pause. Democrats refuse to reopen the government until Republicans negotiate with them on Affordable health care subsidies. "Republicans say Democrats must first agree to reopen the government before negotiation," reports Adriana Gomez Licon of The Associated Press. 

Democrats had hoped USDA Secretary Brooke Rollins would access a contingency fund to cover most of November's SNAP dollars; however, a USDA memo that "surfaced Friday says 'contingency funds are not legally available to cover regular benefits,'" Licon writes. The document notes that contingency funds are reserved for disaster relief.

Most states have also warned SNAP participants that benefits may not be made available on Nov. 1. Licon reports, "Arkansas and Oklahoma, for example, are advising recipients to identify food pantries and other groups that help with food."

Although some states, including Louisiana and Virginia, have told SNAP beneficiaries they plan to continue food aid, it's unclear whether they can legally do so. Licon adds, "The USDA memo also says states would not be reimbursed for temporarily picking up the cost."

States warn millions of SNAP and WIC recipients that a continued shutdown will pause November benefits

Area food banks are preparing for a surge in need.
(Adobe Stock photo)

At least 25 states issued benefit gap warnings to the more than 41 million Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program recipients and nearly 7 million families who receive aid from the Special Supplemental Nutrition Program for Women, Infants and Children, known as WIC," report Leah Douglas and P.J. Huffstutter of Reuters.

Minerva Delgado, who directs Alliance to End Hunger activities, told Reuters, "Families are going to be hurt by this should it continue, at a time we know families are struggling to make ends meet."

Food banks in states that issued SNAP and WIC warnings are already hard at work to meet increased demand. But some food pantries already face food shortages due to USDA cuts to its food bank support earlier this year.

Potential loss of grocery benefits would disproportionately hurt rural residents, veterans and elderly individuals who tend to be more dependent on SNAP benefits. Additionally, rural food pantries will face significant supply challenges because they rely more heavily on Department of Agriculture programs and have fewer private donors to help them.

According to Reuters, Agriculture Secretary Brooke Rollins told NewsNation that SNAP benefits would "go away" without a deal to reopen the government by November.

The liberal Center on Budget and Policy Priorities "estimates that about $5 billion is available in a contingency fund and is calling on the administration to use that for partial benefits in November," reports Geoff Mulvihill of The Associated Press. "Forty-six of the 47 Democrats in the U.S. Senate sent a letter Thursday to Rollins calling on her to release the contingency money."

States that issued verifiable benefit loss warnings include: Minnesota, California, Pennsylvania, Texas, California, Arkansas, Hawaii, Indiana, Mississippi, New Jersey, Kentucky, Florida, New York, North Dakota, South Dakota and Wisconsin.

Louisiana, Vermont and Virginia pledged to maintain food aid to recipients despite potential gaps in federal funding.

If Congress doesn't extend enhanced health care tax credits, 4 million rural Americans could face steep premium hikes

Average health care premium comparison before and after ACA credits for 10 'farm states.'
(Robert Woods Johnson Foundation graph)

Without the Affordable Care Act's enhanced tax credits, roughly four million rural Americans could see significant increases to their health care insurance premiums. Last year, the Health and Human Services reported that 17% of individuals who purchased insurance through the ACA marketplace were rural residents, reports Chris Clayton of Progressive Farmer.

While Washington lawmakers focus on eliminating programs that could use American tax dollars to pay for health insurance for illegal immigrants, "there is less talk about how much rural America relies on those tax credits," Clayton explains. "The tax credits have been a major driver for reducing the number of uninsured Americans."

In 2024, the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation reviewed "enrollment of Medicaid and marketplace policies in ten 'farm states,'" Clayton reports. "In that study, eight states -- all but Iowa and Kentucky -- showed more than 5% of residents were enrolled in ACA marketplace policies."

Without ACA enhanced tax credits, health insurance premiums may be out of reach for many rural Americans. According to the article, an individual making $35,000, with enhanced tax credits, would pay a health care premium of $1,033 per year. Without ACA credits, the premium jumps to $2,615 annually, representing a $1,582 increase.

"Overall, the enhanced tax credits saved rural enrollees an average of $890 per year, about 28% more than their urban counterparts," Clayton reports.

HHS fires staff dedicated to helping low-income Americans pay for utilities: 'There's nobody left to do anything'

About 17% of U.S. households spend more than one-
tenth of their income on energy. (Adobe Stock photo)

A recent staffing purge of Low Income Home Energy Assistance Program employees at the Department of Health and Human Services may leave millions of low-income Americans unable to pay their utility bills. "The Trump administration abruptly laid off the entire staff running a $4.1 billion program to help low-income households across the United States pay their heating and cooling bills," reports Brad Plumer of The New York Times. The loss of assistance could burden millions of poorer rural residents who already spend a disproportionate amount of their incomes on energy bills when compared to their more urban counterparts.

It's unclear how a program that routinely helps roughly 6.1 million Americans can continue to offer assistance without any employees to administer payments. Mark Wolfe, executive director of the National Energy Assistance Directors Association, which works with states to secure funding from the program, told Plumer, “They fired everybody. There’s nobody left to do anything. Either this was incredibly sloppy, or they intend to kill the program altogether.”

While most of the 2025 funds have been paid, a remaining $378 million hangs in the balance. Plumer explains, "Congress had approved $4.1 billion for the program for fiscal year 2025, and about 90% of that money had already been sent to states in October to help households struggling with high heating costs." The $378 million could help lower-income residents pay for summer air-conditioning bills, but LIHEAP disbursements seem unlikely without program staffing.

The firings angered several Democratic lawmakers. Plumer reports, "Representative Jared Golden, a Democrat who represents a largely rural district in Maine that voted for President Trump, wrote in a social media post, 'What efficiency is achieved by firing everyone in Maine whose job is to help Mainers afford heating oil when it’s cold?'" Senator Edward Markey, a Massachusetts Democrat, referred to the LIHEAP staff eliminations as "sabotage."

A study published last year in The Economic Journal "found that roughly 17% of U.S. households spend more than one-tenth of their income on energy, a threshold that researchers often define as a 'severe' energy burden," Plumer adds. "The study also found a strong relationship between energy affordability and winter mortality."

GOP lawmakers consider snipping SNAP benefits to balance tax cuts. An expert explains SNAP.

The Conversation Chart, from USDA data

Congressional Republicans are eyeing substantial cuts to the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program; however, lopping off grocery dollars from the more than 41 million low-income Americans who rely on SNAP, which includes 1 in 5 children, could prove tricky and unpopular.

To explain what SNAP benefits are, and why some GOP lawmakers want to cut SNAP spending, The Conversation asked Tracy Roof, a political scientist who has researched government food programs, to explain, "What’s going on?" An edited version of their Q&A is shared below.

Why does it look like the federal government may cut SNAP spending?
"SNAP critics believe that the U.S. spends too much on the program, which cost the federal government $100 billion in the 2024 fiscal year. . . . Federal spending on SNAP, however, has been falling since it peaked at $119 billion in 2022. Some Republican lawmakers are calling for new changes that would cut spending on the program."

Is there a SNAP budget? How do people qualify for benefits?
No, there is no limit on what the federal government can spend on SNAP. However, persons applying for benefits must meet a complex set of eligibility criteria, which varies by state. "Americans can usually qualify for SNAP benefits if their income is under 130% of the federal poverty line. In 2025, that would be $41,795 for a family of four, and they have limited savings."

Does SNAP have work requirements? If so, what are they? Can unauthorized immigrants receive SNAP benefits?
"Most adults under the age of 60 are subject to work requirements if they are 'able-bodied' and not caring for a child or incapacitated adult. If adults between the ages of 18 and 54 don’t log at least 20 hours of work or another approved activity, their benefits can be cut off. Immigrants without authorization to reside in the U.S. aren’t eligible for SNAP."

How can the federal government try to cut SNAP spending?
There are two likely ways for lawmakers to trim SNAP costs.

"One is through the farm bill, a legislative package Congress typically renews every four or five years that sets policies for SNAP and programs that support farmers’ incomes. . . .The latest [Farm Bill] extension will expire on Sept. 30, 2025.

"The other option is through the so-called budget reconciliation process underway in Congress. Right now, the primary Republican plan calls for extending $4.5 trillion in tax cuts passed in the first Trump administration and making up to $2 trillion in spending cuts over the next decade."

How popular do you think these changes would be?
Cutting SNAP benefits at a time when food inflation and food insecurity are high is unlikely to be popular. "Polls show most Americans support increasing SNAP benefits, not cutting them. . . . Food banks, already struggling to meet demand and facing federal spending cuts, have warned they will not be able to fill gaps caused by reduced SNAP spending or new limits on benefits."

To read what changes or restrictions Republicans might seek to cut SNAP spending or to read more about the political obstacles to SNAP reductions, read the full Q&A here.

Federal plan to provide internet access to more rural areas might include satellite service, which has fans and critics

A new bill would allow satellite internet in rural
areas. (Adobe Stock photo)

Despite bipartisan congressional support for all Americans to have access to speedy internet, discussions on how to get the job done have fallen along party lines, with many Republicans bemoaning the $42 billion Broadband Equity, Access and Deployment program as too slow and overly attached to using fiber technology. "New legislation looks to address those complaints," reports Chris Teale of Route Fifty. "The legislation would amend the 2021 bipartisan infrastructure law and loosen several requirements."

Rep. Richard Hudson, a North Carolina Republican, "introduced the Streamlining Program Efficiency and Expanding Deployment for BEAD Act, known as the SPEED for BEAD Act," Teale explains. The bill "would clarify that any technology, including satellite internet, can be used to help close the digital divide, and would eliminate what Hudson called 'burdensome' regulations."

While several trade groups "expressed their support for the bill. . . . not [everyone is] convinced that changing BEAD at this stage is the right course of action," Teale reports. "With every state and territory having had their deployment plans approved by the National Telecommunications and Information Administration and several states ready to distribute grant funding and deploy infrastructure, some warned that a change now could delay the program further."

Others insist that spending federal dollars on satellite internet will enrich satellite owners while providing only sub-standard internet access. When Evan Feinman, who had directed BEAD for the past three years, quit, he sent "a blistering email to his former colleagues on his way out the door warning that the Trump administration is poised to unduly enrich Elon Musk’s satellite internet company with money for rural broadband," reports John Hendel of Politico.

Feinman’s "lengthy email, totaling more than 1,100 words is a sign of deep discomfort about the changes underway that will likely transform BEAD," Hendel writes. Feinman warned, "'Stranding all or part of rural America with worse internet so that we can make the world’s richest man even richer is yet another in a long line of betrayals by Washington.'"

Six months after Hurricane Helene, North Carolina is still trying to measure the loss while pushing recovery efforts

Flooding from Hurricane Helene wiped out homes and roads.
 (Adobe Stock photo)

North Carolina lawmakers are pushing Hurricane Helene recovery efforts forward despite not knowing the extent of Helene's damage or how much and when federal aid will be available. Brady Dennis of The Washington Post reports, "Officials seem determined to move quicker after Helene and avoid the mistakes of the past, even as North Carolina faces the most massive disaster recovery in its history."

Hurricane Helene hit western North Carolina six months ago, leaving a swath of decimation caused by extreme rain, flooding and mudslides. More than 100 people died and thousands of homes were damaged or destroyed. Flooding "wiped out bridges, roads, businesses and farms," Dennis reports. The storm left "an estimated $60 billion of economic ruin in its wake."

State officials still don't know how much federal aid will "ultimately arrive and in what quantity, even amid President Trump’s promises to speed help to the region," Dennis adds. "FEMA has helped more than 157,000 families and distributed $402.5 million to storm victims in North Carolina. . . . But the larger sums of funding meant to fuel long-term rebuilding that often follow large-scale disasters, historically takes months, if not years, to be fully implemented." 

The storm's scope of catastrophic damage explains why recovery has been slow. "Disaster recovery is almost always frustrating, tedious and too costly for most states and localities to bear without a significant assist from the federal government," Dennis explains. "Lawmakers continue to hash out the final details of the state’s most recent — though almost certainly not its last — Helene aid package. If passed, it will include more than $500 million to help struggling farmers, jump-start a home building program and repair private roads and bridges."

Even with that progress, the state will need billions to get back on its feet. Gov. Josh Stein’s deputies admit "that serious hurdles remain," Dennis reports. "Among them: the staggering damage Helene inflicted, the lack of data in some counties about the actual number of damaged and destroyed homes and the difficulties posed by rebuilding amid mountainous terrain."

A program to expand broadband services in U.S. faces review; many state and local leaders want it to be 'left alone'

Providing every American with broadband access 
is the BEAD program's goal. (Adobe Stock photo)

After Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick committed to a 'rigorous review' of the country's $42 billion Broadband Equity, Access and Deployment program, or BEAD, last week, House Republicans lined up at a House subcommittee meeting to complain about the program's failure to provide "internet for all," reports Chris Teale of Route Fifty. Despite those complaints, the program still has solid bipartisan support from those who want BEAD to continue to evolve.

When it comes to congressional calls to scrap the program, state and local leaders have a simple "message for the federal government, Washington, D.C. and Congress: 'Leave it alone; let the states do what they've done,' Missouri State Rep. Louis Riggs, a Republican, told Teale. "'The feds could not do what the states have done. . . . Trying to claw that funding back and stand up a new grant round is the worst idea I've heard in a very long time, and that's saying a lot coming out of D.C.'"

While many Republicans bemoaned the program's red tape and slow roll-outs as failures, others saw opportunities to allow the program to adapt along a learning curve. "In a statement after Lutnick’s announcement, Sen. Shelley Moore Capito, a West Virginia Republican, said she favors 'improving the program,' but does 'not want to see West Virginia wait longer than is necessary or have to redo their proposals and application,'" Teale reports. 

Accurate mapping has slowed BEAD disbursements; however, "there has been more movement in several states as Delaware, Louisiana and Nevada have started making grant awards," Teale explains. "Others are hesitant amid the federal uncertainty, however, including Texas, which paused its digital equity program early this month."