Cash-strapped Montana will be the second state to implement new federal Medicaid work rules

Montana will be the second state to implement Medicaid
work rules. (Photo by John Kakuk, Unsplash)

Despite depleted coffers, Montana is moving forward with its rollout of Medicaid's new work rules beginning on July 1. 

The state will be the second, after Nebraska, to require its residents to "prove they’re working to keep their coverage," reports Katheryn Houghton of KFF Health News. "That’s six months ahead of the federal deadline for states to implement Medicaid work rules for millions of enrollees."

The new work requirements are part of President Donald Trump's One Big Beautiful Bill Act, which Congress passed in 2025, but the onus of implementation falls on state health departments. Houghton explains, "The federal spending law requires states to check every six months whether millions of Medicaid enrollees work, go to school, or volunteer at least 80 hours a month, or qualify for an exemption."

Adding new staff and technology infrastructure to prepare for and execute work checks "takes time and money," Houghton writes. "Health policy analysts say that Montana’s budget crunch is a hint of the challenges to come nationwide."

The OBBBA also cut federal Medicaid dollars flowing to states by around $1 trillion over 10 years. The lopped-off funds represent the "largest pool of federal funding for states," Houghton explains. Joan Alker, a researcher focused on health coverage, told KFF, "States are the ones that are gonna have to do the dirty work of implementing cuts."

To address its shortfall, Montana plans to "stall rate increases for healthcare providers that were due July 1," KFF reports. However, clinicians say they need the rate bump to address staffing shortages and growing patient waitlists, which they attribute to already low Medicaid reimbursement rates.

Montana residents currently face long wait times to "access public assistance," Houghton adds. "And many can lose coverage at renewal time because of paperwork issues. … All these problems reflect a national challenge to connect people to care through strained public assistance programs."

Policy experts say 10 rural hospitals in Virginia are 'at risk' of closure. What does that mean?

A rural hospital can be listed as 'at risk' and never close.
(Canva photo via Cardinal News)

As rural hospitals across the U.S. grapple with fewer federal Medicaid reimbursement dollars, some, including 10 in Virginia, have been flagged as "at risk" of closure, reports Emily Schabacker of Cardinal News. But the formulas used by policy centers to determine financially strained hospitals can't predict which hospitals will close.

For instance, the Public Citizen, a non-profit that tends to lean left, released an analysis that looked specifically at "Medicaid policy changes tied to the federal funding bill," Schabacker explains. Based on their focus, Public Citizen policy experts "identified 10 Virginia hospitals as at risk of closure," including six in Southwest and Southside Virginia:

• Buchanan General Hospital, Grundy
• Carilion Tazewell Community Hospital, Tazewell
• Twin County Regional Hospital, Galax
• Dickenson Community Hospital, Clintwood
• Sentara Halifax Regional Hospital, South Boston
• Centra Southside Community Hospital, Farmville
• VCU Health Tappahannock Hospital, Tappahannock
• Bon Secours Southern Virginia Regional Medical Center, Emporia
• Sentara Northern Virginia Medical Center, Woodbridge
• VCU Health Community Memorial Hospital, South Hill

While not all policy centers will focus on Medicaid payment changes to determine a hospital's future financial difficulties, most centers will consider past financial standing, operating margins, and whether the hospital was already operating at a deficit before the Medicaid cuts were announced. 

According to Michael Shepherd, an assistant professor with the Department of Health Management and Policy at the University of Michigan, "Each research group uses slightly different methods to evaluate hospital finances," Schabacker reports.

Shepherd said he’s "concerned that reports like the one from Public Citizen border on being alarmist," Schabacker adds, "signaling with too high a degree of certainty that hospitals with negative operating margins will close as Medicaid changes take shape."

Financial vulnerability doesn't mean that "the hospital is going to close tomorrow, but it could over the next few years," Shepherd told Cardinal News. "There is some uncertainty there. Not every hospital that’s at risk of closing will close. The truth is somewhere in the middle.”

Congress could change USPS finances and avoid more service cuts that disproportionately hurt rural areas

Rural residents are more dependent on 
the USPS. (Photo by A. Land, Unsplash)

The U.S. Postal Service can't borrow any more money to cover ongoing deficits, and unless changes to its funding are made, USPS leadership has warned that the service will run out of money sometime in 2026. Elena Patel reports for Brookings.  "This fiscal crisis reflects a structural mismatch between what Congress requires the Postal Service to do and how it is financed."

When the USPS was created, its financial foundations included a monopoly on letter delivery tied to a universal service mandate; however, as the number of letters mailed in the U.S. steadily declined beginning in 2007, the universal service requirement remained in place. The lack of letter revenue essentially meant USPS could no longer afford to deliver to all 169 million addresses that Congress mandated it serve with affordable rates.

Once letter revenue tanked, the USPS still delivered to every address despite the financial toll. "The USPS nationwide delivery network ensures that access does not depend on geography or profitability," Patel explains.

Brookings graph, from USPS Form 10-K Operating Statistics, FY 2007–2025.

For rural communities, USPS mail carriers often go the "last mile" to complete a delivery. The mail is a backbone for small-town businesses, finances and even medical care. Patel writes, "Particularly in low-density and rural communities, the mail remains essential infrastructure. It delivers prescription medications, ballots, and online purchases, and it supports local small-business activity."

Patel suggests some USPS changes that Congress could enact, which are edited for brevity below.

• Restructure pension liability finances, "including shifting these costs to the Treasury, as is done for other federal agencies."
• Pay universal service costs: "The cost of the universal service obligation exceeded the value of the postal monopoly by roughly $2-$3 billion per year for the last several years. . . . Congress could fund that mandate explicitly through annual appropriations."
• Increase the USPS borrowing cap and allocate funds for infrastructure improvements. "Additional capital flexibility could ease short-term liquidity pressures and allow USPS to finance modernization over time rather than from current cash flows."

Congress can "realign the financing framework with the universal service mandate it has imposed," Patel adds. "Or it can allow liquidity constraints to narrow that mandate by default. In practice, that 'default' path would likely involve deferred payments, delayed investment, and increased pressure for service cuts that fall most heavily on the communities most reliant on the mail."

Lawmakers and health groups pushback on Rural Health Transformation Program plans and limits

Nebraska State Capitol in Lincoln
(Photo by Pieter van de Sande, Unsplash)

The excitement and energy that was first attached to millions of federal dollars in awards to states for the Rural Health Transformation Program has already started to fade. Some legislatures and health groups are resisting their state's proposals and pushing for more input on how the money is spent, report Arielle Zionts and Sarah Jane Tribble of KFF Health News.

The awards, which are funded through the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services, impose strict timelines and rules on the use and implementation of millions of dollars. Lawmakers, who must work quickly to pass bills needed to use the funds, and rural health groups are finding themselves at odds with award restrictions.

Much of the disconnect stems from what many lawmakers thought they could use RHTP money for, based on how the program was marketed, versus what CMS will allow.

The White House promoted RHTP awards as a way to "shore up rural health care," but their use isn't aimed at saving struggling rural hospitals. Instead, the funds are to be used for "seeding innovative projects and technologies," Zionts and Tribble explain. "States can use only up to 15% of their funding to pay providers for patient care."

Some state Republican lawmakers — especially those representing more rural regions — as well as rural hospital advocates, "are upset that the political rhetoric doesn’t match what they see," KFF reports. "They’re also lobbing criticisms at specific aspects of their states’ plans, including the proposed projects, what’s not included, and the spending approval process."

State lawmakers from Wyoming, Ohio, North Dakota, Michigan, North Carolina, Nebraska and Colorado all face conflicts and competing needs to get the work done so their states can spend the money and then decide who gets it, KFF reports.

Jed Hansen, executive director of the Nebraska Rural Health Association, told KFF, "Rural Health Transformation will not save a single hospital in our state. I don’t think it will save a hospital nationally.”

States work to prepare for Rural Health Transformation Program funding, which varies 'wildly' by state

In late December, rural hospitals in all 50 states learned how much funding they would receive from the federal Rural Health Transformation Program.

Now, the race is on for hospitals to "submit revised budgets, begin spending, and show the money is going to good use," reports Sarah Jane Tribble, Arielle Zionts and Maia Rosenfeld of KFF Health News. "Federal officials will begin reviewing state progress in late summer and announce 2027 funding levels by the end of October."

The overall RHTP includes $50 billion in federal funds, with $25 billion allocated in different amounts based on a "complicated formula" and the robustness of state applications. For instance, Texas received the largest award at $281 million, while New Jersey received the smallest allotment at $147 million. The initial $25 billion is divided equally among the states.

After state allocations were announced, researchers "began to parse the awards to better understand why some states received more than others, including whether the awards reflected any partisanship or political favoritism," KFF News reports. Although at least one researcher found that higher dollar awards went to Republican states, overall the awards vary "wildly. . . with almost a hundredfold difference between the top and bottom."

State applications consistently included the Trump administration's fitness and nutrition goals, with half promising to "mandate the presidential fitness test," Tribble explains. "Many states also proposed food waivers under the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, known as SNAP, which would limit low-nutrition items such as soda."

Before any RHTP money is spent, states must set up program infrastructure to manage funds and collaborate with rural hospitals. KFF News reports, "Many state legislatures must pass laws to distribute the funding to their state offices. Meanwhile, state officials are hiring staff, organizing advisory committees, and preparing to dole out money."

Federal grant cuts over DEI leave rural students and teachers with few options to replace funding and its benefits

Canceled federal grant money is more difficult for rural
schools to replace. (Adobe Stock photo)

Efforts to root out inclusion and equity programming prompted the Trump administration to slash educational grants, leaving rural schools in a lurch. 

The lost grant money, which funded additions such as counselors to teach mental health education, additional academic tutoring options for students and learning initiatives for teachers, is difficult for rural communities to replace.

"Federal dollars make up roughly 10% of education spending nationally, but the percentage is significantly higher in rural districts," reports Annie Ma of The Associated Press. "When the funding is reduced, many districts have no way to make up the lost money."

Since President Donald Trump returned for a second term, his administration has cut millions of dollars earmarked for "programs supporting mental health, academic enrichment and teacher development," Ma writes. Republican lawmakers defended the cuts, saying the canceled grants focused on diversity and inclusion agendas -- not academics.

In Kentucky, the loss of grant funding means student counselors and supportive programming in rural counties will most likely come to a premature end, along with the student and staffing advantages they provided. 

In Shelby County, Ky., where federal spending "makes up about 18% of schools’ budgets," Ma reports. "The programs are not political, Superintendent Joshua Matthews said, and the funding loss only hurts students."

Matthews told Ma, "We’re not promoting anything one way or the other.”

The Department of Education recently announced a new round of mental health grants, but these funds require schools to hire psychologists, not counselors. Unfortunately, there is a national shortage of school psychologists and rural schools that attempt to recruit one will compete with larger, more urban schools.

States receive notice of how much money they will receive from the $10 billion Rural Health Transformation Program

Texas was awarded $281 million and New Jersey 
$147 million by CMS. (Adobe Stock photo) 

The wait is finally over for rural health care officials and advocates across the U.S., who have been "hotly debating" how much of the newly formed $50 billion Rural Health Transformation Program their state will receive. The Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services announced their awards last week.

The five-year program divides half of the $10 billion-per-year distribution equally among the states; however, the division of the remaining $25 billion was "determined by the CMS based on how well the states’ pitches met goals of strengthening rural health prevention, standing up sustainable access, developing a rural workforce and introducing innovative care delivery and technology," reports Dave Muoio of Fierce Healthcare. 

CMS paired its award listing with an abstract of each state's application. "Only a subset of states have so far opted to make their full applications available to the public," Muoio explains. The complete list of state funding awards is here.

All 50 states received awards from the second half of the funds, with Texas and Alaska garnering the largest awards, and New Jersey and Connecticut receiving the smallest funding amounts. Some factors involved in the selective division included each state's rural population and the number of residents living in frontier regions.

While rural hospitals and providers have voiced support for the program, many are cautious about how much the new funding can do to balance "the nearly $1 trillion of nationwide Medicaid cuts expected over the coming decade," Muoio adds.

Last month, CMS announced the formation of a new office to manage the Rural Transformation Program and its funds.

While details of rural health transformation requests aren't available yet, some states are sharing their information

KFF News RHTP tracking map as of Dec. 2. Click to enlarge.

The newly formed federal Rural Health Transformation Program has $50 billion to distribute to states that met its Nov. 5 application deadline; however, a complete picture of which states applied and what they asked for isn't clear because the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services have "declined to publicly release the applications," report Sarah Jane Tribble and Arielle Zionts of KFF Health News.

CMS said it isn't allowed to "release grant applications to the public during the merit review process,” KFF News reports. "They've pledged to announce the allocations by Dec. 31."

RHTP was passed as part of the One Big Beautiful Bill Act in July, which drastically cut Medicaid spending and will disproportionately impact rural areas. But RHTP can't be used to "bail out" rural hospitals or clinics. KFF News explains, "The money [must] be spent on transformational ideas."

Although CMS isn't sharing application details, some states have been transparent about their applications. According to the article, a health strategy team at Princeton University tasked with tracking state application summaries found "themes including expansion of home-based and mobile services, increased use of technology, and workforce development initiatives . . ."

KFF Health News is collecting state-by-state application materials and adding them to its mapped repository, which will be updated as information arrives. 

A rural hospital in California closes after federal officials strip 'critical access' designation it has held since 2000

Glenn Medical Center in Willows, California 
(Glenn Medical Center photo)

After more than 70 years of serving its rural community in Willows, California, Glenn Medical Center closed its doors following the loss of its "critical access" designation, which had allowed the hospital to receive higher federal reimbursements that helped it remain open.

To qualify as a "critical access" hospital, a medical center needs to be at least 35 miles from the next closest hospital. Glenn Medical Center was 32 miles from "the nearest neighboring hospital under a route mapped by federal officials," reports Jessica Garrison of the L.A. Times. "Though that distance hasn’t changed, the federal government has now decided to enforce its rules." The hospital was awarded its critical access status in 2000.

The loss of Glenn Medical Center leaves the surrounding farming community without emergency care, "eliminates 150 jobs and puts rural residents at risk of preventable deaths," Garrison writes.

Rural hospitals across the state are already at risk of closure. Peggy Wheeler, vice president of policy of the California Hospital Association, told Garrison, "It’s like the beginning of a tidal wave. I’m concerned we will lose several rural hospitals, and then the whole system may be at risk.”

Before Glenn Medical Center's designation was stripped, Glenn County officials and hospital administrators worked for months to persuade federal officials to grant an exception.

Now that the hospital is closed, many community members fear what will happen to older residents in need of immediate care, injured farm workers or victims of car accidents along nearby Interstate 5. Glenn County Supervisor Monica Rossman told Garrison, "People are going to die."

Federal funding cuts, decreased use and a sluggish U.S. economy will cost some rural towns their libraries

The Tieton Library will close later this month, leaving the town's 
1,610 residents without a library for the first time since 1946.

Libraries in rural towns provide residents with a safe community hub that offers educational materials, meeting space, and sometimes even a place to escape inclement weather. But federal budget cuts, a slowing economy and demographic changes are forcing some small-town libraries to close.

Earlier this year, President Donald Trump issued an executive order "dismantling the Institute of Museum and Library Services, which has provided around $270 million a year to public and academic libraries," reports Anna Griffin of The New York Times. Without those federal dollars, some libraries in smaller communities won't have enough funding to remain open.

While Trump's executive order faces a court challenge, some smaller libraries are already scaling back. "Some rural libraries in Florida and Mississippi, for example, have frozen inter-library loan programs, sharply reducing the range of materials available to residents in more remote areas," Griffin writes. "State libraries in Maine, Indiana, Connecticut and Washington have laid off staff members or warned that layoffs were coming."

While most U.S. library systems rely on federal and state funding and already operate within tight budgets, smaller libraries with a more limited tax base have a harder time raising funds to cover shortfalls. 

The Yakima library district in Washington state, which serves rural farming towns, is an example of a system that had to make changes to remain solvent. District leaders have already announced an increase in fees to maintain services. The fee changes, along with looming state and federal funding cuts, have already pushed a Yakima library in Tieton to schedule its closure for later this month.

Kate Laughlin, executive director of the Association for Rural & Small Libraries, told Griffin, "We had a financial model that wasn’t all that sustainable even before this administration. What you are seeing in a place like Yakima County is the start, not the end."

Small businesses and their employees could lose health care coverage if ACA subsidies are cut

Farmers and their employees are among those who stand to 
'lose the most' if ACA subsidies are cut. (KFF Health photo)

As the debate over federal Affordable Care Act subsidies stalls efforts to reopen the government, small business owners worry that their employees won't be able to afford health insurance if the subsidies are cut. 

For lawmakers grappling with ACA decisions, any cuts could impact the 2026 Congressional elections.

Small-business owners such as farmers, dentists and barbers are among those "who stand to lose the most should Congress let the additional, generous federal subsidies put in place during the Covid-19 pandemic lapse," reports Amanda Seitz of KFF Health News. 

ACA subsidies cover nearly 24 million Americans -- and almost half of all those enrollees either own a small business or work for one. Collectively, the group "is more likely to vote Republican and overwhelmingly backed President Donald Trump in last year’s election," Seitz writes. But "even Trump’s own pollsters found deep support for the Obamacare subsidies."

According to Seitz, "Nearly 6 in 10 Obamacare enrollees live in a Republican-held congressional district."

U.S. Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene, a Georgia Republican who is up for reelection in 2026, "broke with her party last month, calling on the GOP to extend the subsidies," Seitz adds. "Greene said in an interview that rising health care costs are the 'No. 1 issue' she hears about from people living in her district."

A simple website helps donors save the most vulnerable NPR and PBS stations

The Adopt-A-Station tool helps donors find and help
the most vulnerable stations. (NPR photo)

A simple website with a focused theme has started helping NPR and PBS stations after Congress rescinded $1.1 billion in Corporation for Public Broadcasting funding, leaving both entities with unforeseen budget shortfalls, reports Bob Sillick for E&P magazine.

Alex Curley, a former public media expert, created the single-page Adopt-a-Station website that "indicates which public media stations are most vulnerable to closing," Sillick explains. Most predictions estimate that nearly 1,000 stations would be affected by the loss of CPB support, with those serving indigenous, black and rural areas facing the most severe setbacks.

Approximately 40,000 people visited the Adopt-a-Station site during its first 30 days. Curley's most recent "review of analytics showed approximately 20% of visitors were clicking on a link to a station identified as losing 50% or more of its revenue," Sillick reports. "Curley is now working to increase visitor numbers to the site."

"I estimate 15% of all public media stations are at risk of closing," Curley told Sillick. "They either relied on federal funding so much that it was tough to stay open, or some other financial indicator paired with the loss of federal funding meant they couldn't balance their finances."

Trump says funds will be paid to active military members during shutdown

Photo by Sonder Bridge Photography, Unsplash

President Donald Trump posted on Truth Social that active military members will be paid during the government shutdown, Deepa Shivaram and Luke Garrett reported for NPR.

The funds are expected to come from around $8 billion of “unused research and development funding from last year,” Shivaram and Garrett wrote.

A bill called the “Pay Our Troops Act” also has been introduced in Congress to address growing concerns of military members who are unable to feed their families. No action has been taken on the bill.

“Military families deserve better than to have our livelihoods tied to political stalemates,” Besa Pinchotti, CEO of the National Military Family Association said in a statement.

The current stalemate is largely caused by disagreements on funding for health care policies such as Medicaid. Congress must pass an appropriations bill, which is a bill that would fund the government, to end the shutdown.

Many other federal workers are also facing financial burdens and layoffs due to the shutdown. Members of Congress, however, still receive paychecks, though some have refused to take their pay because they believe it is wrong to do so while the military and other federal workers are not getting paid.

Rural families worry that Head Start will die a 'slow death.' Many parents can't afford to work without it.

Head Start participants are disproportionately rural. 
(Photo by Jackie Mader, The Hechinger Report)

For six decades, the federally funded Head Start program has helped low-income rural parents stay in the workforce by providing free child care and early education programming. But suggested cuts by the Trump administration have some families worried the program is slated for "a slow death," reports Jackie Mader of The Guardian. The program was earmarked for elimination in an "early draft of President Donald Trump’s budget proposal."

Although Head Start programs are found in communities of all sizes, its participants are disproportionately rural. "Nearly 90% of rural counties in the United States have Head Start programs," Mader explains. "Almost half of the 716,000 children Head Start serves live in rural congressional districts, compared with just 22% in urban districts."

Head Start has survived so far, but its services and employees have been reduced through staffing and funding cuts that began this past spring. "In early February, many Head Start programs were caught up in a federal funding freeze. Then the Trump administration fired about 20% of the program’s federal staff," Mader reports. The loss of support forced some programs to close, while others cut staff to stay open.

Head Start reductions have left communities and parents feeling uncertain about the future. Most parents who participate can't afford to work if they have to pay for child care, and the program employs several local people and small businesses.

Even though the Trump administration's 2026 budget proposal doesn't reduce Head Start funding, it did not increase the program's funding to allow for inflation, which "effectively amounts to a cut," Mader adds.

Laurie Todd-Smith, who oversees Head Start at the Administration for Children and Families, has not pushed for an increase in Head Start funding. Instead, she suggested that programs look for ways to be more efficient by eliminating Head Start offerings that other state programs already provide.

Tribal radio stations in rural Alaska are hubs of culture that may not survive federal cuts

 The Anchorage skyline is dwarfed by the bold Chugach Mountains. The city is surrounded 
by more than five million remote acres. (Photo via Nieman Laboratories)

After Congress voted to pull back billions in funding, tribal radio stations in Alaska are exploring how they can continue to serve Native Americans across a massive state that can routinely lack highways and cell phone service.

Indigenous radio stations are different than those in the lower 48 states. Neel Dhanesha for Nieman Laboratories reports, "While many are part of the NPR and PBS networks, they are mostly staffed by Indigenous reporters and producers and primarily serve audiences in tribal nations around the U.S., many of which lack broadband or cell service."

Loris Taylor, president and CEO of Native Public Media, told Dhanesha, "The information environment in Indian Country is often fragmented, underfunded. . . . Tribal stations fill this gap. Without these stations, many tribal citizens, especially elders, low-income families, and those without broadband, would lose essential access to news and public discourse."

Without federal dollars, some stations are unsure how they will stay afloat to perform basic functions, such as issuing emergency notices for severe weather, AMBER and Missing Endangered Persons alerts. Jaclyn Sallee, president and CEO of KNBA, a tribal radio station in Anchorage, told Dhanesha, "Some stations are very concerned that they won’t be able to operate starting October 1."

Meanwhile, more funding for tribal radio stations may become available through grants from the Department of the Interior’s Bureau of Indian Affairs. "BIA will distribute $9.4 million of previously appropriated funding to 35 tribal radio stations in 11 states," Dhanesha reports. "[But] details on the deal are scant."

BIA grants won't solve funding problems for all the remote-serving public radio stations in Alaska, and residents fear what will be lost if cuts are made. Dhanesha explains, "Every person I spoke with emphasized that losing tribal stations would mean losing a key cultural touchstone in Indigenous communities across the country. . . .Tribal stations are trying to figure out the path forward."

West Virginia is among the first states to ban some synthetic food dyes from school lunches

Many dyes from nature can replace artificial colors.
(Adobe Stock photo)

West Virginia schools took certain food dyes off the school lunch menu starting on Aug. 1. "West Virginia Gov. Patrick Morrisey signed a sweeping new law in March banning seven artificial dyes from school meals," reports Jonel Aleccia of The Associated Press. "Other states have enacted similar laws that would strip artificial dyes from school meals, but West Virginia’s action is the first to take effect."

The brief timeline between March and August sent state and school nutrition directors on a crunch time search to root out any school menu items that "contained any trace of petroleum-based synthetic dyes, including Red 3, Red 40, Yellow 5, Yellow 6, Blue 1, Blue 2 and Green 3," Aleccia explains. Once those items were removed, directors began working out substitution options that kids would still eat.

Health advocates have pushed to get synthetic dyes out of U.S. food for years, "citing mixed evidence of potential harm," Aleccia reports. "West Virginia’s ban on synthetic dyes was cheered by Health Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr., who has successfully pressured food makers to agree to remove artificial colors from their products."

Still, banning certain dyes won't suddenly make Americans healthier. "Nutrition experts agree that removing artificial colors from foods doesn’t address the main drivers of America’s chronic health problems," Aleccia writes. "Those stem largely from ingredients such as added sugars, sodium and saturated fat."

Nationally, the push against synthetic dyes is more of a baby step toward better nutrition. FDA Commissioner Marty Makary "has joined Kennedy in the push to get artificial dyes out of food, despite limited proof of health effects," Aleccia reports. In a recent podcast, Makary called the removal of petroleum-based food dyes "steps in the right direction.”

Just because Jell-O fruit cups and older versions of  Cool Ranch Doritos won't be served, doesn't mean school lunches will all turn beige. "Some suppliers had already removed artificial dyes from some school foods, swapping them for products colored with beet juice or turmeric." 

New tax law marks $60 billion for farm subsidies, but little of it is expected to reach smaller farming operations

New farm subsidy money won't reach many smaller
farmers. (Adobe Stock photo)

While the new tax bill sets aside $60 billion in farm subsidies, how the money is divided is just as crucial for farmers who need assistance. Some experts worry that uneven subsidy distribution "could worsen disparities between farms in an industry already struggling with consolidation," reports Linda Qiu of The New York Times. Who gets what depends on what crops are grown. "Large farms, particularly those in the South, [are] poised to reap the most benefits."

In Gaines County, Texas, 600 farms are set to receive "an additional $258 million in government payments over the next decade," Qiu writes. "Along the coast of California, 1,000 farms in Monterey County will collectively receive just $390,000 in additional payments, according to one analysis."

Smaller farms are unlikely to get the help they need to fend off harm from volatile markets and increasingly high input and labor costs. Qiu reports, "Owners of smaller farms and independent producers who grow fresh fruits and vegetables or raise livestock have expressed concern that the distribution of funding will only deepen the consolidation of an industry that has lost over 300,000 farms in the past two decades."

The largest chunk of subsidy funding "will go toward increasing payments to farmers enrolled in price and revenue support programs covering 22 commodity crops, or major crops like corn and soybeans," Qui adds. "Farmers of those crops, which are concentrated in the South, are expected to see the biggest benefits." For many of those farmers, the additional income will provide support in difficult times and prevent farm bankruptcies.

But for other farmers, the bill lends no such cushion, and many believe the subsidies are a handout for large agricultural operations. Qui reports, "The National Family Farm Coalition, which supports smaller farms, warned that the law was short-sighted, unnecessarily favoring large corporations."

Vincent H. Smith, an agricultural economist at the American Enterprise Institute, a conservative think tank in Washington, told Qiu, "“The monies are not flowing to small- and medium-sized family farms. They’re flowing overwhelmingly to the largest producers.”

Final House vote rescinds $9 billion in funding for public broadcasting and foreign aid; cuts include rural media

After months of debate, the U.S. House and Senate voted to rescind $9 billion in public broadcasting and foreign aid funding that Congress had already approved. The 216-213 final vote passed the House early Friday morning. "It now goes to Trump for his signature," report Kevin Freking and Mary Clare Jalonick of The Associated Press. "The package cancels about $1.1 billion for the Corporation for Public Broadcasting and nearly $8 billion for a variety of foreign aid programs."

The vote "marked the first time in decades that a president has successfully submitted such a rescissions request to Congress," AP reports. "Some Republicans were uncomfortable with the cuts, yet supported them anyway, wary of crossing Trump or upsetting his agenda."

"The cuts are expected to weigh most heavily on smaller public media outlets away from big cities, and it’s likely some won’t survive," report Mark Thiessen and David Bauder of The Associated Press. "Katherine Maher, NPR’s president and CEO, estimated as many as 80 NPR stations may face closure in the next year."

Smaller media outlets often serve more remote areas in states such as Alaska, Mississippi and Maine, which have numerous rural communities that frequently lack access to reliable news and educational programming.

Mississippi Public Broadcasting has already begun making cuts. AP reports, "It decided to eliminate a streaming channel that airs children’s programming like 'Caillou' and 'Daniel Tiger’s Neighborhood' to the state’s youngsters 24 hours a day, said Taiwo Gaynor, the system’s chief content officer."

The rescinded funds erase roughly $2.5 million from Maine's public media funding, but Maine Public hasn't announced any immediate cuts. "The system is preparing to reinvent itself to make certain it continues serving the state’s residents," Thiessen and Bauder write. "Maine’s rural residents rely heavily on public media for weather updates and disaster alerts."

 Earlier this week, KMXT in Kodiak Island, Alaska, kept its community up-to-date on tsunami 
warnings after a 7.3 magnitude earthquake hit some of Alaska's coastal islands. (NPR photo)

In Alaska, KMXT public radio station’s general manager, Jared Griffin, "called the Senate vote a 'devastating gut punch,'" Thiessen and Bauder add. "Griffin said the station’s board has already agreed on a plan to furlough staff members one day a month, and he’s taking a 50% pay cut."

Securing state support to fill funding holes isn't an option for many stations. AP reports, "At least five states have reduced their own outlays for public media this year, either for budget or political reasons."

Rural residents may become 'unintended victims' of end to PBS, NPR funding

Many smaller stations don't have enough private
funders to survive without federal support. (Adobe photo)

Update: In a narrow vote largely split along party lines, the House voted 214 to 212 to rescind $1.1 billion "allocated to the Corporation for Public Broadcasting (CPB), which distributes nearly all of the funds to local television and radio stations, for the next two fiscal years," report Deirdre Walsh and David Folkenflikof NPR. "Two key Republican lawmakers switched their votes from 'no' to 'yes' to push it over the finish line."

Federal Corporation for Public Broadcasting funding remains on the chopping block as U.S. lawmakers continue wrangling the pros and cons of yanking back the $535 million already approved by Congress for 2026 and 2027. In late May, President Donald Trump issued an executive order calling for an end to any future support for NPR and PBS because he believes "taxpayer funding of NPR’s and PBS’s biased content is a waste."

As the political battle continues, smaller stations are worried they will become the "unintended victims of national culture wars," reports Andrew Mercein for Columbia Journalism Review. The cuts would likely end radio stations in places such as Wrangell, Alaska, where many of the borough's 2,127 residents rely on its local radio station, KSTK, “for emergency information, rescue coordination, updates from local officials, and advice on accessing essential services."

KSTK’s general manager, Cindy Sweat, told Mercein, "If CPB funding disappears, I don’t know how we’d survive."

Should lawmakers approve the cuts, they are "unlikely to do the most damage to the networks they are aimed at," Mercein explains. "The Corporation for Public Broadcasting is legally required to distribute nearly 70% of government funds directly to local stations, and each station retains full editorial control. …Local stations rely on the federal government for as much as 50% of their annual budgets."

Some lawmakers are pushing against the cuts. Earlier this week, Rep. Mark Amodei (R-Nev.) and Dan Goldman (D-N.Y.), who co-chair the Public Broadcasting Caucus, issued "a joint statement saying, 'Rescinding this funding would also isolate rural communities, jeopardizing their access to vital resources they depend on. [While public broadcasting] represents less than 0.01% of the federal budget, its impact reaches every congressional district,'" reports Aris Folley of The Hill.

Rep. Mike Simpson (R-Idaho) also voiced his support for CPB. He told Folley, "You go to rural America, public television is how you get emergency broadcasting and all that kind of stuff. I look at Idaho Public Television, they’re a great organization, and we don’t see the politics that some states do in them." Folley reports, "Simpson added that he still intended to support the package if it comes to the floor."

Amodei and Goldman pointed out that rural broadcasting stations face more private fundraising challenges than stations in more populated areas. Folley reports, "Amodei and Goldman said in the new statement that “of the 544 radio and television stations that receive federal funding, 245 serve rural communities and collectively support more than 5,950 local jobs.'”

Some public media advocates and stations believe the House will vote on the "claw back bill" that includes cutting PBS and NPR funding as early as tomorrow. 

USDA cuts hit schools, farmers and food banks. The lost funding and provisions hurt rural communities the most.

Food bank reductions are tough for rural communities
to replace. (Adobe Stock photo)

In an effort to bring U.S. Department of Agriculture spending back to pre-pandemic times, the USDA terminated more that $1 billion in food support programing. The cuts are likely to leave a path of hungry Americans in their wake.

In early March, the USDA cut more than $1 billion in funding for the Local Food for Schools Cooperative Agreement and the Local Food Purchase Assistance Cooperative Agreement programs for 2025. "The money was designed to pay farmers to provide food to schools and food banks," reports Jeanine Santucci of USA Today. "The abrupt cancellation of government funding for programs to help food banks distribute healthy, local food is being felt across the country, as some already strapped organizations turn to their local communities for help."

Both programs helped local growers boost their incomes while providing fresh food options to local schools and food banks. 

Food banks were dealt another blow when the USDA announced it was halting or reducing deliveries from part of its Emergency Food Assistance Program. Some of those reductions significantly scaled back food bank funding. Jackie DeFusco of NBC reports, "Feeding America, a nationwide network of food banks, food pantries and local meal programs, was recently informed that the USDA is canceling $500 million in federal funding as the administration reviews spending decisions made under the Biden administration."

The losses will be especially tough for rural communities to manage "because they depend the most on USDA-funded programs for the food distributed by food banks, said Vince Hall, chief government relations officer of the nonprofit Feeding America," Santucci explains.

According to Hall, the ways food banks receive donations also will contribute to rural regions struggling more than their urban counterparts to fill gaps in USDA funding and provisions. "They include donations from the community itself or from food producers, food purchased through the USDA programs and food purchased by the banks themselves with very limited resources," Santucci reports. "With the loss of a significant amount of federal funding for food purchases, they'll have to lean heavily on donations, which are harder to come by in spread-out, rural areas, he said."

Food inflation has made it difficult for many Americans to return to life without some type of assistance. Hall told Santucci, "Folks who came to us during the pandemic have found it impossible to ease out of dependency on food banks because inflation has made so many of their monthly budget essentials more expensive than ever."