BUILD America 250 Act proposes rural transportation federal funding cuts

Many people can't drive in southern Idaho, but the Living Independent Network Corp works to fill the gaps when public transportation is limited — and for most of rural America, it usually is.

The Living Independent Network receives $100,000 from the state annually, made possible through federal funds, reports Benton Graham for Grist. The money allows riders to pay for “bare-minimum lifeline service,” but their access is expected to worsen at the end of this year when federal money runs out.

Transportation programs authorized in 2021 by the Biden Administration's $1.2 trillion Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act will expire at the end of this year. Lawmakers are fleshing out the BUILD America 250 Act, which would reauthorize those programs, but with $16.5 billion less in funding.

Advocates say the Biden Administration's legislation failed to broaden transportation access, but BUILD would be a significant step back. It would authorize only $103.3 billion over five years, opposed to the baseline $119.9 billion under the Jobs Act. This rate is not adjusted for inflation, and BUILD would actually need an additional $24 billion to match previous funding. 

Under BUILD, rural Idaho and Maine are estimated to see the nation’s largest drops in federal funding, falling 18% and 16% respectively. This could leave those with disabilities socially isolated, irregular transport services and families without options, leaving them to pay for a car, more gas, repairs or insurance. 

“The Biden infrastructure bill was not the high water mark,” Danny Pearlstein, the policy and communications director at Riders Alliance, said. “We could do much better than that in a variety of different ways, and we shouldn’t hold up bipartisanship as a core value of how we fund transportation when we have such sharply diverted views of the role of government to invest in people and communities.”

Rural hospitals struggle to keep up as electronic health records advance

Many rural hospitals and clinics rely on older electronic health record (EHR) systems to store patient documents and hospital data, but because larger hospitals tend to use more updated systems, the older platforms can’t communicate with “modern application programming or advanced data-sharing capabilities,” Liz Carey reports for The Daily Yonder.

The inability to securely share medical records between older vs. modern systems is called the “interoperability crisis,” and it’s stretching rural hospital staff to their thinnest. Only 64% of rural hospitals have adopted newer EHR systems, compared to 74% of urban hospitals.

Rural hospitals typically have only one to two technology workers, they may lack reliable broadband infrastructure, and upkeep of digital systems is expensive. Rural hospitals and communities that have been marginalized also consistently receive less federal funding than their urban counterparts. These disparities can "put rural healthcare facilities at a disadvantage," Carey writes.

Those gaps will cause "fragmented care," or lead to increased costs when physicians have to repeat tests and scans because they can’t access prior diagnostic images or results,” said Angela Chubb, senior manager of quality and regulatory advisory services at Nordic, a global health and technology consulting company.

The technology gaps also mean rural hospitals must work harder to recoup insurance reimbursement. Newer electronic health record systems allow more efficient data transfer among various state and national organizations for funding review. But data managers in many rural hospitals said providing those reports with smaller staffs and with less technological resources requires more labor. Often, the same information has to be re-formatted multiple times for different organizations’ standards.

Chubb told Carey that policy makers need to communicate with rural hospitals to better understand the solutions that will work in specific rural areas. “All rural communities ... are different. They all function based on their needs, based on their community needs, based on their provider needs, their demographics, their locations. It’s really how can these organizations structure the process that makes sense for them.”

Trump shifts funds from National Parks to projects in Washington

Funding U.S. National Parks Service projects has not been a priority for the Trump Administration, which has siphoned money from the USNPS for several Washington, D.C., projects, including the unveiling of gold leaf statues, reopening ornamental water fountains and repairing the Lincoln Memorial pool. This spring, the Trump Administration used at least $67 million generated by park entrance fees to fund such projects, reports Maxine Joselow for The New York Times. 

About 1,500 projects at more than 200 sites nationwide were deemed “low priority,” while projects in Washington were added to a list of White House priorities. There is currently a $24 billion backlog of deferred maintenance projects across the parks.

Staff cuts and funding shifts have left 433 USNPS sites in turmoil, with 20% of the parks being significantly understaffed. A proposal to sell a small parcel of Yosemite’s land to a private developer has become a bipartisan issue, Joselow writes. “Polling shows that Americans of all stripes and political persuasions overwhelmingly love their parks.”

Trump has taken other actions that affect the parks, including putting his face on park passes and ordering the removal of exhibits that "inappropriately disparage Americans,” as was the case for one exhibit about slavery and a sign about climate change.

Fran P. Mainella, a Republican who led the Park Service under President George W. Bush, said that Trump may not realize the value of parks to the public and the economy, and said there needs to be a way to better tell Trump that story. The parks and politics are no strangers; the Bush Administration was accused of promoting religious and conservative content at the parks.

Nonetheless, “Senator Steve Daines, a Montana Republican who leads a subcommittee on national parks, said in an interview that Mr. Trump ‘has been an incredible supporter of the parks.’ He dismissed reports of funding and staffing issues at parks as ‘fear-mongering’ by the president’s critics before the midterm elections.”

USDA staff cuts leave farmers unable to obtain loans and grants

Navajo farming couple, Mary and Zachariah Ben, sought a loan from the U.S. Department of Agriculture for
their dream property last fall in Aztec, New Mexico, but quickly learned that only half a dozen loan specialists remained to process claims for the entire state. Approval of their low-interest loan had been on hold since November’s government shutdown, but after learning about the staffing shortages — which would have held up their loan even longer — they turned to private lenders, reports Linda Qiu for The New York Times.

The Bens are not unique. “Across the country, farmers and rural residents describe struggling to obtain the basic services the Agriculture Department is meant to offer, including loans and grants, technical assistance and financing for housing and utilities,” Qiu reports.

This comes after President Trump’s Department of Government Efficiency push for USDA employees to voluntarily resign, to “trim a bloated agency” with too many employees hired in the previous administrations. 

More than 20,000 workers of the 110,000 in the USDA left in the first half of 2025. In the division of the Farm Service Agency, which the Bens hoped would approve their loan, there is no staff left in dozens of counties, which Qiu writes has forced “farmers to travel long distances for assistance or to simply give up.”

In the Rural Development subagency of USDA, nearly 1,700 workers — one-third of its staff — have left under the Trump administration. More than 2,700 workers have left the Natural Resources Conservation Service, a branch helping farmers practice sustainability. Queries wait for weeks, charities that had been approved under Biden are now waiting years for federal funding, and Oui reports that farmers “turn to expensive private consultants for advice.”

It's unclear whether staffing cuts have been a factor in Rural Development cuts, but far fewer loans and grants have been financed in the past year.

Trump’s budget proposed a nearly $5 billion cut to the USDA in the next fiscal year, which Qiu writes will essentially eliminate “programs for beginning farmers, conservation and rural aid.”

What it’s like to be disabled in a rural community as Medicaid cuts hit?

Trillions of dollars will be cut from Medicaid over the next 10 years because of the One Beautiful Bill Act, which will have a major impact on rural families who relied on the program for healthcare. Marsh Naidoo, a physical therapist, advocate and mother of a child with cerebral palsy, sat down with Madeline de Figueiredo of The Daily Yonder to discuss navigating life with her son, Kellen, amid today’s political landscape.

Naidoo, of Dyersburg, Tennessee, said the American healthcare system is extremely complicated to manage with a child who has a disability. “The advocacy part came around when we [realized] that there were so many policies being shaped by legislators who didn’t actually know what it meant to be in the lives of families experiencing disabilities.”

Her community has embraced her son, Naidoo said, but there are still barriers in place. There isn’t always access to efficient healthcare providers when it’s needed, patients are not without the administrative burden of multiple appointments in different locations, and telehealth is not always the answer.

“But the fact is not all rural communities are set up with broadband, nor is internet access always a given,” Naidoo told de Figueiredo. “I also see this in my experience as a healthcare provider. My physical therapy patients would rather come in to see me than communicate through a screen.”

With fiscal cuts for the coming years, Naidoo said families like hers aren’t sure how the loss will affect them. Medicaid is the largest healthcare payer source in the United States, but “Being the richest nation on earth, where 17% of our GDP goes toward healthcare, and not knowing you have healthcare security when you have a child with complex medical needs is frightening.”

Trump deems Digital Equity Act illegal on basis of racially designated grants; new applications will be required

“Rural residents live sicker and die younger on average than people in the rest of the country when they live in counties lacking high-speed internet access and healthcare,” reports Sarah Jane Tribble for KFF Health News. “While 81% of white adults surveyed said they subscribed to broadband at home, only 71% of Black adults and 68% of Hispanic adults said the same.”

Congress allocated $2.75 billion for the Digital Equity Act under the Biden administration in 2021. The money was for skill development under the broader “Internet for All” infrastructure initiative. “The Digital Equity Act lists exactly whom the money should benefit, including low-income households, older people, some incarcerated people, rural Americans, veterans, and members of racial or ethnic minority groups,” Tribble reports.

A few months into Trump’s second term, he called the DEA program “illegal.” This came in the wake of two executive orders dismantling DEI and the 2023 Supreme Court decision invalidating affirmative action.

U.S. District Judge John D. Bates sided with the administration in an opinion, stating “that it was unconstitutional for the government to use race or ethnicity as the basis to award money under a program created to expand internet skills and access.”

The National Telecommunications and Information Administration halted DEA grant programs after the decision, heavily impacting the National Digital Inclusion Alliance. The NDIA serves rural and marginalized communities, providing programs where community workers teach internet and technology skills.

With Bates’ decision, federal attorneys said the government would reinstate NDIA competitive grants without racial classifications. A new grant application is expected for release in December, and the NDIA must reapply for the grants they once had.

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.